Image 01 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren: Exposing me for who I am means you’re nasty

Elizabeth Warren: Exposing me for who I am means you’re nasty

Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic Party nominee for Senate, after party leaders twisted arms to make sure Marisa DeFranco did not make the primary ballot.

Warren may have become the nominee, but she’s still not Native American.

Whereas prior to May 2012 one might have said Warren simply believed what she (allegedly) was told, now the genealogical evidence has come out that Warren is not Cherokee  and there is no evidence she is any other Native American group.  So when Warren now insists she that being Native American is who she is, she knows that the facts contradict her; she’s no longer just mistaken, she’s lying.

Warren also has been caught lying about how she used her false Native American status professionally.  Her initial denial has given way to revelations about getting herself listed as a “Minority Law Teacher” in a law faculty directory, in the federal diversity reports filed by U. Penn. and Harvard, in the Harvard Women’s Law Journal, and in Harvard’s promotional campaign in the 1990s.  Only when all this evidence came out did Warren finally, a couple of days ago, admit that she had informed U. Penn. and Harvard of her Native American status.  Caught.

Slowly but surely, Warren is being exposed as a phony.  She is a real estate flipper  who took advantage of foreclosures, yet she decries people who take advantage of the financial misfortunes of others.  She overstated the financial difficulties of her parents when she was growing up, and makes bizarre boasts about being the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey Bar exam.

Warren stresses how she has overcome huge odds, but she ignores that her career owes much to her landing a job at U. Penn. law school because the law school wanted to hire her husband.  (Funny how that revelation has not received much attention yet.)

Warren started creating a persona of being Native American while at Penn and then parlayed that “woman of color” and “minority” status — as well as her gender — into a job at Harvard Law which was under enormous pressure at the time to diversity its faculty; only a complete naif would believe it played no role.

And last for now but not least, the woman who is the champion of the little people and transparency worked with Democratic Party bosses to prevent the little people from voting to decide who would become the nominee of the Democratic Party to go up against Scott Brown.

Warren, however, considers it “nasty” campaigning when she is caught and called out on lies and exposed.  Via The Boston Globe:

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, trying to rally Democrats to her cause, said today that questions about her Native American heritage have shown “how nasty” her campaign against Republican Scott Brown will be, but “I’m ready.” …

“Right here, right now, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we are ready to make a stand,” Warren told the union crowd. “I know what this fight is going to be about. I know how tough it’s going to be. I’ve gotten a taste of just how nasty it’s going to get. And you know what? I’m ready. So all I need to know is, are you ready?”

(added) Via The Boston Herald:

“It’s a long way from Ted Kennedy to Scott Brown,” said Warren. “His answer is to talk about my family and to tell me how I grew up. Well, I say this, if that’s all you got Scott Brown, I’m ready.”

Only in the world of Elizabeth Warren is exposing her for what she is deemed nasty.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Cue the (real) Indians, CB (DeMille)”.

Funny. The Indians look like they are going to play the part of the cavalry this time.

Heh. How’s that for “naaaastyyyy”, Lizzie…???

What are you gonna call them?

What is it about Democrats and truth? It seems that “misstating” or “out of context” are more common with the ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ crowd than it is with real people living in the real world. Out here in the real world, mistakes are made and we admit we’re wrong, but not that crowd.

Remember, you cannot spell Massachusetts, without ass.

“How dare you tell the truth about me? I’m too nice a person to be degraded that way! Stop it or I’ll cry!”

Personally, I would think that’s a bad way to run a political campaign. I guess I just don’t know that much about politics.

Wait a second…

SPRINGFIELD – Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, trying to rally Democrats to her cause, said today that questions about her Native American heritage have shown “how nasty” her campaign against Republican Scott Brown will be, but “I’m ready.”

“How nasty HER campaign” will be?

A bit of a Freudian slip, yes?

NC Mountain Girl | June 3, 2012 at 11:44 am

She’s the most interesting candidate in the world.

Once while sailing around the world, she discovered a short cut.

Read them all at

Any chance that someone in MA could organize a “Cherokee Brigade” and follow Warren around singing this…?

Seriously, Warren needs Thorazine.

jimzinsocal | June 3, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Hands down..Warren gets the Jon Lovitz “Tommy Flanagan” award.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid and attention deficient some politicians assume we are.

Two things…

First, we need a followup at the lead anti-Lizzie Warren blog on her alleged comments that she has, in fact, doubled down on her idiocy proclaiming that she

… will be the first native american senator from massachusetts.

There is supposedly video of this remark at Gatway Pundit, but I can’t see YouTube from my present computer.

Second, is there any way to influence the media, even Fox 25, to start asking her intelligent questions ? On this “I was the first nursing mother” schtick, can someone just ask her how she knows this ? Did the state of NJ ask her that question ? Do they keep track of such things ? Its really not that hard.

jimzinsocal | June 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm

^^I should add. Even with Ted Kennedy’s flimsey excuses and poor handling of his driving problem…a case can be made that a “reasonable” man could..I repeat “could” find himself in such a bizarre circumstance that some fugue state is understandable.
Warren simply seems pathological.

Frank Scarn | June 3, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Only in the world of Elizabeth Warren is exposing her for what she is deemed nasty.


Isn’t this just a remnant cut from the liberal cloth that the greatest sin in America today is to simply state the truth?

To oppose Obama’s policies and subversion of constitutional/circumscribed government? Then you’re a racist.

To state that Islam is not a religion of peace and to bring to the fore the core tenets of Islam as stated expressly in the holy writing? You’re a hater of Muslims.

To want to blunt the advancement of religion, here Islam, and its legal system Shariah, as being in contravention of the 1st Am.? Again, you’re a hater of Muslims and a racist (even though Islam is not a race).

