In the wake of President Trump’s first State of the Union Address, many Democrats are skeptical of the claims made in emphasis of a reinvigorated 2018 effort to fight America’s ever-rising drug epidemic. A particularly vocal critic on this issue was MA Senator Elizabeth Warren, who was quick to demand that President Trump’s administration take immediate action to signify their commitment to stopping the opioid crisis. In pursuit of this, Warren, along with Senator Patty Murray, sent a letter to the Administration requesting additional evaluation and funds be directed towards the opioid epidemic. However, an examination of Warren’s actions leading up to this raises questions about her true intentions.

Despite her demands that President Trump further demonstrate his commitment to combating domestic drug addiction, Warren has repeatedly failed to do so herself. President Trump declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in October of 2017, in hopes of expanding treatment options for substance abuse sufferers through the creation of treatment centers, telemedicine programs, and public health trainings. While this initial declaration expired on January 23rd, the Administration was quick to continue highlighting the issue, and enacted a 90-day extension the following day. In stark contrast to this, Warren’s exhibited efforts have not been reflective of hew newfound verbal emphasis on fighting addiction. In December 2016, Warren voted against the 21st Century Cures Act, which contained over $12 million in funds intended to fight addiction in her home state of Massachusetts. By doing so, Warren continued to lend credence to the idea that her verbal priorities are largely rhetorical, and that she is frequently unwilling to compromise, even when doing so will benefit her constituents and support her own agenda.

Warren’s hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed. Representative Geoff Diehl, also of Massachusetts and Warren’s current opponent in the 2018 Senate race, was quick to point out Warren’s willingness to deprive her constituents of the very funds she is now insisting President Trump produce. In October 2017, Warren attended an opiate awareness event hosted by Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll. This was less than one year after Warren had taken an active role in depriving the people of Salem funds to enact the discussed treatment measures by voting against the bill. Examining these actions, it seems that Warren’s true priorities lie with the aesthetics of anti-opioid advocacy, and not so much with taking the actions required to move the needle. Diehl brought this to light, and asked Warren to apologize to the people of Massachusetts for robbing them of the funding that would solve the very problem she continues to highlight as a top priority. The irony of Warren attending a training on the use of Narcan while previously voting to minimize the state’s access to the lifesaving drug was not lost on Diehl, nor on the voters of Massachusetts.

This was not the first time that Warren has shown her double-dealing true colors. A vocal advocate for government-funded abortion services, Warren has built a name for herself as a proponent of women’s rights and pro-choice healthcare. In recent months she has been an active contributor to the #metoo movement, centered around spreading awareness against sexual violence, going to far as to be featured in Glamour magazine for her experiences with the issue. However, inconsistencies with her storytelling were quickly pointed out by various media outlets, who claimed that her recollection of the story had changed considerably since first sharing it on record two decades prior. While two decades is a considerable period, any sexual assault survivor can tell you that experiences like those are not ones that often fade from memory. This raises questions as to Warren’s credibility, and particularly whether she is simply eager to jump on the train of any social movement that pairs nicely with her carefully cultivated public profile.

In another notable show of disregard for women’s rights, Elizabeth Warren was happy to accept a $10,000 donation from actor Ben Affleck, who later admitted to sexually assaulting actress Hilarie Burton. Again an advocate for truth and transparency, Geoff Diehl challenged Warren to return the check in a show of solidarity with sexual assault survivors. Warren has yet to accept this challenge. Interestingly, Warren did donate funds received by Harvey Weinstein, whose sexual transgressions were significantly more public. However Affleck’s donation, and comparatively quieted misconduct, has been accepted by the Warren campaign with open arms.

It seems that Warren’s actions are solely motivated by her political ambitions. Her actions are calculated and taken only in the spotlight. She will vocally criticize an administration that is demonstrably furthering her agenda if it will garner support from her voter base, and will accept donations from transgressors while promoting herself as transgressed. In comparison, Representative Diehl’s actions exemplify a candidate who is willing to act as the true advocate for Massachusetts citizens, exposing Warren’s hypocrisies and challenging her to literally put her money where her mouth is. Diehl put it best, saying, “What we’ve had for the past four and a half years is someone who’s had her own agenda and is raising her profile to run for president in two years…The people of Massachusetts deserve a Senator who will put them first”. I can only hope that the citizens of Massachusetts recognize an opportunity to enact change, and vote out Elizabeth Warren in November.

Rachel Tripp writes about liberty from Washington, D.C.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller