To the Editor:
The current televised debates have given anyone concerned much to consider, and it is most interesting how different viewers can get wildly differing impressions. In the debate between Senator Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, this was certainly true, as it was in the debate between Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden, not to mention those between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney.
In the debate with Scott Brown, Ms. Warren appeared to evade and dissemble, and when she was reminded of the Travelers Insurance case, she seemed to be in danger of swallowing her bifurcated tongue, with one commentator calling her response "strangely weak."
She claims to be proud of being from Massachusetts, when in reality she has no roots nor background here, but it is clear that she could not have run for the Senate in her home state of Oklahoma, since there she would have been swept off her feet in a virtual tornado of derision and quickly wiped off the political landscape months ago for so often being at complete variance with the truth. Obviously her brand of academic elitism, which emanates from the rarified atmosphere of Harvard's faculty lounges, does not play very well in many places, and not everyone wishes to put themselves within the reach of the political molestations of a petty would-be apparatchik like Ms. Warren.
I find it disquieting when she suggests that the United States should be more like China. Certainly a politburo operates more efficiently than a Congress or Senate in a representative republic, and who needs an annoying, antiquated and pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place? For a law professor, it is peculiar that she displays an odd, secular Puritanism which asserts arbitrary, unbridled statist power, with the rule of law being a mere afterthought that may be conveniently dispensed with, given the situation.
While most people don't care about Ms. Warren's genotype, I am sure that they do care about lack of credibility and the taint of moral turpitude. Despite what some would like to dismiss as "the Indian thing," I would love to read or hear their reactions if it were Senator Brown who had perpetrated an atrocity which may be accurately described as cultural and racial identity theft. This issue begs the question of how much respect Ms. Warren has for either minorities or affirmative action laws, and I fear that the sum total of her regard for the two would add up to exactly zero.
In her campaign, Ms. Warren has dragged down from the attic the fatigued, arthritic, geriatric hobgoblin of the loss of reproductive rights for women, and I think that this is puzzling and wonder how effective this ploy will be, since Senator Brown is openly pro-choice. However, her supporters need not worry, since she follows this up with a more general appeal featuring the hardcore hustle of three card monte, where the pocket worn playing cards of class envy, class hatred, and class warfare are dealt out in rapid succession and arrayed on the table in hand after hand in a boringly predictable way. On top of that, it is difficult to imagine anything more denigrating, demeaning and insulting than that we need Ms. Warren and her ilk to look after all of us "little people." Most of us are completely capable of taking care of ourselves, and anyone who may stumble has recourse to a burgeoning social welfare system of nearly the same genre as those that are presently collapsing of their own weight in several European countries, and which are sending those same nations into an economic graveyard spiral, requiring more responsible world leaders to bail them out.
Ms. Warren is, in spite of her ethnic and populist masquerading, only a hardened, cynical opportunist, duly anointed by the Massachusetts political machine, and she is the last person needed in the Senate, either from this state or from anywhere else. Besides, we already have one insufferably arrogant elitist Harvard patrician in the Senate who launched his political career by appearing before Congress and falsely accusing his fellow Vietnam veterans of being torturers, rapists, and murderers, while America's enemies must have danced for joy at hearing our brave military so viciously maligned.
President Obama's basic message hasn't changed in the last four years, since it's the same old redistributionist song with the same old chorus and the same old accompanying band playing the familiar, tarnished, wheezy and out of tune instruments.
President Obama has presided over the accelerated decline of this country to the point that the Chinese now sneer at us and declare themselves to be the new superpower, and with good reason, since in 2011 their economy grew at nearly nine percent, while our own is stuck at a moribund 1.3 percent. Recently, the president's media allies have been busily and feverishly trying to spin straw into gold by touting new 11th hour employment statistics, but these are highly suspect since they came immediately after President Obama's noticeably lackluster performance in the first debate.
Ms. Warren and Mr. Obama are detached academicians who are neither liberal nor democratic, but instead are coercive, inflexible, authoritarian statists, and there is nothing that their party wishes to do that will not take either our money or freedom or both. To professor Warren and Mr. Obama people are not individuals imbued with reason, abilities, intelligence and judgment that merit respect, but rather they are distempered sheep to be pushed, poked, prodded and herded, and desperately need government to shepherd them. On the other hand, I remain convinced that Americans do not need brown-shirted, jack-booted, goose-stepping, bloated big government stomping around on its hobnailed soles and incessantly bellowing into their ears at the top of its lungs how they should live their lives. I find the mindset of persons such as Ms. Warren and Mr. Obama to be infinitely repulsive, since it is the very essence and the life breath of spirit-crushing totalitarianism.
Michael F. Fontes