Image 01 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren failed the test for “truthfulness and credibility and honesty”

Elizabeth Warren failed the test for “truthfulness and credibility and honesty”

Scott Brown hasn’t said much himself about Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee fraud.

But now he’s going there, and good for him.

With each passing day that Warren clings to her claim to be Native American, Cherokee, a minority and a “woman of color,” she reveals a deep and disturbing character flaw.

Warren thinks she can get away with it because she’s liberal and in Massachusetts.  We’ll find out if she’s right.

(h/t American Power for the video)

Update:  Looks like The Boston Herald has picked up on Warren’s interview yesterday on Morning Joe, Warren: ‘The Boston Herald is the Boston Herald’:

Democrat Elizabeth Warren insisted the majority of voters don’t care about the controversy over her Native American heritage claims and blamed the Boston Herald for pushing its own political agenda during a cable network interview this morning.

“You know, the Boston Herald is the Boston Herald,” Warren said, shaking her head, after host Joe Scarborough asked if she felt the paper was unfairly targeting her. “What can I say?”

Asked what she meant by that, Warren replied: “I don’t think I can explain it because it has its own point of view, and it’s going to drive its own point of view.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


She keeps this issue alive, probably believing that the intelligentsia will not abandon her.

This is not a normal election year and Romney may do better in the People’s Republic than people may expect because of Brown’s appeal to the Mass. voter, IMHO.

    persecutor in reply to persecutor. | June 15, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Someone should create lawn signs that say “Fauxcahontas for Senate” or “Lieawatha for Senate” just to remind the voters of their “Native” daughter!

    turfmann in reply to persecutor. | June 15, 2012 at 9:50 am

    May I pick up on this notion of intelligencia from you for a moment?

    Perhaps it’s just me, but this Warren woman is being foisted upon us a candidate for the Senate due to her position as a tenured professor at Harvard Law School and her alliance with Barack Obama.

    This is being touted by her supporters as one of the best and brightest, a woman who is for Massachusetts as her campaign bumper stickers loudly proclaim.

    Implicit in that is the supposition that Scott Brown is a dope – a guy who posed nude in Cosmo.

    But upon further investigation, we find that Warren attained her position at Harvard not because of her legal acumen but because of the color of her skin. Period. She graduated from a tier 2 law school and checked all the right boxes to get to where she is. Just like Obama, she is a fraud and an unmeritorious one at that.

    By contrast, the Naked Senator graduated from BC. The Army is most certainly a meritocracy if there ever was one – they do not promote soldiers to the rank of Colonel to make themselves feel better about themselves.

    So we have a law professor of dubious credentials who has never held elected office and rails against the very people that are flooding her campaign with money (those evil Wall Streeters) versus a man who has won elections on the local, state and national level, has graduated from a fine law school of his own accord, not by affirmative action, and is a sitting United States Senator.

    That doesn’t require too much thought to come to a logical decision.

    Let Warren run for Mayor of Cambridge if she is so interested in serving her fellow citizens.

It’s about time Brown raised the fake Cherokee story. Let’s hope he keeps hammering on it.

    OcTEApi in reply to creeper. | June 15, 2012 at 9:45 am

    meh, moonbat tactic to fray the topic, he should have hammered her on the false narrative of republicans in bed with Wall Street…

    When the Commerce Dept. and Wall Street support and respond positively to massive gov’t shovel ready infrastructure spending… liberal/progressives are all-in with Wall Street.

      deadrody in reply to OcTEApi. | June 15, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      Totally agree on that point. Brown was named one of the most Wall Street friendly Senators ? By whom ? Liz Brown for Senate Committee ?

      What factual information is there regarding this “secret negotiations” to somehow weaken Dodd-Frank ? Why would he bother ? He’s in the Democrat controlled Senate, no bill revising Dodd-Frank has any chance at all of even coming CLOSE to reaching the floor of the Senate.

      The woman is pathologically incapable of telling the truth. He should rightly be crushing her on this stuff.

[…] Legal Insurrection: Elizabeth Warren failed the test for “truthfulness and credibility and honesty” […]

Always astounded of how ineffective Republicans are at combating the false notion being pounded by liberals that it was Wall Street and the economic policies of GWB that caused the 2008 financial crisis…

Via the Tip Line over two weeks ago I linked to an event where Fmr. HUD Economist Kevin Villani explicitly laid out the case of where Fannie & Freddie are to blame for the 2008 financial crisis…

It wasn’t lack of regulation, Goldman Sachs had over 300 gov’t regulators working in their building… it was F&F who’s actions prevented the free market from regulating itself, from seeing and acting on early emerging signals that would have naturally dialed back the oncoming financial meltdown… something GWB warned/asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie and was ignored, a/k/a lynch mob
Nobody but Gingrich was/is really expounding the fact that Dodd-Frank legislation is one of the worst pieces of legislation. PERIOD
It must go!

    Milwaukee in reply to OcTEApi. | June 15, 2012 at 10:09 am

    The Community Re-Investment Act shares some of the blame. At one time the United States Senate voted along party lines to vote down a proposal that would have required borrowers to have a 5% down payment. The Democrats felt that it was unfair to discriminate against poor people just because they didn’t have any money. Later research has shown that the reports which claimed racial bias by the banks were flawed, and that banks were making lending decisions based on financial measures, not race. But the courts believed the false reports.

    I have a hard time blaming banks for unloading bad paper when we forced them to take out the loans in the first place.

      Valerie in reply to Milwaukee. | June 15, 2012 at 11:40 am

      Banks making lending decisions based on ability to pay?

      Ohh noes!

      Obviously, they needed to be forced to take skin color into account…..