To oppose the welfare state where more and more is taken from the productive (or future producers are saddled with huge debt) and given to the unproductive, thereby encouraging even more to become unproductive? You’re a hater of the poor and a promoter of “white privilege.”

Oodles of further examples could be given. The adults have to come back from their overly long coffee break and retake control.

    G Joubert in reply to Frank Scarn. | June 3, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    A couple more:

    If you’re for securing the borders to ensure national sovereignty, it’s actually because down inside you really hate Mexicans (and/or “hispanics” generally).

    If you’re in favor of requiring voters to furnish ID before voting to ensure the integrity of the election system, it’s actually because down inside you hate the poor, minorities in particular, and you want to suppress their votes.

    We could do a lot of these.

      Cassie in reply to G Joubert. | June 3, 2012 at 7:47 pm

      Is it true that the MA Democrats were requiring people to show photo ID before they were allowed to enter the convention and vote?

      Wow, they must be huge RACISTS to have done that!


PrincetonAl | June 3, 2012 at 1:11 pm

What do you do once you have doubled-down on your family lore?

And tripled-down?

And gone all-in?

You go past all-in. I don’t know what is past “all-in” … maye going all in with a double-mortgage on the family farm?

Cassandra Lite | June 3, 2012 at 1:16 pm

“Exposing me for who I am means you’re nasty.”

She’s the Brett Kimberlin of politicians.

jimzinsocal | June 3, 2012 at 1:18 pm

^^Just saw that video. No denial there. Calling Dr Freud…calling Dr Freud…code blue in Mass.

There is definately something wrong with Warren, she just can’t help it.

That’s the liberal way: Attack truth-tellers with lying slurs — racist, homophobe, NASTY, intolerant, and so on. Anything to deflect attention from the facts, anything to intimidate those people who live by a different set of rules. Liberals are dysfunctional people, living by lies they think everyone else does too; they are nasty and so THEY think everyone else is too.

What liberals accuse others of is what they themselves are guilty of; but they’re not honest people so they’d never look into their own hearts to see it.

Yup, Warren certainly seems pathological. There is no way that can work in her favor. It is shocking that she continues to keep digging.

1. Slowly but surely, Warren is being exposed as a phony.

Good. Keep digging, oppo researchers. Don’t neglect her published work.

2. Warren stresses how she has overcome huge odds, but she ignores that her career owes much to her landing a job at U. Penn. law school because the law school wanted to hire her husband.

Her career also owes much to the prior husband who presumably put her through law school. I’d like to know more about that, and about her divorce and remarriage.

3. At some point it will be necessary to undermine Warren on policy in a manner that the delicate palates of MA swing voters will swallow. I gather that she is being funded by Wall Street lawyers. If it can be shown that her policy rhetoric masks an unsavory agenda just as her feel-good personal narrative does, game over even in bluest Massachusetts.

I hope.

    Observer in reply to gs. | June 3, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    It is . . . interesting . . . isn’t it that this pioneering lactating feminist who pulled herself up by her own boot (or was it moccasin?) straps seems to have made her career by using men. Her first husband was reportedly an engineer who put her through law school; her second husband (Bruce Mann) was a well-regarded legal scholar with a Yale Law J.D. as well as a Ph.D., and he is the one who got her hired at U. Penn (they wanted him, and he reportedly insisted they had to hire her as part of his deal).

Insufficiently Sensitive | June 3, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Lizzie Warren took an axe
and gave veracity forty whacks
and when they learned what she had done
she gave her critics forty one.

Doug Wright | June 3, 2012 at 3:06 pm

I must apologize about prematurely invoking that Ancient New Jersey Rule allowing the Democrats to drop a losing candidate, replacing that person with a winning candidate.

The rule clearly states that it cannot be invoked until October 1st unless it’s superseded by the more Ancient McGovern Rule, which while first used to drop a running mate, it’s also likely to be ruled applicable in this Massachusetts case.

It would be so very nice if these Ancient Rules could be written out but that might be too much to ask!

It certainly is a long way between Ted Kennedy and Scott Brown. Hell to Massachusetts is indeed a long way, but Dyke Bridge in Chappaquiddick is somehow a bit closer these days because the Democrats continue to lie.

I just don’t get it. Who keeps telling her that doubling down on this is a GOOD thing? Crazee.

Would someone please tell me when outright lying became acceptable behavior?

If elected will she be selected to be on the U.S. Committee for Indian Affairs, even though she isn’t officially apart of any tribe?

Considering she embraces her heritage, wouldn’t it be awkward if she wasn’t on that Committee? But then again it would probably bring outrage to Native Americans if she was appointed to Indian Affairs.

Geez, it’s almost like you think self-serving, bald-faced lying and anti-democratic manipulation of the electoral process is wrong or something.

What is with you people…

TrooperJohnSmith | June 4, 2012 at 2:37 am

I guess when Liz was working at the University of Texas, she dared not play the, “Look! I’m Cherokee!” card.

Why? Down here, most people whose families have been in the southwest for any length of time, are at least 1/32nd some kind of Indian.

Today, my daughter reminded me that in addition to Cherokee, Choctaw and Crow, that my side of the family is also Sac and Fox and Shoshone.

Professor I believe you have coined a new term. “…(I)nto a job at Harvard Law which was under enormous pressure at the time to diversity its faculty”…oh I just love this. Change a noun into a verb. If it was an accident it is still a wonderful addition to the language, Jay Nordlinger will be proud. If you don’t believe my high cheek bones are an indelible mark of my Indianess I will force the government to diversity your workplace!, quoted from Fauxahontis latest attack on Sen. Scott Brown.