Elizabeth Warren’s 11 Progressive Commandments

In a speech at the Netroots Nation Conference in Phoenix Elizabeth Warren spoke on her view of America. She laid out her 11 commandments of her progressive movement. On face value who wouldn’t support her ideas. It all sounds inclusive and good for every American. If you take the time to do a little research on the issues you discover quickly that she is actually exclusionary and her ideas will require some violence and coercion to be implemented. I personally consider this Warren’s I’m running for the Democratic nomination announcement. Warren will easily defeat brand Hillary and move to make the republican nominee appear to be against everyday Americans. Now more than ever is the time to move away from political parties of the status quo and find independent candidates who embrace America for who she is and desire to work within the limits of the constitution.

  1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.

Although I do agree that Wall Street needs to be more tightly monitored and controlled additional regulations will not fix Wall Street. We have been placing additional regulations on Wall Street for decades. None of it prevented the misconduct of the big banks, which led to the 2008 collapse. If the Fed’s influence were removed there would be no too big to fail. If Wall Street was made to operate in a true free market they would be forced to make decisions knowing no one was going to save them when their mistakes took them down. One only needs to look to Enron to see what would happen in a free market when a big business failed. If a Wall Street bank were to fail it would no doubt hurt. The hurt from letting the market fix itself would be much easier to bare then letting the bubble build like we do in the Fed system. With the government not offering to back up Wall Street and enforcing the laws on the books thing would change. Sadly this kind of change will not happen until the people hold their government accountable and elect representatives that will be above the usual DC politics.

  1. We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.

We are starting to see the movement to make science a religion or deity. Science is built on facts and testing a hypothesis. It is built on peer-reviewed tests. Science is a constantly evolving landscape, theories that were long believed to be fact have been turned on their heads when science discovers something new. This exclusionary movement to replace the religion of old so to speak with the new religion of science is very concerning. This is very apparent in the ongoing climate debates. Go into a public forum and try to say that climate change isn’t a fact and see if you come away with all your extremities. Science has been built on healthy dissent and debate. Why now have things changed to make dissent almost like an act of treason? We need people like John Coleman founder or the Weather Channel, Roy Spencer a climatologist, and Judith Curry a climatologist to fan the flames of dissent. Someone has to challenge the popular theories and test them to see if they hold up. If no one tries to disprove a theory then it isn’t very scientific act. When you go behind the data that says 97% of scientist agree on climate change you start to see the manipulation of the data unfold. When you look at Oreskes study that the 97% claim comes from, the real number is more like 33%. You will see of the scientists that responded to there being global warming 97% said it existed. However this is a composite number of man made and non-man made factors being lumped together. 97% carries far more weight than 33%.

  1. We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.

I do agree with her desire for the Internet to not be rigged for the benefit of corporations. Whether net neutrality is the answer or not needs to be discussed. I would strongly question her desire to protect people as she has stayed outside of the discussion on illegal government spying of US, and foreign people. If she wanted true freedom for all citizens on the Internet she would be working to encourage changes in Washington. Now for the issue of Net Neutrality this is a gross scam [1] being pushed on the American people. The big issue being pushed is streaming video in the form of Netflix. I myself am a subscriber of Netflix. I have used their service for years. My family is one of many who have cut cable TV in favor of using our Internet connection to watch Netflix. I work in IT as a Network Admin for one of the biggest Christian Camping organizations in America. Since I understand the technology behind the Internet I am in a position to under the issues that most people are not. The problem is for far too long the people have been told pay this flat rate and consume all that you want just like at an all you can eat buffet. There was no concept of limits to what the technology could deliver. Internet service providers are in a similar situation as cellular companies. Their networks can only handle so much. We would pay far more for our phone plans if they had to deliver as much data capacity as your ISP. The current debate is whether peering should be allowed and should ISPs be able to control the flow of data on their networks. Peering is an agreement made between 2 partners for mutual benefits. Some peering agreements do involve a cost. Netflix has recently been in peering agreements to ensure that content is delivered at an acceptable level. ISP’s can enter into a peering agreement with Netflix or they can install Netflix streaming servers [2] free of charge. It would seem that this would be the best option as it keeps all data on the ISP’s network. If an ISP was trying to gouge a company for access to their network then legal action may be necessary. I do believe that an ISP has the right to control the flow of data on their network. This is no different than a business that controls data on their internal networks. The idea of Net Neutrality, the idea that bits are equal simply can’t happen. If all packets were made equal your Internet experience would degrade rapidly. If the flow control and traffic shaping was removed things would be a mess. Imagine you are having surgery and the doctor is hundreds of miles away controlling the robot doing the surgery. Now would you want the data packets controlling the robot to have the same importance as my Netflix movie or the kids streaming iTunes? I serious don’t think you would.