      That really did happen. In the United States of America.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to OcTEApi. | June 15, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Good points …

    Democrats claim the Republicans held Congress when Fannie Freddie were going down in flames, but we know legislation to rein them in was blocked by Democrats and a few RINO’s. In committee it barely passed along party lines, but never came up for a floor vote because of the RINO turncoats.

    The McCain campaign has also noted that in 2003 he was one of five Republican senators to co-sponsor a prior bill to tighten oversight of Fannie and Freddie. Still, if he “fought” for reform, it wasn’t exactly guns-a-blazin’.

    Did Democrats block the reforms? More or less. They preferred a pared-down bill, and so did not support Hagel’s.

    that link highlights McCain trying to take credit, but has a few general details. If Obama is running a blame Bush campaign again, he really needs to go back to 2005, or at least to 2007 when Democrats took Congress. Or maybe he is going to run against the Democrat Congress too? Only Lord Obama can save us?

    Brown can tie Lieawatha to Obama’s failures, she’s his Harvard soulmate. Warren is another Harvard pseudo-academic, committing scholarship fraud by minority immunity privilege. (or something like that)

The Boston Globe also reported this issue, so it can’t be just the Boston Herald.

Has Sen. Brown ever been Wall St.? The man was a state senator/suburban lawyer prior to his election.

    OcTEApi in reply to ReneeA. | June 15, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Doesn’t matter, my guess is that there are enough Massachusetts Moonbats who will believe her unless the Wall Street false narrative is directly challenged.

ls it any wonder a corrupt , fraudulant , immoral , lie based product like Socialist/liberalism ; would have corrupt . fraudulant , immoral , liars like Obama , Warren , Pelosi , Letterman etc. promoting it?

gs had an interesting idea that I’ll expand on a bit…

“Tall Tale Warren…Obama had her in Washington, but let her go.

Apparently the President knew something about Warren.

Now Warren wants the people of Massachusetts to send her back to Washington. Why should we trust her when Obama didn’t?”

    Rags, you and gs have an interesting point.

    However, I think that Obama would love to have Lieawatha in DC. But what he knows, and what he was afraid confirmation hearings would reveal, is her real heritage (hint: it’s NOT an Indian tribe).

    btw, confirmation hearings can be much more revealing than a campaign, and harder to manipulate.

    In a campaign you can survive by ignoring the questions and flooding the airwaves with your own propaganda (paid for by laundered Soros cash). That’s a bit harder to pull off in a confirmation hearing. So it would be easier to get her elected (especially from Massachusetts) than confirmed.

    Also, after a brief stint as a senator, she would be poised to become the 2016 Moonbat Messiah (early endorsements here and here).

      Ragspierre in reply to donb. | June 15, 2012 at 11:12 am

      Yeeeup. Plus, I think there’s more poison lurking in the mud WRT Warren. We’ll see…

      gs in reply to donb. | June 15, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      Sure, donb, but I’m talking about how to campaign against Warren.

      Of course he’ll blame the eeeevil RethugliKKKans for his failure to nominate her. Or Warren will say she wanted to return to Harvard, but her friends and her conscience prevailed on her to run. Or some other ludicrous excuse.

      The bottom line is that Obama would not fight for Warren.

      President Obama wouldn’t pick Elizabeth Warren for high office. Why should Massachusetts do so?

      Obama would not fight for Warren.

      The antiWarren forces should keep—what’s the word of the day?—hammering that.

Warren, sticking to her guns, is one of those bitter clingers Obama talks about.

Integrity wise, Warren would bring nothing to the Senate. She is pretentious in a Rousseau kind of way.

She could, though, publicly represent her kind: a cigar store Indian.

Midwest Rhino | June 15, 2012 at 10:57 am

I like that Warren claims Brown has these secret banker meetings, then claims to have knowledge of the secrets. Who told her? Is she having secret banker meetings herself, and they’d rather deal with her? Or did she just make it up?

By digging in her heals she is acting Neanderthal who, BTW, have high cheekbones her only claim to Cherokee ancestry.

Google Search – “High Cheekbones Neanderthal”

Sex and the Single Neanderthal: Inter-Species Breeding in the ……/sex-and-the-single-neanderthal-inter-species-bre…
Oct 27, 2009 – Both Native Americans and Russians, share some Genes, like High cheek bones. Germans and the Neanderthals have high cheek bones.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Boston Globe tries desperately to change the subject:

Brown-Warren race coming up short, some say –
A wish for focus on policy issues

“Five months before voters go to the polls, political veterans from both sides of the ideological divide are bemoaning what they see as the lack of an elevated policy debate in the Massachusetts US Senate campaign, in contrast to some of the state’s great Senate contests of the past.

The major policy challenges facing the nation – education, the federal debt crisis, the challenge of an emerging China, climate change, and terrorism – have been left largely unexplored beyond press releases as Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Republican incumbent Scott Brown parry with each other in a closely watched race that could determine the balance of power in Washington.

Often, when one side tries to engage on an issue, the other tries to divert to a topic less flattering to the opposition. Twice recently during national interviews, when Brown was asked about Warren’s criticism of his Wall Street ties, he instead redirected the conversation to the Native American controversy that swirled around Warren for over a month this spring. “Well, with all due respect, as you know, she’s had some credibility issues lately,’’ he told a CBS Evening News interviewer.

Warren, for her part, is being criticized for not moving beyond the initial theme of her candidacy – Wall Street reforms and the strains that the economy has put on middle class families – to more fully lay out her policy positions.
‘Warren wants to talk about her father’s janitorial job, and Brown is all about if he can make a half-court shot. Let’s get serious…’


When are they refusing to acknowledge that Elizabeth Warren’s character *is* a serious issue?

    Cassie in reply to Cassie. | June 15, 2012 at 12:51 pm


    Why are they refusing to acknowledge that Elizabeth Warren’s character *is* a serious issue?