The collective groupthink media are having a cow because one of their chosen ones has been called a nickname by President Trump.  And so they must go into protective mode.  They pulled out the card they always pull out: the race card.

If there was a racial slur at all in President Trump's description of Warren as "Pocahontas," it was when Elizabeth Warren created the fake identity for herself around thirty years ago.  Somehow she became a partial American Indian.  Maybe the reporters should care that we have a sitting senator who committed a crime by creating a fake identity.  Is someone who created a fake identity to enrich herself fit to serve as a senator?

I now understand why Elizabeth Warren, who doesn't mind people being required to have a photo ID for so many things, thinks people shouldn't be required to show proof of who they are when they vote or seek affirmative action privileges.  She certainly didn't when she claimed racial preference for her perch at Harvard and has said she didn't think she needed to show any proof.  The media have been accommodating. 

Everyone should also understand why she doesn't care that illegals are allowed to come and stay.  If she can be a fake Indian for all these years, why shouldn't people who created fake documents and have been fake citizens for a number of years be allowed to stay?  Identities are malleable, and laws are just so irrelevant. 

If Harvard wanted to hire someone with actual minority heritage for a high-paid job, Warren stole that job and prevented an actual minority from having the opportunity to move up as she did.  Warren pretends she is all for minorities, but she stole one of their jobs.  Maybe that minority could have been an honest minority and had a chance to be a senator instead of having a fake Indian in that seat.  Warren made a salary of between $350,000 and $400,000 in 2009-2010 at Harvard.  Did that money belong to someone else? 

The wealthy Warren, who always lectures about income inequality, flipped houses in the 1990s.  One home she bought for $30,000 from an elderly lady and then flipped it for $145,000 five months later.  Why was she so willing to screw the other family members by buying a house so far below market?

Warren's brainchild bureaucracy in D.C. is the Consumer Finance Performance Bureau (CFPB).  It is an off-budget agency with little or no oversight.  It has provided a great living for many bureaucrats (mostly Democrats) in D.C., which may be its main purpose.  The average annual salary of CFPB workers in 2012 was $118,000 (not including generous benefits), while the median income of a family of four in the U.S. is around $60,000.  Isn't it great that the taxpayers who make so much less are funding this toy of Elizabeth Warren and we aren't even allowed to see its budget?

Banks were already heavily regulated by FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and state regulators prior to the CFPB being formed, but that wasn't enough.  More government is always the solution for Democrats.  The number of small banks has been declining rapidly, and the more regulations that are stacked on, the worse it gets.  Democrats like Warren always pretend they are for the small guy, but their regulatory and tax policies show they don't really mean it.  As with health care, Democrats don't mind taking away freedom of choice by regulating so many out of existence. 

From the Mercatus Institute:

Dodd-Frank poses considerable challenges for small banks. While bank concentration itself is not bad, increasing regulatory burdens should not be the driver of regulatory consolidation. Dodd-Frank is costly for large banks, too, but regulatory compliance can be a particular challenge for small banks with limited access to compliance expertise. Regulatory expenses absorb a larger percentage of small banks' budgets than that of their larger counterparts' budgets.

I would love to have any reporter give a list of Elizabeth Warren's policies that have actually allowed the poor, minorities, and middle class to have opportunities to move up the economic ladder instead of making government bigger and making a bigger share dependent on government.  I can't think of any, so why are she and other Democrats called progressives?  Democrat policies can be summed up as: the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

Instead of reporters telling us who Elizabeth Warren is and what she has done to make herself rich, they pull out the race card on Trump because that is all they've got.  There is nothing derogatory toward Indians when Trump uses Pocahontas for Warren.  It is purely a nickname to show that she made up that she was an Indian to get ahead.  The fact that so many reporters just repeat the term "racial slur" regarding his comment shows that they have lost their ability to independently think.

It is a true shame that guys like Al Franken are considered the best Democrats have got, and John Conyers is considered an icon.  It's an even bigger shame that Elizabeth Warren is the standard-bearer who replaces them.