Arizona Citizens Supporting Honest Representative Government At All Levels
A National Review Article Reveals Warren's Stint as a Republican--most likely "in-name-only."
When I read in a recent National Review article that President Trump's favorite punching bag, Pocahontas, alias Elizabeth Warren, was once a Republican, my first thought was, “How is that even possible?” Then, I thought, "Well, let’s be realistic. it's not!" NO real Republican would switch to socialism. Not in a million years! I believe that Elizabeth Warren was a socialist all along.
I believe many socialists begin their public careers as faux Republicans, or do it the other way, by switching parties from Democrat to Republican with great fanfare, to make them believable new members of the GOP. I believe they do this deliberately. Perhaps it is a way of proving that they are good soldiers in the socialist cadre that is fighting for the soul of America. After a stint posing as a conservative and doing damage to the right, they get to switch back--not that they are that much more sincere as Dems than they were as Republicans.
Either way, socialist charlatans are dangerous bedfellows--as has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to every one of us. But the real tragedy is that they've been getting away with this for many decades! How? First and foremost, the problem with Socialists posing as Republicans has been that we keep taking them at their word, despite their bad actions and bad voting records, the purging of conservatives as PCs and SCs. But it gets worse. We have unknowingly helped them:
We have never called them socialists or globalists. We call them RINOS.
I must tell you that I was very pleased to read this article, because I see it as proof positive that real died-in-the-wool socialists have been infiltrating the Republican Party for decades, in order to turn it away from supporting the Constitution. And how well they have succeeded!!! But let’s take something positive from this fact, by welcoming this physical proof! And there is really lots more, if someone would only do a little research on it. I'll bet you could make a long list of Democrats who began their careers as Republicans, or vice versa. Sorry to say, I do not believe in this kind of conversion happening in such large numbers—Dems becoming Repubs and vice-versa. Come on! There is just no way.
I am moved to ask you a very serious question on which the fate of the republic may well rest: Can we conservatives all agree, now, that we have no choice but to assume all RINOs to be socialists and globalists? Can we agree that it’s just not safe to give any quarter to a RINO who insists he or she is a conservative?
Take a look at this excerpt from the article I referenced above--which appeared in the so-called "conservative" National Review. It was about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which Elizabeth Warren created, got passed through Congress, and then structured, according to her heart's desire:
"In 1988, during my first year of law school, I met a young professor named Elizabeth Warren. She was like a tornado — energetic, fascinating, and scary. She was also a Republican. Despite that last bit of trivia, she hadn’t changed much when Americans began to notice her two decades later."
I've got to comment again, here, because that red sentence is filled with more meaning than meets the eye, at first: The writer says that Warren "hadn't changed much when Americans began to notice her" 20 years later." I think he meant more than that she was still "energetic, fascinating, and scary." I am pretty sure he meant she still held Republican values, and he quotes her in the article to prove it. What really interested me was that he never asserts that she actually held Republican values. He only implies it, by saying that an article she wrote prior to designing the CFPB sounded like a true Republican--that is, a Republican like a Reagan follower.
Well, we know that she never really was a Republican, or believed in our principles. How do I know that? Because, while she sounded conservative in making the case for creating the CFPB, parts of which are quoted in the article, I know what she actually did when the CFPB was formed.
Apparently, she was in charge of designing the structure of this organization. But the structure she created apparently bypassed the consumer protection mission for which it was formed!. Instead, she structured the CFPB as a tool to raise money for progressive/globalist activist organizations. It seems almost unbelievable, but an entire department of the federal government appears to have been repurposed away from its declared mission and into to a money laundering entity that was 100% tasked to fund socialist organizations bent on undermining our country.(I got this info on CFPB from this informative link): https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/24/interim-vs-acting-w...
