Human Events Blog

Elizabeth Warren, 3 percent Indian


Democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, running against Scott Brown in Massachusetts for the seat that Brown famously explained did not belong to Ted Kennedy, used to be the Left’s viral video superstar.  Here she is in her moment of glory, explaining that there is no such thing as “class warfare,” because the State owns everyone:

Warren’s core idea is that “nobody got rich on their own.”  Everyone takes advantage of public resources, so the State has an unlimited moral claim upon all of the population’s wealth.  If the wise and compassionate State decides it needs more money from the Evil Rich, to benefit the Deserving Poor and the Sainted Middle Class, it can appropriate as much as it sees fit.  After all, the Evil Rich benefited more from those public resources, so it’s only “fair” that they pay more.

How much more?  Why, as much as the socialists decide they should pay.  There is no formula for computing this – note that Warren’s collectivist rhetoric is not much concerned with how much the Evil Rich actually used specific public resources to amass their riches.  That would be enormously difficult to determine.  How much is a prosperous retail magnate “using” the roads his customers drive upon, en route to his thriving stores?

What you arrive at, then, is an exercise not of justice, but power.  Justice involves the firm application of carefully defined rules, a presumption of innocence, and the right to defend against accusations.  Socialists love to chirp about “justice,” but their agenda features none of these things.  No precise formula restrains Warren’s idea of “fair” tax rates.  They will be determined through the exercise of power, as the ruling class takes as much as it thinks it can get away with, using the weight of the more numerous lower classes to overwhelm the electoral resistance of their revenue targets. 

It takes a very complex system to exercise that kind of power, and because the ruling class claims moral superiority, all resistance to that system becomes – either implicitly or openly – “criminal.”  That’s why the targets of the dopey “Buffett Rule” were painted as greedy villains, who have somehow “cheated” the proletariat by taking excessive advantage of entirely legal tax deductions, which those in lower income brackets are heartily encouraged to pursue.  People who “game the system” are evil, even if they’re not actually doing anything unscrupulous! 

Warren’s once-promising campaign is now a “train wreck,” to borrow the Washington Free Beacon’s term.  Prominent Massachusetts Democrats are running away from the flaming wreckage.  Scott Brown recently picked up endorsements from the former mayors of Boston and Worcester, along with the Worcester patrolman’s union, and is bidding fair to win the endorsement of the Massachusetts Police Association.  Some of this comes from the expected convergence of forces around an incumbent who looks good in the polls, but it’s remarkable how quickly Warren’s star has dimmed.

Several controversies have contributed to a repellent air of hypocrisy around Warren, including revelations that she earns considerably more money than Brown, but won’t release her tax returns, and enjoyed a remarkable interest-free student loan from Harvard.  The watershed moment may have come when it was discovered that she was treated as an American Indian diversity hire by Harvard, and promoted herself as such… even though it took days of frantic family-tree pruning to discover an Indian ancestor after Brown called her out. 

Warren initially tried to defend herself by claiming that her Indian ancestry was a matter of “family lore” that did not require documentation.  She also asserted that asking her to verify these claims was somehow an attack on women – as pure an expression of the totalitarian mindset as any you’ll find.  Objective reality must give way to ideology, and all who question the pronouncements of the anointed are heretics!

Eventually, a Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother was discovered, and she was certified 3 percent Indian… which brings us back to the rock-hard socialism that made her a liberal phenomenon in the first place.  What would she say about a businessman who scored tax deductions based upon an absurd claim of politically favored racial ancestry?  How would she have responded to an initial defense of “How dare you question me!”

It calls to mind the way President Obama thunders about having “one set of rules for everyone,” even when he and his top contributors obviously live by a very different set of rules.  In fact, Obama even thinks he can use political power to suspend the rules of supply and demand in their favor.  Strangely, liberals tend to idolize places like Castro’s Cuba or Chavez’ Venezuela where this inequality is painfully clear… and I do mean “painfully,” as impoverished dissidents are abused in the basements of the great socialist leader’s billion-dollar palace, and “men of the people” die in golden beds after half a century of rule.

Socialists love to divide people into different classes.  It’s the ruling class we should be worried about.  They’ll always have plenty of reasons for why the rules they impose upon you should not apply to them.  Their rage at those who seek to play the system for personal advantage will always be highly selective.

Update: I got the decimal places wrong in my initial calculation of the Cherokee percentage – it should be 3 percent, or 0.03, not 0.03 percent.  I’ve corrected the reference.