  1. We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.

I do not like to see Americans struggling to get by. We are a 2-income family yet we still live paycheck to paycheck. We rent our house. We have a car payment, and pay a ridiculous amount for childcare. We are blessed beyond belief but we still struggle. Our 2 splurges are Internet access and Netflix. Everything else is bills and groceries. Date nights are rare, and family vacations just don’t happen. In Theory I don’t have a real problem with having a minimum wage. Although I’d rather the market set wage values, that just isn’t the reality in the FED run system. Everything is twisted and backwards. The problem with a minimum wage is that it can behave like a hidden tax on business owners. I firmly believe that government shouldn’t impede business. The goal of government should be to make running a business easier so that there is an incentive to want to start a business. The more people who start businesses the more potential for jobs to be created outside of the large corporations. More businesses and jobs means more tax revenue. Removing barriers can make it worthwhile for businesses to repatriate their money, which will bring in additional tax revenue. I think there can be a compromise on minimum wage once some of the governmental barriers come down for business and the greater economy.

  1. We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.

This statement seems to be more of a continuation of the previous. My best guess is that she could be implying that if you took a job making less money than the government mandates then you are in violation of the law and therefore a criminal. There are countless people who work jobs for less than minimum wage for countless reasons. One of the most common I have seen is to enable being paid in cash to keep the income from being reported on taxes. This type of control on wages would actually increase so called black market jobs to work without government involvement. If we would just drop the income tax and let people keep their money more tax revenues would be created for the states and it would force the federal government to shrink like it needs too. I stand by that belief that government should remove barriers and encourage business creation. Society and the market will take care of wages.

  1. We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.

This is a dangerous issue to take this stance on. Of course everyone would say everyone should have a fair chance at getting an education. Everyone would also agree that the cost shouldn’t be out of reach of the average American. This is where socialism starts to become intriguing and at can seem like not a bad thing to a lot of people. Tuition costs have obviously skyrocketed since I graduated back in 2003. I worked 40 hours a week and paid my way through school. In the end I only had to borrow $2500 towards my education. My parents couldn’t pay my way so I had to work to pay for it myself. If I were about to enter college today I would do it the same way. I may need to go a few more semesters taking fewer classes per semester to help with the increased costs vs. income but it would be worth it. The idea of getting a free college education sounds wonderful but the cost would have to be passed on to the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I shouldn’t have to pay for everyone’s education. To force someone to pay for someone else’s education is tantamount to slave labor. I paid more than enough for my own education. Taxpayer funded education would be about as useful as government funded insurance. Anything that becomes government subsidized inevitably becomes trash. The key here is to look at why education costs are going up. What economic factors are contributing? How are college sports driving up costs? What part has the government played in driving up costs?

  1. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.

Although I would prefer to opt out of Social Security and Medicare I believe the government does have an obligation to keep it solvent. They have allowed generations of Americans to become dependent on the system. These Americans have paid in and should at a minimum get their money back out of the system. Based on her comments I believe Warren would seek to have corporations be made to cover the shortages from their profits. Her belief that business owners and founders didn’t build their businesses but rather society did would be her justification for corporate money being used. I share everyone’s frustration at seeing corporate earnings hitting all-time highs while we struggle to get by. If we were to take the time to fix the financial system of this country by ending The FED the people would see a tremendous change in this country.