But, I digress. Returning to the subject of the National Review article about “Pocahontas” [Warren], it must be pointed out that writers for National Review were the ones who started the Never Trump movement, if I recall correctly. If not, they were certainly in the forefront of that movement. For much of the presidential campaign, every edition they put out trashed Trump. So, they, too, must be RINOs, i.e., globalists and socialists, even though they bill themselves as the conscience of the conservative movement. In my view, they crowned themselves as the leaders and philosophers of the conservative movement. Mere “populists,” as they like to call us, to demean our cause, are not real conservatives, in their book. We are fools.
If I am right about those poobahs at National Review, then, as RINOs, themselves, they would naturally comment that Warren's articles SOUNDED like they could have been written by a Reaganite. My answer to that is: Of course she "sounded" like one. She was pretending to BE one. In essence, she described the purpose of this new agency in terms of sound republican principles. But when she actually structured it, she made it a money pit for socialist organizations. And see, just below, how the National Review covers for her, in describing what actually happened with the agency:
"She [Warren] lobbied Democrats to include her agency in their Wall Street–reform legislation, arguing that effective enforcement of consumer-protection laws required a regulator independent from politicians beholden to the financial industry. The Democrats had a better idea: They would make her agency independent from Republicans."
See how they provided cover for Warren, in this way? I'm referring to the RINOs at National Review, writing about how the CFPB was created and then structured. However, according to Sundance at TheConservativeTreehouse.com, the plan was all Warren's. The globalist sympathizers at National Review would have us believe this was done by "Democrats," not the saintly Warren, who was a "Republican." Give me a break.
But let’s look at the Nat Review article from a POSITIVE viewpoint. It really IS positive, because it is a wonderful piece of evidence showing how socialism has spread so successfully in this country. (We need such proof, both to expose THEM and to bolster US!) Instead of honorably representing their socialistic views of how government and culture should be run, these leftists have simply surrounded the rest of us by infiltrating every last institution of the society, under the guise of being one of us! It's easy to gang up on someone when you pretend to be on their side, but, instead, work against them from behind their own lines! But would that ever occur to a conservative? Not on your life! It’s the key difference we need to focus on, because if we pay attention to it, they can’ hide in plain sight, so easily! They will become more visible to us!
Speaking of visibility: It would be shocking for all of us, I suspect, if we could fast-forward through the past 100+ years, in such a way that the reality of all socialist actions would be exposed and visible, for our examination. Realistically, though, we don't need to do that! We can extrapolate from the myriad little ways in which the socialist gambit HAS become visible. As they say, "murder will out!" Indeed, the glimpse this article provides of the far left Elizabeth Warren living as a Republican in the earlier part of her career cannot be ignored as a fluke. Ultimately, actions will make clear the truth about every person, if we continue to pay attention. We cannot afford to again give the benefit of the doubt to just anyone claiming to be Republican or conservative. This glimpse of Warren's past actions must be recognized as a red flag of warning for all conservatives:
Let us never again allow our sense of fairness to blind us to such simplistic schemes to defraud us! Honestly, how could we have been such easy marks as to allow radical socialists to loiter among us, as members of our party and even LEADERS in our party, simply because they CLAIMED to be Republicans! In fact, we continue to dupe ourselves, today! We make rueful jokes--using dark humor, now--about Republicans-in-Name-Only destroying our state party. At least we’ve progressed to dark humor from mere sarcasm. Because it’s not in any way funny to worry that there are people in our party claiming they’re conservatives, yet acting in ways that are exactly the opposite of what a real Republican would do. That kind of thing could never qualify as a joke. It's fraud. I believe that whoever invented the phrase “Republican-in-Name-Only” (RINO) may have intended it as an abbreviation for "NOT REPUBLICAN!" And what would “not Republican” mean, in terms of people working against us from inside our party? Clearly, it would have to mean “ANTI-REPUBLICAN!" That is a damning term, because “anti” means “against.” So the term anti-republican therefore means "against the republic," which I believe logic would dictate means--let us face is squarely, now--traitorious.