Sign Up
  • The Monster

    Please fix your math.  1/32=0.03125, which is 3.125%

    .03% would be 1/3333

    You’re just giving Leftists an excuse to discount your entire article.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    We 3% Seminole will go on the warpath over your insult, which is as vast as the skies. Our people rally behind our fellow fraudsister, or as we have named her in our 3% native tongue, “White Chameleon.” She holds a special role in our society, which we call “Hectoring Lying Shrew.” The role within the 3% tribe of the “Hectoring Lying Shrew” is to distribute to us our tax breaks, interest free loans, minority admissions to fine univerisities, grants of all kinds, as well as to arrange media appearances for us in funny outfits when it meets our political agenda. Be warned “Mocking Jay” Hayward. Our people rally.

  • Tom Michael

    What a bunch of nonsense.  This article basically says that the left just wants to assert power in the name of justice, since they’ll tax as much as they can get away with.  What is just is equivalent to however much they can take.  Progressives would be thrilled if there was simply a flat tax rate on all income for everyone.  If everyone paid, say, 20% of their income in federal taxes (i.e. income and capital gains) a compromise could probably be reached.  Some liberals would consider that to be insufficient, but most would think that’s fair.  Anyway, it’s not about really about justice or fairness anyway.  That’s just the rhetoric.  It’s really just the classic difference between liberals and conservatives- one believes has faith in gov’t to spend money for the benefit of the many, the other doesn’t.  It’s not about freedom or justice.    

  • John Hayward

    It’s freaking HILARIOUS to consider that you actually might believe a single word of that.  A 20% flat tax for everyone?  If you’re not just writing satire, you are the only “progressive” on the planet in favor of that.

  • John Hayward

    Well, you’ve got to admit, paying 0.03% for a 3% Indian is a heck of a good discount!

  • John Hayward

    Also, again on the off chance you’re sincere, you might ponder how your last two sentences utterly validate my argument.  Liberals “have faith in government to spend money for the benefit of the many,” but conservatives don’t?  OK, what are you going to do about the people who lack your touching faith in the ruling class?  Do they get to just walk away from your failed, crashing, bankrupt system?

  • Tom Michael

    I’m just throwing a number out there, and I’m not talking about a flat tax strictly for earned income.  I’m suggesting the core disagreement has to do with the difference  in how capital and labor are taxed.  Many progressives would indeed settle for (fine let’s say 25% then) an increase in the capital gains rate as a trade-off for lower earned income rates.    

  • AgTrotter

    One of my distant relatives on my mother’s side was a cavalry general in the Western Army. As such, I’m sure he saw his fair share of injuns. Therefore, I hereby claim native American status and rename myself Lone Wolf With Tripod, chief of the Commanche Nation.

    Does anyone know where I apply for my casino license and the right to sell tax-free cigarettes?

  • Khadijah BintMuhammad

    What matters is that there is a goverment definition for determining who is of “native descent” and IIRC, that definition is 12.5% (1/8).

    She ain’t a native american, and she should never, morally, claim to be so. 

  • AgTrotter

    “Many progressives would indeed settle for (fine let’s say 25% then) an increase in the capital gains rate as a trade-off for lower earned income rates.”

    Good grief, you are delusional. Please promise us that you are not operating heavy machinery.

  • Tom Michael

     Perhaps I’m just so frustrated with all of the  heated rhetoric.  It just seems there’s fewer people in Congress, and the Adminstration, that are actually interested in accomplishing anything real than I can remember in a long time.  And there’s plenty that most Americans could agree upon if it were presented in a clear and honest way.

  • The Monster

    When government uses the threat of Men With Badges And Guns to get the money from us, it damned well is about freedom and justice. 

    The core of the difference between the Left and the rest of us is that the Left distrusts the voluntary decisions made by “the many” for their own benefit, and demonizes “corporate greed” etc., the solution to which is, of course, for those MWBAGs to take the decisions out of our hands and put them into the hands of “the few” who run government agencies.

    But there is a Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State:  If we really aren’t competent to decide how to spend our own money for our own benefit, then by what magic do we step into the voting booth and become supremely competent to either directly (via initiative/referendum) or indirectly (by electing legislators and executives) make those same decisions for us all collectively? 

  • Tom Michael

     I would suggest that liberals must place their faith in fewer priorities right now, and concede on some things.   Conservatives might agree to spend more on, say, education if liberals would agree to cuts in entitlement programs.  My point is that no one is being realistic in Washington.

  • Tom Michael

     Read more of what progressive economists are saying.  I’m not talking about blowhards, but people who are serious.  They want more of a balance in how different kinds of income are taxed.  It’s absolutely not crazy to suggest that many liberals would consider substantially lower earned income rates, if capital gains rates were raised.  I”m not crunching arithmetic right now, and “fat-taxes” is a negatively  loaded term for liberals, but the number I threw out there isn’t as far off you might think.