  1. We believe — I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 — we believe in equal pay for equal work.

When you listen to Warren speak words are everything. She isn’t speaking to women in a role should get the same pay as a man for equal work. What she is alluding to is a system where government sets the rate for a job not the businesses or the market. This ensures equal pay. This also stands in the face of what it means to be an American. Government has no business setting the pay scale for private sector jobs. This would be a major setback that would be hard to turn around. There are several studies out that show women are closing the gap on pay and have been for some time. The world is coming around to the idea that sex based pay scales are not to be stood for[3]. I believe women are capable of doing any job that a man can do. I also believe that there are jobs that are just better suited to done by a man based on the physical differences in men and women. For that matter I believe there are jobs that are better suited to women based on the emotional differences between men and women. I believe men should be on the front lines in military and not women. It’s not to say that a woman can’t do it. I believe that as men we shouldn’t allow women to be subjected to that experience. I believe that women are better suited for jobs that involve early childhood development, and nurturing others. Women are uniquely made to meet the emotional development of children in this setting better than men. I would also maintain that nursing is another role that lends itself to being a better fit to women than men.

  1. We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace; it’s true in all of America.

This is a far more dangerous statement than it may appear. Lets start with the marriage piece. What Warren is saying that there is only one definition of marriage, the government’s definition. This all comes down to who you believe has jurisdiction over marriage. Warren’s definition would be exclusionary like everything else she believes in. Go outside of that definition of marriage and you could be fined or imprisoned. For my viewpoint on marriage see my article Is There a right to marriage. My viewpoint on marriage is not exclusionary. My view would allow for all people to have some form of a marriage or union per se. The workplace reference is reemphasizing the 8th commandment. Now we come to the dangerous part of her statement, True in all of America. To borrow from Douglas Adams it sounds “Mostly Harmless”. It even sounds inclusive and not exclusionary. When you deconstruct her words you realize she is actually speaking to the government setting the rules and definitions. If you go off the reservation you would be looking at a fine or jail time. Her truth in America will make being PC look like child’s play. Get ready for a world where being in the minority gets you shouted down just like what happened to the former CEO of Mozilla over his gay marriage beliefs.

  1. We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.

If Mrs. Warren means legal immigration[4] I agree with her wholeheartedly. This nation is built on immigrants, the legal immigration of people from all around the world. It is this melting pot of nations that is our greatest strength and at times our greatest weakness. I am in full support of legal immigration. I oppose illegal immigration because as a republic we are built on laws. I don’t believe that people should be allowed to break the laws of our nation without recourse. I do believe that our government has made it easier for illegal immigration to happen. Obama Care in my opinion has only added to the immigration problem in America. Our government has been derelict in its duty to secure our borders for decades. Illegal immigration wouldn’t be as big of an issue as it is if our government was working to help make our economy stronger. Immigration wouldn’t be that big of an issue if we had a strong economy. This issue is so complex that it won’t be fixed by a magic bullet. It is more like an onion with multiple layers. I will tackle immigration in a separate article. Once I do I will amend this post.

  1. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby And we will fight for it. We will fight for it!

