Senator Joni Ernst (R) Iowa
I Got Mine, Screw You!
The GOP attempted to relate to the poor and working class when Joni Ernst, during her State of the Union rebuttal, painted herself as a poor Iowan girl who had to stuff bread bags over her shoes to keep them from being ruined by the rain. She wasn’t ruined, because apparently many of her Iowan school friends were just as poor and had to do the same thing. It was certainly a tender moment for the GOP. Ernst really showed people how one can overcome poverty to be something great.
Except she forgot to mention one tiny thing: her family received over $460,000 in federal subsidies (the very ones Ernst’s party wants to get rid of).
According to The District Sentinel:
Ernst’s father, Richard Culver, was given $14,705 in conservation payments and $23,690 in commodity subsidies by the federal government – with all but twelve dollars allocated for corn support. Richard’s brother, Dallas Culver, benefited from $367,141 in federal agricultural aid, with over $250,000 geared toward corn subsidies. And the brothers’ late grandfather Harold Culver received $57,479 from Washington — again, mostly corn subsidies — between 1995 and 2001. He passed away in January 2003.”
And there’s nothing quite like helping the family business out when it comes to the government. Ernst’s father, who also owned a construction company, was given $215,665 in contracts from the Montgomery County government while Ernst was an auditor.
Ernst is an individual who is “philosophically opposed” to the very subsidies that kept her family afloat. A perfect example of the “I got mine, screw you” that we constantly see from the right. After the federal and local government has dished out hundreds of thousands to Ernst and her family, she doesn’t want it anymore, and now that she is a big shot senator, she doesn’t care anymore. She doesn’t want Obamacare, she doesn’t want to raise the minimum wage, she doesn’t want paid sick leave, she certainly isn’t a supporter of the American worker, and she doesn’t want subsidies, of any kind, that helps people get a leg up in our economy. It’s very mind boggling that someone who received so much help from our federal government doesn’t want anyone else to get it.
As Democrats, we shouldn’t care that Ernst and her family received subsidies. What we should care about is the disgusting hypocrisy and lack of compassion for other people Ernst has displayed.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) Massachusetts
I Didn’t Get Anything, So I Want To Help You!
Then you have someone like Elizabeth Warren, who does want to give that same opportunity to the people. Warren isn’t from Iowa, and she’s certainly much older than Joni Ernst is (Ernst was born in 1970, Warren in 1949). But like her Republican colleague, she grew up relatively poor, but in Oklahoma. Warren’s foundation of working-class parents was rocked to its core when her father, Donald, suffered a heart attack and lost his job. Their house, which was already run down, was an inch away from being taken from them. They had to move. So Warren, at the age of 12, got a job as a waitress and her mother worked at Sears.
Warren, as a child, never went to a museum, never rode in a taxi, and had never had been to a ballet. And guess what? She never received the copious amounts of subsidies that Ernst had. In fact, Warren never received any government assistance. The only reason she was able to afford college was because she received a scholarship for being an amazing student (Ernst received federal aid to go to college, and she now wants to do away with such aid).
Warren, as everyone knows, has become the face and the champion for the working middle class and the poor in the Senate. She supports Obamacare, she supports raising the minimum wage, she supports paid sick leave, she supports unions, and she supports closing loopholes that have allowed the richest to avoid their fair share in taxes (which have burdened the middle class).
Elizabeth Warren exemplifies the “I didn’t get anything, but I don’t want you to ever feel the same way I did” mentality that is the Democratic, Progressive, Liberal way.
How can two Senators, with very similar backgrounds, be so polar opposite in how they view the world? Simple. One got a lot of money and feels entitled (there’s the real entitlement, GOP) and the other is humbled. One is threatened by people rising above their means and succeeding, the other champions it. One wants to keep the class of people poor, stupid, and desperate to win re-election while the other wants them to have a seat at the table.
This is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Who will you vote for in 2016?
Author: Ryan Denson January 24, 2015 11:10 pm
www.occupydemocrats.com
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter who wrote it what matters is that it is all verifiable public record and Joni Ernst is a hypocrite. Just your kind of people, I would think, William.
ReplyDeleteConsider the source. Your articles always originate from the extreme, extreme left of our political spectrum.
DeleteI don't have anything against Pocahontas Warren. I hope she competes and does well against HRC in the primary. We need another democrat presidential candidate from Mass.
Your piece neglects to state if Ms. Ernst or her family did anything illegal in obtaining the subsidies. Would you care to fill us in?
Despite her reputation as an anti-Wall Street populist, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is the wealthiest of the potential 2016 presidential candidates currently serving in Congress, with an estimated net worth of $6.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2013.