  • Tom Michael

    What you call a contradiction I would say is the liberal inclination to believe that individuals don’t necessarily act in ways that benefit society as a whole.  For example, we wouldn’t trust that the education of Americans would be sufficiently addressed if it were left to everyone to simply educate their own children privately (that is, not in public schools).  That’s just one example of course, and ridiculously oversimplifies it.  I was just stating the obvious there- liberals have more faith in gov’t to spend to the benefit of the many whereas conservatives have more faith that market forces will benefit society on their own.

  • TenFace

     Tom if that were really true then there would have already been a deal.  Liberals, and I mean the vast majority of them, are absolute on the need for a progressive tax system.  I’ve never heard a liberal, even a moderate one say they’d be ok with a flat tax for any reason what so ever.  I’d love to read some columns advocating this from these progressive economist that you’re talking about.   Although based on everything I’ve ever encountered in my life, I can’t believe you. 

  • AgTrotter

    “progressive economists”

    That term is an oxymoron. As such, you are engaging in nothing more than psycho-babble.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    You pretend that policies are rational and intended for good purpose. I mainly see corruption and payoffs to big money interests. The conservative solution is Constitutional. Limit the scope of government to what it needs to do, in order to avoid combining the corruption of the human heart with the power of the state.

    I predict that you will end up a conservative simply because you still believe in rational discourse. The rest of the left does not.

  • Telescoping You

    It is a pleasure to watch every worthless liberal’s hysterical lunacy spill out onto the public square.  I am especially ecstatic to see yet another pathetic screeching dog like Warren laid out prone for all the maggots to feast.

    That reminds me!  Out in San Diego, another mewling feckless clown, Bob Filner (current democrat congressman in the 51st district) who is running for that cities mayor, is also slowly, but surely, fading furiously fast.  The only socialist (whose father was a card carrying Communist) in the race, Filner had promised for the last nine months to present an ‘in-depth plan’ to solve the city’s financial crisis, while there is currently a ballot measure that adequately addresses this problem in this June’s primary supported by every breathing human and animal in “America’s Finest City.”

    Two days ago this whining jerk issued a one page list of talking points and called it the Holy Grail of solutions – which was nothing but more communist power grabbing.  And, of course, any objection would be considered bigotry toward a “Minority Party.”  That means, folks, that the worthless liberal democrat party is now a protected class.  Read up on hate crimes for not voting democrat.  Can’t happen?  Huh!  Just wait.

    Inventions like these, along with psychosis of Warren, Pelosi, Grayson, Weiner and Blubbermouth Shultz, and let’s not forget Barocky, are truly a sign that implosion of these maggots is looming.

    Yep!  In 2012 we will see a real ‘Crucifixion’ just like, now former EPA Gestapo Al Armendariz described, but not of America’s Patriots.

  • Tom Michael

     Well, I’m not deluding myself in thinking that most current policies are rational.  I was just being sort of wishful.  But the corruption is not really liberal or conservative per se.   That is,  most people on both sides would do away with it in a heartbeat.  Then, perhaps things would become a little bit more rational.  In fact, even though I’m quite liberal I would vastly prefer a clean, conservative gov’t to the current corrupt mixture of nothing.  But there are plenty of rational liberals out there even if you don’t see them everywhere.  And there are plenty of irrational people everywhere, too.  I just hope it changes but it’s exhausted me and I’m probably going to have to just take a couple years off from paying any attention to it.

  • Larry Larkin

     Highest spending school district per student in the US – Washington DC.
    Go look up the outcomes, it’s in the bottom 3%.

  • Michael T Lyster

    Must be due to racism. Or the Tea Party and Global Warming. Or something.

  • Daniel Hunt

     If there was a Caucasian great-great grandfather it would likely have been very secretive.  

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Are you of the 8% tribe? I stand in solidarity with you my proud pale red sister!

  • justsaynotosocialism

    3% Indian and 97% socialist.

  • Altosackbuteer

    You missed Hayward’s point.

    Liberals loathe any flat-tex proposal the way Dracula loathes crucifices, garlilc, and silver bullets.  Liberals are all about “progressive” taxation.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Harvard U was supposed to vet her claim, and allow it only if she could demonstrate at least 25% blood quotient.  Which basically means, if she could convince a tribe to accept her by demonstrting that much blood quotient.

    But Harvard itself was more than willing to look the other way, since including Granny helped boost their own Affirmative Action hire ratio.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I’m assuming Øbama Øsama’s baby momma is as white as snow.

    His baby daddy may well have a healthy dose of Arab.

  • denbren52

    Now, if Warren would only get busted for a DUI or drive off a bridge and kill her passenger, or marry her lesbian lover, she will win in a landslide.  Gotta love Massachusetts!  She’s just building her credentials.

  • confedgal

    More like somewhere around the 25% tribe, depending on exactly how much my grandpa was. Just enough to still have the temper. Definitely didn’t get the white man’s silvery tongue. My son did though.