For the most part, since the Boston Herald broke the story of Elizabeth Warren’s fraudulent claim that she is a Native-American–despite her family folklore or grandfather’s high cheekbones–the Boston Globe has been virtually silent on the issue. With the exception of trying to offer proof–in an article the paper eventually was forced to correct–of Elizabeth Warren’s claim the Globe just didn’t think this story was newsworthy, but that changed on Friday when the Boston Globe could no longer ignore this controversy if the paper still wanted to be considered a legitimate news source.
Here is what the Boston Globe had to say when it finally decided to report on this story:
US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.
But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.
In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.
The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American
None of this is news of course to anyone who reads anything but the Boston Globe because this has become a national story and Elizabeth Warren has become a laughing stalk around the country, but it has finally reached the point where the Boston Globe can no longer defend Elizabeth Warren or ignore the story. The paper has been dragged kicking and screaming into covering this story, and must feel as if it can no longer shield Elizabeth Warren from the criticism–better late than never.
Elizabeth Warren probably knew that the Harvard Journal had her listed as a ‘woman of color’ in an article in 1993
Elizabeth Warren has admitted to listing herself as a Native-American minority in law school directories in order to–she claims–meet other people who were like her while stating she had no idea Harvard Law was using her hiring as an example of the university’s racial and gender diversity. She has gone so far as to claim she had no idea where the school got the notion she was a minority when the Harvard Journal published an article entitled “Women of Color in Legal Academia: A Biographic and Bibliographic Guide.”
It turns out that this might not be entirely true because the Harvard Journal most likely got this information from Elizabeth Warren herself. There is little doubt that the university initially got the information from the law directories, but that wasn’t enough proof for the Harvard Journal when it was researching the above mentioned article so they sought additional information from the sources themselves.
Once the initial compilation of biographical and bibliographical material was completed, we attempted to verify our data by sending each of the more than 250 women listed a facsimile of the information pertaining to her. Approximately sixty-five percent of the women responded. We were pleased that several women helped to improve our list by putting us in touch with their colleagues whose names did not appear in the AALS [Association of American Law Schools] directory.
In a final verification effort, we attempted to telephone those women who failed to respond to our initial inquiry to clear up discrepancies in our data. We should also note that because we thought it important to allow each woman to decide whether to be included under the rubric of “women of color currently teaching law,” those who so requested were deleted from this guide. [emphasis added by the Breitbart article linked to above]
The university attempted to reach all of those who were listed as minorities before the article was published and those who did not respond to the facsimile were contacted by phone. If a person requested to be removed from the guide they were removed so it seems quite likely that Elizabeth Warren did not object to being listed as a minority in this article.
There is still the possibility that Elizabeth Warren was never reached by the school for verification but it seems highly unlikely the school would have used her name without verification after the lengths the school went to in order to verify the names in the first place.
And just for the record, this is the second instance of a university calling Elizabeth Warren a ‘woman of color’ because Fordham University also described her this way in an article written in 1997. Yet we are to believe she knew none of this was going on until the Boston Herald broke the story four weeks ago.
While the effort to recall Scott Walker in Wisconsin is most directly a state issue there are possible ramifications which could indirectly affect the whole nation in November. I am of the belief that if Scott Walker loses in the recall election for making the changes which actually turned his state around it will be a signal to the nation that the people simply are not ready to accept the tough decisions which must be made if we are to avoid a total collapse of the economy, and I expect this to carry over into the election in November.
If Scott Walker fends off this recall bid it will send a signal to Washington that the people are finally getting serious about stopping the out of control spending the government has used for so long to bribe many people for their votes, and this will also carry over into November. Apparently I am not alone in my thinking as the Obama campaign is now focusing on the recall effort as well.
December 11th, 2011 is a day which ushered in a new era in America, it is a day when America saw changes the likes of which we haven’t seen since George W Bush signed the PATRIOT Act, and this change wasn’t for the better. Many Americans probably don’t know what happened on that day, but this was the first time an unmanned drone was used to hunt down an American citizen on American soil and it happened in North Dakota.
At that time I admitted that this seemed like a legitimate use of an unmanned drone but lamented about the possibility of drones flying over cities all across America in the future, as well as the possibility that unmanned drones would start to play a larger role in policing the people with growing authority:
This story might be a benign example of the usage of a Predator drone on American soil, using a drone on a reconnaissance mission to ensure a situation is safe before the police enter a potentially dangerous situation seems harmless enough, but does anyone not think that their usage will become more commonplace as we move forward if we simply accept this? And as Predator drones flying over American soil becomes more commonplace are we to believe that they will not gain the authority to take more enlarged powers in law enforcement
Around that same period of time the Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which contained language which deemed the United States a battleground on the war on terror and gave the government the right to further infringe (more on that later) on our fourth amendment rights by allowing it to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge, and without a search warrant. This bill passed in a bipartisan effort with a Republican majority in the House and signed by Barack Obama into law; it is also supported by Mitt Romney, so if you think he will be all that much different than Barack Obama you had better think again.
When Barack Obama is forced to defend his decision to loan Solyndra $500 million of taxpayer stimulus money shortly before the company went bankrupt he claims this was just one bad apple but the overall green energy initiative portfolio remains healthy, and the media willingly plays along. But the truth is that Solyndra is just the first and most prominent example of Barack Obama’s failed green energy initiatives but there are many, many more examples; Solar Trust, SoloPower, Abound Solar, Enir1, BrightSource, Abengoa, SunPower, LightSquared, Tesla, Fisker, and Beacon Power to name a few. Barack Obama is downplaying the full magnitude of his failed policies when he states that Solyndra is just one bad investment.
