Image 01 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee Problem is back

Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee Problem is back

Donald Trump zeroes in on Warren’s core problem.

Say what you want about Donald Trump, but he has an instinctive knack for zeroing in on an opponent’s inherent weakness.

With Jeb, it was “low energy.” That term exploited a key perception problem of Jeb, and one he couldn’t shake. So too did “Little Marco,” which may have ended not only Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign, but his political career — it’s a term I just can’t shake from my current perception of Rubio, and I suspect that a decade from now his political opponents will be referring to him as Little Marco.

As to Hillary, Trump went straight for her supposed strength — supporting women and women’s rights — by zeroing in on Bill Clinton’s serial abuse of women and Hillary’s silence or connivance.

Now comes Elizabeth Warren, who harshly criticized Trump this week. Trump’s response zeroes in on Warren’s key perception problem, that she dishonestly claimed Native American, and specifically Cherokee, heritage for professional purposes. The research on Warren’s Cherokee problem is at Elizabeth Warren Wiki.

Trump is quoted by Maureen Dowd in a column at the NY Times, Will Trump Be Dumped?, responding to Warren’s criticism, as follows:

More heavyweights are jumping in to stomp Trump, including Elizabeth Warren. Asked about her jabs, he pounced: “I think it’s wonderful because the Indians can now partake in the future of the country. She’s got about as much Indian blood as I have. Her whole life was based on a fraud. She got into Harvard and all that because she said she was a minority.”

The comment is getting headlines, including at the Boston Globe, which did everything it could during the 2012 Senate campaign to cover for Warren on the issue; and at The Daily Beast.

It’s hard for Warren to respond on the Cherokee issue in any meaningful way. She refused in late June 2012 to meet with a group of Cherokee women who traveled to Boston to speak with her.

It was an issue she assiduously evaded during the 2012 campaign, other than to have her staff accuse people who exposed the truth (like me), of being “right wing extremists.”

Here is the truth. Liz Warren has no Native American ancestry. A Cherokee genealogist studied all her family lines, and there is no Indian history.

The so-called 1/32 Cherokee blood was a false claim, and now is an urban myth.

The fact is that, while there may have been some rumors or stories in her family, Warren never lived as an Indian, never embraced that identity, never helped Indians or associated with them, and didn’t even claim Indian status when she registered with the Senate. The only time in her life that Warren fully embraced her supposed Native American identity was in a law professor directory used for hiring purposes when she was in her mid-30s and starting to climb the law school ladder, eventually landing at Harvard Law School.

I’ve often wondered why Warren never challenged Hillary. If Bernie is doing well, Warren would have crushed Hillary. But Warren chose not to run for some reason — I’m guessing that there is something out there in her Oklahoma history relating to the Native American claim that she doesn’t want coming out, but that would destroy her credibility on the issue. It’s something that would take deep opposition research, the type that only people like the Clinton’s have access to … and may already have.

So Trump is onto something. It doesn’t absolve Trump of any of his own faults and issues, but it does put Liz Warren’s core political problem in play again. And that’s important, because if Hillary gets into legal trouble, Warren will be one of the names suggested to parachute in to save the party.

[Featured Image: Elizabeth Warren questioned about Indian claims]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


legacyrepublican | March 20, 2016 at 6:31 pm

I will give Trump this.

He was being a high boned cheekly little devil on the warpath and scalped Warren good.

Good article, Perfesser. Too bad you can’t as clearly see the truth behind Cruz’s fraudulent claim of natural-born citizenship. But, you are aiding and abetting that anti-American fraud.

    Sanddog in reply to Skookum. | March 20, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    You do know, don’t you, that your opinions, wishes and fantasies in no way equal reality?

      Skookum in reply to Sanddog. | March 20, 2016 at 10:15 pm

      Take a healthy dose of your own medicine. Reality is the word “natural” is in the natural-born citizen clause, and the Perfesser failed to give the word full force and effective in his corrupt analysis.

        smfoushee in reply to Skookum. | March 20, 2016 at 10:30 pm

        Please list the relevant parts of the Constitution that define a Natural Born Citizen.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to smfoushee. | March 21, 2016 at 12:34 am

          Can’t because not in there, just delusion of people who can’t admit that they are just making stuff up when they impose all sorts of requirements as to eligibility. It’s just trolling at this point, dropped into posts that have nothing to do with the subject.

          amwick in reply to smfoushee. | March 21, 2016 at 8:23 am

          I don’t see anything corrupt about Professor Jacobson’s position on presidential eligibility. I am still confused by the issue, there still seems to be some debate on that one particular term. I admit he has not convinced me, but that has more to do with my personal connection to people that have had children (military) born overseas. That and I just have no legal background. I am convinced that any (legal) opinions that he shares are offered in good faith, and certainly have no other agenda.

          ncmont in reply to smfoushee. | March 22, 2016 at 9:09 pm

          Cruz is NOT eligible. He is NOT natural born.

          Not only that, but he is a liar and Wall St sell out, Bush man, etc.

          This website used to be good.

        stevewhitemd in reply to Skookum. | March 21, 2016 at 7:35 am

        You are an insulting little twerp, aren’t you.

        “Corrupt”? The professor may occasionally get something wrong (though not in that analysis); he makes mistakes like the rest of us; his opinions may differ from those of others. But you jump to “corrupt” to insult the man in his own house.

        Jerk. Go away.

    4fun in reply to Skookum. | March 21, 2016 at 6:04 pm
    Well the Illinois election board said he’s American.
    Read somewhere today he won a lower court case also on his eligibility.

    A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”

People who write off Trump as some big dumb blowhard whose going to declare war on Russia or whatever nonsense they’re trotting out this week are very much mistaken.