One can't help wondering how on earth this situation came about. But, equally as important, we must, with determination, change our mindset, in terms of what it means to be fair, for example. I think we let our culture of fairness, sincerity, and kindness deter us from necessary protection of things that we hold dear. So I ask you: Are we unfair for protecting ourselves and our republic? I do not believe so! Because there is nothing fair about allowing our sense of fairness to cause us to take the word of someone who would do our nation harm.
Where politics are concerned--and God knows we've learned this in spades--we simply cannot trust anyone's promise to vote according to conservative principles. That promise has been broken to smithereens too many times. Let us now be harsh judges, where protecting the republic is concerned, because the safety of the republic is literally at stake in every single political decision we make, including in selecting, supporting, and voting for specific candidates, at the very least.
Face it: We have not been stringent enough. That's a proven fact, many times over, by now. From now on, it must be actions and the results of those actions that we judge, not simply the promises people make, or the truths they claim to believe in. Liars should not be able to win so easily as by simply dressing themselves up in our rhetoric. We have been duped and abused for over a century, and the republic cannot survive much more of that! So, it's up to us to redefine, from here on out, how we are going to reconcile our belief in fairness with the facts we keep discovering on the ground.
With apologies if I rambled too much.
HERE'S THE LINK TO NATIONAL REVIEW ARTICLE:
Here, again, is the link to the Pocahontas article on the ConservativeTreehouse: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/24/interim-vs-acting-w...
I think since Trump continues to get bashed for his politically incorrect references to her as Pocahontas that we all start calling her 'Fakahontas' (first part pronounced fake-a). Avoids the prudish liberal reaction, and I think it has more punch.
It comes to a point who do we believe, they have "duped" us for so long and it seems we never catch on. More than
half of our so-called U.S. legislators LIE, so what to do? These politicians will NEVER vote for term limits. The average
voter has no clue, they fall for the same Tricks every time.
We called them RINO's because they behaved like socialist Democrats. I don't get the need for so much clarification.
I think the clarification deals with removing the word "Republican" from them entirely. One of the phrases I've had for them for quite awhile is "Demopublicans"...but even that is giving them too much.
Well, how do we do that while there are still 'good' Republicans? I believe there needs to be a sorting out.
We should have members from both Parties tell us if they are One World Government supporters or still stand on U.S. sovereignty.
I'm joshing here, I really don't expect our government officials to openly tell us that they're selling out America to a One World Government.
Hi, Larry-- I guess I did not succeed in my goal with that overly long article.
What I wanted to impress on everyone was that it's high time we call them what they are. They are globalists and socialists who have hijacked the Republican and Democratic Parties and are using them as tools to further their goal of destroying the country...because we, the strongest, freest nation on earth. are the most significant deterrent to their plans.
I was saying that we are foolhardy to call them RINOs, because that makes a joke out of it, when it definitely is NOT a joke.
I was saying that job #1 for all of us who care about this country is to trumpet to the skies that they are globalists and socialists squatting in the Republican party, claiming to be conservatives, but never acting remotely like them. We--meaning anyone who is not part of that cabal--make fools of ourselves by standing by while they continue with this monstrous charade. The fact that this is still going on, despite so many articles and posts and attempts of various kinds to turn the tables, is a travesty. There is a pestilence upon the land, and it is being allowed to fester and spew forth its stench, unabated. Hence, apparently, there is a need for clarification.
No, your points are well taken. But the difficulties in removing pretenders is enormous if not impossible. They're not all bad so how do we separate the bad ones from the good ones.
Perhaps what we need is 'trial period', perhaps one year, when anyone elected to a government position can be removed by the voters in his/her state if they don't believe he is acting as he promised during his campaigning. Right now there is no way of removing them. The only available action is to censor.
As for "trumpet to the skies that they are globalists and socialists", we've been doing that and many people know who the sellouts are, but up till now the only way of removal has been to wait till election time to vote them out.
Term limits would greatly help.