Warren Pushes For Dictatorial Control of Home Construction - Seriously

P. Gardner Goldsmith | January 14, 2020
Font Size

She might not be able to claim Indian heritage. She can no longer fraudulently supply a cookbook with what she claimed was an ancestor’s “Native American” recipe (something that was not only not “Native American”, but was someone else’s ), and she might not be able to plausibly claim that she was booted from a job because she was “visibly pregnant,” but Liz Warren isn’t ready to throw in the egomaniacal and self-serving towel.

Appearing Jan. 8 on MSNBC’s archaic snooze-fest, “Morning Joe,” with Joe Scarborough, Warren seemingly went full-on Soviet, telling a seemingly somnambulistic and numbly receptive Joe that she would save the world from that bogeyman “Anthropogenic Climate Change.” And how would she tilt at that lovely leftist windmill?

Absolute, total control over the housing market.

Sam Dorman, of FoxNews, noticed her propensity for unilateral power, and wrote:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., proposed radically restricting construction in the United States on Wednesday, telling MSNBC that as president, she would require any new houses or buildings to have 'zero carbon footprint' by 2028.

Which fits right into Article Two, Section One-Billion, of the U.S. Constitution. You know that one. It’s the one that reads:

All Presidents can do whatever the heck they want, especially if they’re faux-American Indians who got plum jobs at Harvard spouting leftist drivel.

Or something like that.

And, sarcastic facetiousness aside, this is essentially the flip approach many U.S. politicians take when looking at any branch of the federal leviathan. The Constitution is totemic. Its rules and boundaries mean nothing. Its primary purpose is to be used as patriotic, rhetorical camouflage while the politicians cater to various federal tax-sucking special interests and forever increase the size and scope of the state.

So why not tell a friendly statist like Joe Scarborough and his similarly-minded audience that she would love to use an “executive power” that has never been seen in the Constitution to, a la Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other communist dictators, take over the market for human habitation?

'What scares me is every time you go back to the scientists, they tell you two things: it's worse than we thought and we have less time,' Warren told 'Morning Joe.'

Which -- beyond the growing debate over whether politically-connected “scientists” have been fudging “climate”’ data -- makes one wonder about the very idea that Ms. Warren is “going back” to “the scientists,” or if, like many of her past statements, she’s merely spit-balling a phrase and launching it to give her psychedelic policy pronouncement the patina of “informed.”

That means we've got to be willing to do things -- for example, like regulation. By 2028, no new buildings, no new houses without a zero-carbon footprint. 

And how dare you note that the word “regulation” is merely a soft euphemism for government command and control backed by threats of violence by armed government agents should you not comply?

You certainly deserve opprobrium if you happen to mention the fact that Liz’s idea seems frighteningly like a Soviet command from the Politburo or a decree from Italy’s Il Duce, Benito Mussolini as he nationalized much of that nation’s economy.

In fact, political-economist Lawrence K. Samuels explains that Mussolini, the founder of “Italian Fascism” himself, noted that his ideas were drawn from actions taken by Lenin years earlier:

The economics of Italian Fascism is often ignored or trivialized because so much of it is found in today’s world economies. Consider some of the components of fascist economics: central planning, heavy state subsidies, protectionism (high tariffs), steep levels of nationalization, rampant cronyism, large deficits, high government spending, bank and industry bailouts, overlapping bureaucracy, massive social welfare programs, crushing national debt, bouts of inflation and ‘a highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure.’

Sound familiar?

On numerous occasions, Benito Mussolini identified his economic policies with “state capitalism”—the exact phrase that Vladimir Lenin used to usher in his New Economic Policy (NEP). Lenin wrote: ‘State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic.’ After Russia’s economy collapsed in 1921, Lenin allowed (some) privatization and private initiative, and he let the people trade, buy and sell for private profit. Lenin was moving towards a mixed economy. He even demanded that state-owned companies operate on profit/loss principles. Lenin acknowledged that he had to back away from total socialism and allow some capitalism.

In doing so, he didn’t really allow “capitalism,” but trended towards fascism, the ostensible private “ownership” of businesses that are actually tightly commanded by politicians. Writes Samuels:

Mussolini followed Lenin’s example and proceeded to establish a state-driven economic model in Italy. In essence, Mussolini’s fascism was simply an imitation of Lenin’s ‘third way,’ which combined market-based mechanisms and socialism—similar to Red China’s ‘market socialism.’ In short, Lenin’s revised Marxism culminated in ‘socialist-lite’ policies that helped inspire Mussolini to craft his own Italian-style fascism with a right-wing socialist twist. Thus, one could argue that Lenin’s politics were the first modern-day version of fascism and state-corporatism.

As FoxNews’ Dorman notes:

Warren vowed she would do 'everything a president can do all by herself' without having to go through Congress.

Isn’t that lovely.