ReplyDeleteWarren earned more than $700,000 from Harvard, book royalties and consulting fees, and earns a rental income from a property valued between $1 million and $5 million, the report shows. She has multiple mutual funds and stock in IBM, the sole individual stock she owns. The total portfolio is worth nearly $8 million.
It turns out that the brainchild behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who has spoken out against corporate excess and in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, is actually part of the 1 percent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/elizabeth-warren-wealth-income_n_1237607.html
Got it.
Elizabeth Warren Is Rewriting History
DeleteThe senator's new memoir glosses over the controversy regarding her Native American minority status.
Ducking and dodging.
By Brian Walsh April 22, 2014 | 5:30 a.m. EDT + More
In a new book released today, Massachusetts Democratic senator and potential presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren attempts to rewrite history regarding the controversy surrounding her “Native American” ancestry that emerged in the 2012 Senate campaign. What’s remarkable is that, at least in the initial book reviews, the press largely allows her to get away with it. In fact, it’s virtually ignored that to this day Warren still refuses to release any law school records that may shed light on this controversy.
To be fair, most reviews note that Warren has never substantiated her claims of Native American heritage, which is true. The larger and unaddressed issue, however, is whether or not Warren falsely claimed minority status in order to gain an unfair advantage in her academic career. This was a question that was unresolved at the end of the 2012 campaign and it remains unresolved with the publication of Warren’s book.
[ See a collection of political cartoons on the Democratic Party.]
As the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2012, I had a front row seat to Warren’s dubious claims. While she succeeded in stonewalling the press then, it’s an issue that will surely re-emerge if she one day runs for president. In that vein, and in the context of Warren’s claims that she was “hurt” and “angry” by the ostensibly dishonest Republican “attacks” on her ancestry, it’s worth re-examining the facts.
First, what’s perhaps most notable about Warren’s book is that she even includes a section called “Native American,” in which she reportedly writes, “Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory.”
This is ironic because, until the Boston Herald first broke the news in April 2012 that Harvard Law School had repeatedly promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, Warren never once mentioned these stories of her upbringing in a single press interview, speech, class lecture or testimony at any point, ever, in her decades-long career. What's more, Warren was not listed as a minority on her transcript from George Washington University where she began her undergraduate education, nor did she list herself as a minority when applying to Rutgers University Law School in 1973.
In fact, it was not until she was in her 30s and focused on climbing the highly competitive ladder of law school academia that Warren apparently rediscovered her Native American heritage. It’s important to note that entrance and advancement in the law school profession is governed by the Association of American Law Schools, which requires registrants interested in teaching at law schools to fill out a questionnaire detailing their education, experience, bar passage and, yes, ethnicity. This information is then disseminated to law schools around the country that, as Warren surely knew, are always on the lookout to add to the diversity of their faculty.
A copy of Warren's questionnaire currently resides in the Association of American Law Schools archives at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. However, only Warren herself has the authority to release the complete copy of her questionnaire and to date, she has refused to do so.
DeleteHer opposition to such transparency can perhaps be understood in the documented fact that in the years thereafter, starting in 1986, Warren began self-reporting herself as a "minority professor" in the Association of American Law Schools staff directory that lists all law school professors around the country. As the former association chairman told the Boston Herald, the directory once served a tip sheet for law school administrators, in the pre-Internet days, who were looking to identify and recruit minority professors.
Remarkably, Warren's explanation to the Boston Herald was that she listed herself as a minority in the hopes that she would be invited to a luncheon so she could meet "people who are like I am" and she stopped checking the box when that didn't happen. Perhaps it "didn't happen" because at no point, at any of the schools she attended or worked at, is there any evidence that Warren ever joined any Native American organizations on campus or in any way interacted with anyone in the Native American community.
That did not however, stop Warren from continuing to self-report as a Native American minority. The New York Times reported in May 2012 that Warren was listed as a minority recipient of a teaching award years earlier at the University of Pennsylvania where she had advanced after teaching at several non-Ivy League law schools. Notably, Penn declined to explain to the Times why Warren was listed as a minority.
From Penn, Warren moved on to Harvard Law School, where her Native American heritage was touted in multiple articles, including a Fordham Law Review piece that lauded her as Harvard Law's " first woman of color." Even as recently as 2011, it appears Warren was listed as the lone Native American faculty member on the school's 2011 "diversity report," though like Penn, Harvard also refused to comment.
Yet, when the Herald first broke the story in April 2012, Warren claimed she "had no idea" that Harvard had touted her Native American status and claimed she did not "recall" ever citing her Native American heritage when applying for a job. In the months afterward, Warren ducked, dodged and stonewalled subsequent questions, eventually wearing-out the press, and succeeded in winning an election without ever releasing any records that might substantiate those claims.
