Elizabeth Warren wants to know where the family lore blank is on the presidential application form?

Writing in the May 17 Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan defended Elizabeth Warren against Donald Trump’s calling her Pocahontas by arguing that Warren was “merely repeating family lore.”

That is b.s. to put it mildly. You can’t tell me that Warren didn’t know that attaching “Native American” to her applications for graduate school, professorships and grant applications didn’t give her a step up over other candidates. “Female and Native American. Wow. We want one of those,” said the law school dean who hired her at Harvard.

She can’t say she didn’t know she was benefitting from that claim without appearing out of it. Identity has become a primary qualifier for academic positions for decades. She had to know that, which is why she referred to herself as Native American.

And for Sullivan to accept Warren’s excuse as legitimate and also to say “She does have some such ancestry, but not very much” is also disingenuous. The results of the DNA test she took “cannot show that she or any other person is ‘NativeAmerican’” according to Jennifer Raff writing in Forbes Magazine.

In other words, Trump is entirely justified for his calling Warren Pocahontas because that’s what you do to people who cheat. You call them out. Thank goodness that name is sticking because it reminds people that when she had an opportunity to cheat to advance her career Warren didn’t hesitate. Is that the kind of person we want as president?

Identity Politics Gone Insane: The Case of Elizabeth Warren

More evidence of Elizabeth Warren’s fraudulent claim that she is Native American has come to the fore in recent days. She self-identified as Native American thirty years ago on her Texas Bar Association application and also later on her official listings at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. Some accept her excuse that she thought she was Native American, but why didn’t she attempt to verify whether she was or wasn’t? The fact is she would continue to be getting away with a lie today had not others challenged her.

It appears that Warren sought to use this myth to enhance her status and advance her career. She wanted to be seen not just as a woman, but as a Native American woman. There is an academic construct called ‘intersectionality’ that increases a person’s status if she is a member of more than one oppressed minority. It appears that Warren’s use of her fake identity, rather than the merit of her academic accomplishments, earned her prestigious jobs and high salaries. She then built on that resume to gain the nomination of the Democrat Party for U.S. Senator from Massachusetts––a position she holds today, a position some might argue she does not deserve. She further has the gall to think she should be the Democrat Party candidate for President in 2020!

Focus on the distinction between identity and merit as the basis for hiring and promotion. While minorities and women were discriminated against in the past, that doesn’t justify giving them a free pass today. When equal opportunity is no longer the standard for advancement in a society, the door is wide open to new forms of discrimination. There is strong evidence that has been the case in academia for decades. People who hold conservative views have an inordinate hard time getting jobs in the social sciences. Some people have admitted they had to hide their beliefs until they had tenure track jobs because they knew prejudice, not merit, determines hiring in academia.

Identity Discrimination Now Found in the Business World

Favoritism based on identity has now been extended to the business world as well as in the news media where to be charged of an act of malfeasance by a minority is tantamount to guilt, especially if the person is a white male.

To be very clear, I also would challenge the notion that a non-minority—i.e., a male Caucasian––cannot be objective, impartial and fair in the fulfillment of his duties whether as a policeman, school and college instructor, or as president of the United States.

Democrats who wish to preserve the notion of equal rights for all citizens—something embodied in our Constitution––ought to make it clear that they do not support Warren’s candidacy for president or that of any other candidate who feels qualified because they are a member of a minority group or because they believe minorities deserve special treatment apart from merit.

Warren the Ideologue gets it wrong again

Attention Elizabeth Warren supporters. Can you accept the truth that the woman you think is right for America is blinded by her anti-capitalist ideology to facts that don’t suit her model of how the world works?

I pointed out how she fudged the facts with regard to the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Pact. (See Why Ideologues Make Bad Presidents.) President Obama, who I normally disagree with, is right in criticizing Warren for being wrong on the facts.

Now the Washington Post (not me!) shows that Warren has gotten her facts wrong again–this time when she claims auto dealership markups are costing consumers $26 billion a year. The Post’s Fact Checker gave her four Pinocchios for using bad data to make her argument in favor of ending the excemption car dealers have from supervision by her Consumer Protection Bureau.

Giving the CPB the power to supervise auto loans would raise the cost to consumers as well as tax payers. Consumers would pay more for their loans since there would be yet another layer on top of the existing layers car dealers are required to fill out AND it would result in the CPB hiring an unknown number of enforcers to supervise and penalize car dealers thus increasing the federal budget by a few million a year.

For ideologues like Elizabeth Warren the facts of an issue are less important that the narrative her belief system (ideology) wants to convey. Playing on people’s inclination to believe that business owners will take any opportunity to screw the customer, she will try to impose new layers of regulation that harm consumers in multiple ways without fixing the problem they are supposed to fix.

One thing you can say about Hillary Clinton is that she’s more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. She wets her finger and puts it in the air to see which way the wind of public opinion is going before she decides what she believes. That’s not what we need either.

We need as a president a person with a strong core set of beliefs, but who also understands the American political system requires compromise to work. A presdient should be uncompromising on some issues, starting with the underlying values inherent in the Declaration of Independence and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. From that base s/he can be compromising where she or he can in order to advance the lives of our citizens while protecting our values on the world stage.

I’m hopeful the Republicans (I’m an Independent) will pick such a candidate to lead their party and this country in 2016.

Why Ideologues Make Bad Presidents

With Hillary Clinton on the ropes, some hope Elizabeth Warren, the leftist Senator from Massachusetts, can rescue of the Democratic Party’s chances of retaining the White House in 2016.

The main problem I see with Warren is that she is another Obama­––someone who seeks to impose her ideology on the rest of the world and who as a result fails to see where opportunities exist to make positive changes. A good example that shows the danger she represents is her response to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement proposed by President Obama.

In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post on February 25, 2015, Warren argues one feature of the trade agreement––Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)––“would tilt the playing field . . . further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.”

She warns this provision for settling disputes between investors and nations would allow foreign companies to by-pass U.S. courts and win big financial settlements against our government. Her examples include a French company that “sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage.”

The problem is that she has her facts wrong. Her understanding of ISDS is colored by her anti-corporate ideology. The truth of the matter, as the Post’s editorial board wrote on March 11, is that this method of resolving disputes has been included in over 3,000 trade agreements and that corporations win only 25 percent of their cases, while only 17 cases have been brought against the U.S.

She also got her facts wrong about the examples she cited. In the matter of the French company versus Egypt, the company was merely seeking to enforce a contract provision that required additional compensation if costs rose, which the minimum wage increase brought about. They weren’t challenging the minimum wage increase per se.

The Post suggests another reason Warren and those opposed to the agreement don’t like the pact is the it encourages “private investment in one another’s economies.” In other words, she is opposed to investor driven economies, otherwise known as capitalism.

Contrast Warren’s ideological approach with that of Larry Summers, former president of Harvard University and former Treasury Secretary. Writing in the Post on March 8 about the same trade pact, Summers takes a pragmatic look at the impact of various provisions and as a result offers a reasoned argument how it could be in the interest of working Americans––namely “through binding arrangements in areas such as labor and environmental standards.”

Summers also notes a provision that favors corporations unnecessarily, which he would modify.

Ideologues are people who view the world through a filter, seeing things they way they want to see them as opposed to how they really are. That may be fine for professors who lack the power to affect the real world, but it’s a terrible way to try to run a country. Democratic Party leaders should look elsewhere for Hillary’s second if she continues to stumble.