Besides being “green” these companies all have one other thing in common–ties to Barack Obama, the Democrat party, and fundraising, and now there is yet another example of the nature of the quid pro quo crony capitalistic aspect of the green energy initiatives being carried out by the Obama regime. Read more…
It is no secret that Barack Obama feels as if Mitt Romney’s experience while at Bain Capital is fair game in the upcoming election and he intends to make it a campaign issue. Because Mitt Romney touts this experience as proof he is a job creator I happen to feel as if this is fair game, but that doesn’t mean the Obama campaign can be untruthful about Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital. However, up until this time Barack Obama hasn’t been entirely truthful about Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital or the role one of his major bundlers has played in Bain Capital.
First the Obama campaign ran a heartwrenching ad about a steel company–GST Steel–that Bain Capital purchased and eventually was forced to close. The ad mentions how influential Mitt Romney was in the decision yet fails to mention that while he left the company a full two years before the closure a Barack Obama bundler–Jonathan Lavine–was sitting on the Board of Directors when the factory closed and likely played a prominent role in the closure. The ad was deceptive at best and disingenuous at worst, and now the Obama campaign is at it once again.
In an effort to toxify Mitt Romney the Washington Post reported a story about Mitt Romney beating up another boy when he was a teenager some fifty years ago (as if teenage boys acting stupidly was all that noteworthy) but that wasn’t enough to discredit Mitt Romney as a man so the Washington Post struck again. This time the paper went back a little bit further–one hundred and fifty years or so–in an attempt to cast dispersions on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. This article was disguised as a discussion piece on whether or not his faith would hurt Mitt Romney, when in reality the piece was written to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of voters about the Mormon church.
And now the Los Angeles Times has joined the fray in an attempt to paint Ann Romney (and Mitt by proxy) as an elitist who is out of touch with the average American voter with an article entitled “Ann Romney and dressage: A pricey private world.” The article appears to be somewhat sympathetic to the would be First Lady but continually throws around the costs of her horses and upkeep of those horses while taking about the “pricy”and “rarified” sport of dressage. Much like the Washington Post piece on the Mormon church in 1857 the intent here is clear. In this case they are trying to show how the Romney’s simply are not regular Americans but rather part of the 1%.
Ann Romney feels as if the sport of dressage helps her to deal with her debilitating disease because it has helped her to gain strength back which she has lost over the years. Read more…
A couple of weeks ago the Washington post ran a hit piece about a bullying incident which supposedly occurred in Mitt Romney’s past, when he was a teenager–a piece the paper was forced to edit because there was false reporting contained within–and today the paper is at it again. Not content with going back 50 years in time to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney the paper has now gone back 155 years to bring up stories on the history of the Mormon church, which it feels might hurt Mitt Romney’s candidacy.
The paper recounts the Mountain Meadows Massacre from 1857 and then delves into the question of whether or not this will be a stain on Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. Of course in doing so they bring to light a sad chapter of the Mormon faith that many people don’t know about in an attempt to cast doubt on Mitt Romney due to his faith. The title of the article–Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith tangles with a quirk of Arkansas history–tells us everything we need to know about the intent of the paper.
Mitt Romney addressed this massacre the last time he ran for president: Read more…
Gunrunner: John Boehner sends Eric Holder a letter demanding answers on Fast and Furious
John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Darrell Issa have sent a letter to Eric Holder demanding answers to the questions of who planned the deadly Fast and Furious operation and did the Department of Injustice intentionally mislead the Congress while under oath?
“[T]wo key questions remain unanswered: first, who on your leadership team was informed of the reckless tactics used in Fast & Furious prior to Agent Terry’s murder; and, second, did your leadership team mislead or misinform Congress in response to a Congressional subpoena?” they asked Holder.
Eric Holder has not fully cooperated with the investigation, if he has not answered the questions after a year of investigation he is not going to answer the questions now. The time for talk is over, the time for action is now! We have seen this before, Darrell Issa and Charles Grassley threaten Eric Holder with Contempt of Congress but back down when Eric Holder misses the stated deadline in order to give him one more chance to comply willingly. We have seen how well that has worked so it won’t be surprising if Eric Holder doesn’t take this latest threat seriously. What good does it do to draw a line in the sand if you are immediately going to erase that line and draw a new one further down on the beach?
The Obama campaign responds to the story about Obama’s bio which states he was born in Kenya, sort of
Earlier today an extension of the Obama campaign, Attack Watch, responded to the story about Barack Obama’s literary agency bio which stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. In its response Attack Watch reiterated Acton & Dystel’s official story that this was simply a “fact checking error,” and also cited the New York Times and other media outlets previous stories on Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth as proof that the president was indeed born in Hawaii.
According to Attack Watch the mainstream media has already reported that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii therefore it must be true and it can no longer be questioned, and because Acton & Dystel already admitted to a fact checking error the story should be dropped. To all of us who do not trust the main stream media in the first place this is not considered to be a very reliable defense.
But here is the rub with this defense: while Attack Watch claims this is another false attack on the president’s history Breitbart has never claimed that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and in fact as the conservative website continues to report on this issue it goes out of its way to state their belief that the president was born in Hawaii and the bio contained an error. Barack Obama’s birthplace has never been in question with Breitbart so Attack Watch is responding to a question not yet asked by the website without ever answering the real question at hand: Read more…
America's Watchtower 