So her decision to revisit this controversy in a new book re-opens the issue and reminds us that there is a very simple way for Warren to answer the many still outstanding questions, and it begins with finally releasing her records.
Whether Warren falsely claimed to be a minority in order to game the system and advance her career is a question that goes to the heart of her honesty and integrity. It's also a question that will confront her if she ever seeks higher office.
Seems comments from her book are just that. Not necessarily truthful but whole entertaining as she jockey's for position.
DeleteBut in today's political theater, who cares anyway, what difference does it make. Integrity means nothing as proven by our politicians from both parties. Sad how individuals will attach themselves to a candidate and pass along their version of history adding icing to the cake.
Is it just me or is it becoming apparent that these Ivy League schools have a problem with records?
Deleteyes she is lou and worked for every fucking penny of it. No subsidies for waitresses and Sears employees Lou, and only scholarships earned from hard work as a student to get her education.
DeleteGot it?
Here we go again with the minority bullshit. louman I doubt she was even born in America. Hell if she was born on the reservation would that in fact make her a foreign national since tribes are independent nations? And no one from Oklahoma the state known before 1907 as Indian Territory could possibly have any Indian in them. Yes Louman I would imagine that the chance of that would be very slim. Hell I have Indian in me and you probably do too. So what if she claims to be native American. Maybe she is and if so should just come out with it. If that's the best ya got leave the thread thank you.
DeleteBrian walsh the Heritage Foundation. yep you guys get your info right from the center unbiased sources don't you?
DeleteNo rick, I didn't even look at Heritage. Just a yahoo search.
Deletehttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2014/04/22/elizabeth-warren-glosses-over-native-american-controversy-in-new-book
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/warren-wealthiest-among-congress-potential-white-house-bidders/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/04/23/elizabeth_warren_is_rewriting_history_330592.html
Brian Walsh:
A longtime veteran of Capitol Hill and dozens of political campaigns, Brian Walsh is a partner with Singer Bonjean Strategies and the owner of Townline Strategies, both full service public affairs firms Most recently, he served as chief communications strategist for U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
There you go Rick. Attack, attack, attack. Keep up the hate speech as it's a dominate trait of the progressive left.
But as Hilly says. who cares anyway, what difference does it make? After all, Barack got away with a pack of lies in his biography, why not Warren? The sad part is the sheeple follow and eat it up with out questioning the accuracy of any embellishment.
Do you always believe all the tripe you read?
p.s. As a second generation American, 100% pure Italian.
DeleteNot likely I have any Native American in my family tree.
Also, how do you know she worked for every penny of it? Because you read it? Do you question anything Barack, Hilly or Lizzy claim?
Prove it ain't so. She worked for every penny of it. I question lots of things Lou but I questioned the scum that comes from the right the most.
DeleteThe truth always comes out, ask you prezzy about his over reach in his fictitious biographies. I just read what everyone has to say, unlike you who read the biography and tout it's truthfulness. Because you so want it to be true.
DeleteI would have thought you would have learned your lesson after Barack's over reach on his fiction labeled biography.
Your attitude is at least up front, SCUM, a true progressive to the core complete with name calling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletesecond generation huh Lou. well welcome to my country. My folks have been around for quite a while. The Indian since 1582, the Dutch since the days of New Amsterdam 1633, The English since 1620, The Irish since 1696, the first German 1738 and the last of the bunch in 1856. Aren't you glad we welcomed you to our great nation with open arms? Or your ancestors I should say. Yep a Heinz 57 and 9th generation American. My family has truly been in on the building of this great nation from the ground up. has yours?
DeleteYOUR COUNTRY. WHEN DID YOU BUY IT?
DeleteMy Country was never for sale until Citizens United. But we opened our arms to the world Louman including Italians. Look again lou at the dates above my family has been here for a long time, in fact elements of my family may have been here damn near forever. Welcome to my country Lou, you will always be treated as one of us.
DeleteAs always Rick your a condescending asshole. I as well as the rest of the country could care less about your laughable welcome.
DeleteMy father fought for this country as I did. It's my country as well as it is everyone who is a citizen. My contributions are many including starting, running a business and employing people until of as late. Just finished my income tax. My contribution, the 28% tax bracket. Paid far more than you this year Rick supporting this corrupt wasteful government.
As a side note, all are welcome in the US when they come legally. The law says so. My Father's family as did my mothers came here the legal way via Ellis Island.
As far as Citizen United, an acceptable solution to union contributions to elections.
Your family would turn in their graves if they knew you were part of their family.
Pissed off Lou? good. You are right all who came legally were always welcome. Your boy Ronald Reagan changed that with his blanket amnesty in the 80's. So NOW we have a problem don't we?
ReplyDelete