My fear isn’t that he’s going to end up being a loose cannon, my fear is that he’s going to pander to the left. He is not a stupid man. He’s giving a lot of disaffected Americans exactly what they’ve wanted for years… someone who will not be cowed by the bullies of the left.

He’s not my first choice but I’m not going to throw a hissy fit if he wins the nomination. He’ll have won it because he had the balls to stand up to the left.

    persecutor in reply to Sanddog. | March 20, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    For those in the NY metro area: We’ll know we’re in trouble if Trump starts promising to make the LIRR run on time as a primary promise.

… but he has an instinctive knack for zeroing in on an opponent’s inherent weakness.

I doubt there’s anything instinctive about it. It’s actually quite straightforward. Trump sees an obvious problem, sees an (almost) obvious solution, and drives straight toward it. Simple enough, so far. Trump’s major innovation—his great and, I hope, lasting contribution to American politics—is that he doesn’t let the nagging irrelevancies of the PC types derail him. For this, he’s castigated as a boor, a buffoon, a crude caveman … none of which seems to bother him in the least. And it doesn’t seem to bother a rather large bunch of voters, either.

About time, too.

Yes. Der Donald is a talented bully and demagogue.

I’ve never said otherwise…

The man has skills. So did Al Capone. MASTER of press manipulation.

    JoAnne in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Aw, come on, Rags! You gotta admit he does make you chuckle once in a while!

    Where did this nonsense of “demagogue” come from? (Wait, never mind.)

    If Donald Trump is a demagogue, what is Obama, Clinton, and the wholly corrupt bastards running the GOP who have sold the Constitutional separation of powers at a yard sale?

    What a dumb idea to advocate when you’re not arguing with dumb people.

Trump should offer to donate $100,000 to the DNC if Warren takes a DNA test. But she won’t. And then every time the dopes in the MSM ask Trump about Warren, Trump should remind them of his offer.

She’s used racial preference to fill her bank account with $millions. In other words she’s thoroughly Democrat. And the MSM just looks the other way.

This skill is largely why Trump has done well (both in the current presidential campaign, and in business generally): He knows EXACTLY where to stick the knife in order to wound to make his opponents bleed. Then he doesn’t have to destroy them himself, merely get out of the way while OTHERS do the destruction.

It is a skill that those trained in the art of negotiation know very, very well and the very best negotiators can use it at will and make it seem entirely effortless in order to use it in damaging the other side. Key thought: seeming effortless is a far cry from it actually being effortless; it actually usually takes a lot of research, dirty digging and set-up in order to make it stick.

Part of Trump’s appeal is that he is entirely ruthless in his application of destruction to the other party. Whether or not that is a good quality depends on your point of view. I would be less uncomfortable with it if I believed Trump had principles which guided his actions. Now, I’m ALL for the destruction of all things Democrat, Liberal or Progressive, as I have watched them take a great nation and bring it low over the last 30 years through policies which appear to be aimed at helping, while they are truly merely about social engineering and control.

Unfortunately I believe that Trump is merely an opportunist, who is right now saying the things that he needs to say to position himself to gain the most advantage.

I was asked this Friday if I was going to be a “Trumpeteer.” I said no, I’m a Cruz supporter at this time, but IF Trump becomes the nominee, I will happily vote for him in a general election for President over the alternative of a Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Deval Patrick or Andrew Cuomo.

“So Trump is onto something. It doesn’t absolve Trump of any of his own faults and issues . . .”

But it is something Romney, McCain and none of the other R contenders, with the possible exception of Cruz, would have ever had the guts to do. They’re too busy ducking and covering. Which is why with Trump we have a chance of winning this year. And yes, I’m assuming Trump will have a trajectory going forward not dissimilar from the last R populist to get this far, Ronald Reagan, who was further behind Carter at this point in the election than Trump is behind Hillary.

Read Clyde Wilson’s collected essays on the American populist tradition. One thing comes through loud and clear, if a populist can make it to the ballot the populist usually wins.

She has a Cherokee problem, and how.

Why has no one suggested Warren do a DNA test for heritage? I have as much documentation as Warren: long family tradition that an ancestor was a native American plus a picture of an old woman in a bonnet as proof because she looked like an Indian. I got an Ancestry DNA test as a gift and used it. The results came back with zero indication that I had anything that remotely resembled native American heritage.

Simple test for Warren. Show some genetic evidence.

The problem with Warren’s story about the wish for high cheek bones by her Great Grandmother is that it does not fit society at the turn of the 20th century. The story line would fit our modern society. The whole concept shatters the theme of previous racist white society.

Char Char Binks | March 21, 2016 at 2:41 pm

I’ve never heard of ANYONE from Oklahoma who didn’t claim to have at least SOME Indigian blood. Most of them probably have some, and so what? She may be Muglle-born, but, as Albus Dumbledore says, “You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognise that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!”

I don’t care if Harry Potter is the R ticket. I’m not going to help hitlery win by not voting or putting in some lame 3rd party name as a protest vote.
If 8 years of the crap we’ve had isn’t enough for you then may God have mercy on your soul.

When she was running for the Senate it came out that not only didn’t she have any Cherokee blood one of her ancestors was actually a soldier on the Trail of Tears. Of course this never came close to being covered by the MSM at the time but it could be devastating if Trump brought it out into the mainstream conscious.

buckeyeminuteman | March 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Let’s pretend she’s telling the truth, that she is 1/32 Cherokee. That means she had a great-great-great grandparent who was Cherokee. I have absolutely no idea who my great-great-great grandparents were, nor do I really care. They had no effect or my life or my parents life, there was 32 of them!

With that scandal she won’t ever be able to run for President but could potentially still be a VP candidate like Biden was.

Trump: I’m going to make America great!
Warren: How?
Trump: Oh, sorry. I forgot you no speak-um white man’s tongue.