This statement is interesting on multiple levels. A corporation as a person[5] is a hot button issue right now. I find it revealing that the public seems to be in the dark on this matter. Although I share some of their frustration, under our current system, Corporations have legal status as a person. The Supreme Court has upheld this viewpoint for decades. The sole purpose for this existence is to protect the personal finances and belongings of individuals in charge of the corporations. It also is used to allow a corporation to be able to enter into contracts as an individual would and be able to be apart of the court system as an individual would be. Without this status a corporation would not be able to do these things like they do now. In a free market economy[6] the individuals in the corporation would have to be bound to the contracts and court cases. This would also mean that their personal finances and assets would be subject to being taken for legal reasons. Corporations as an individual, allows big government to have the control over them it desires, and allows big corporations to have the federal protections they desire. This allows them to take chances they wouldn’t if their personal assets were on the line. As for having control of ones body I do believe that women have a right to their own body just like any man does. The constitution and numerous state and federal laws more than cover this. Where this starts to become divided is when one’s definition of a person, or better yet the beginning of life is factored in. In Warren’s world the baby has no rights and the mother can choose to abort it. It obviously changes if a man caused a miscarriage by way of physical abuse. Because of the man’s clearly wrong behavior the baby is suddenly elevated to the status of a person and it has rights. Where were these rights when the mother chose to abort the baby? I believe with all my heart that life starts with conception. You don’t have to be religious to believe that. It doesn’t take a religious person to understand that a baby growing inside a woman is a miracle in and of itself regardless of your belief system. As such this means that a woman doesn’t have the right to abort her baby. In doing so she would violate the rights of the person growing inside her. This would be murder plain and simple. This baby would have the same rights that she does at the moment of conception. The constitution would protect this baby’s life just as it does the mother. I personally would allow for 3 exceptions and even I don’t have the right to claim these. I would allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s life. Lastly the Hobby Lobby ruling is something I want to deconstruct as she is avoiding the real story. The women who brought the case against Hobby Lobby were well within their rights to do so. I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling and I will explain why. Hobby is a closely held private company owned and operated by the Green family. They are Christian and choose to operate the business as a Christian business, which they are able to do so since it is a privately owned business. If Hobby Lobby were a publicly traded company they would have lost the court case hands down. Public corporations are not afforded the same rites as private corporations. The ruling for Hobby Lobby is right in alignment as rulings for non-profit religious organizations. You don’t have to be a non-profit to be a religious based corporation. The Supreme Court made the right decision based on the laws of our nation, as they exist currently. Now what Mrs. Warren would have you believe is that these poor women had their rights violated, that they were robbed of the right to their bodies, and to make their own medical health choices. The choices struck down were not matters of health care or rights to ones body. They were about emergency birth control methods not contraception. Contraception is the condom, the pill, or other non-abortive methods that prevent fertilization of the ovum inside the uterus. Birth control is the ending or removal of a fertilized, or potentially fertilized ovum from the body. The distinction needs to be made here. What these ladies were wanting was the right to use abortive birth control like the morning after pill class of products. For religious reasons Hobby Lobby refused to cover these, which they can legally. What Mrs. Warren left out is that even though these ladies lost their case they will not have to pay for these birth control methods if they still choose to use them. Obama Care would step in and require the insurance company to cover the cost so they don’t have to be out of pocket. This is a little spoken of twist in Obama Care. In order to get it past members of congress and religious organizations this was a compromise the insurance companies agreed to. Obama Care is a gross lie laid on the American people by their own government. Obama Care is nothing more than an insurance scam designed and set up by the insurance companies to benefit themselves. They were able to set the rules and regulations so that politicians wouldn’t. We have seen this play out before. This is how the banks developed The Fed in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This court case boiled down to nothing more than the insurance companies trying to find a way to push this expense off of themselves and onto businesses like Hobby Lobby.

I jokingly refer to Mrs. Warren as Pocahontas because of her Native American heritage. I myself come from Native American bloodlines as well. This will no doubt upset some. Mrs. Warren’s brand of politics is quite popular in democratic circles. So many Obamabots are turning from Hildabeast Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren. Her message sounds great and inclusive. It makes you think why aren’t more people like this. It is only when you pay attention to her words and what they mean that her real message becomes apparent. In this regard she is very similar to President Obama. He is a man who picks his words very carefully. His message is well scripted and tightly worded. This is why he becomes noticeable irritated when the prompter has trouble. He stumbles and goes off message without it. Warren’s message will bring her a lot of attention. It will attract the kinds of people who think they are owed something rather than having to earn it. Her message will play well to the millennials. Who ever runs for the Republican nomination will have his hands full. Her message will be powerful and reach countless voters. She will have remarkable support from women of all backgrounds. The only stance that could run against her message and reach people would be one of liberty, freedom, and constitutional limited government. I would say to the GOP you need Dr. Ron Paul but you made it clear you have no time for his ways. You will more than likely live to see the day that you will regret casting him aside as the crazy uncle type of the GOP. I look forward to the ramping up of both parties as they make their advance to the nominating conventions. 2016 is shaping up to be an election cycle that could symbolize the return of the America we all know and love or the beginnings of the death spiral of our once great Republic. Oh what the founders would say if they saw us now.

“I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect; and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them, and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself.” –Thomas Jefferson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s