Elizabeth Warren, Democratic Senatorial candidate in Massachusetts, made news last week when it was discovered that she checked the "Native American" box as a way to identify herself for the Harvard legal directory. The ensuing reports made a mockery of her claim. She defended herself by saying that despite her being only 1/32 American Indian, high cheekbones ran in the family.
Now, Ms. Warren has an entirely new set of problems. Not only do her claims appear to be bogus but her great-great-great grandfather allegedly 'rounded up' Cherokee Indians.
For over a quarter of a century, Elizabeth Warren has described herself as a Native American. When recently asked to provide evidence of her ancestry, she pointed to an unsubstantiated claim on an 1894 Oklahoma Territory marriage license application by her great-great grand uncle William J. Crawford that his mother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford, Ms. Warren's great-great-great grandmother, was a Cherokee.
After researching her story, it is obvious that her "family lore" is just fiction.
As I pointed out in my article here on Sunday, no evidence supports this claim. O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford had no Cherokee heritage, was listed as "white" in the Census of 1860, and was most likely half Swedish and half English, Scottish, or German, or some combination thereof. (Note, the actual 1894 marriage license makes no claim of Cherokee ancestry.)
But the most stunning discovery about the life of O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford is that her husband, Ms. Warren's great-great-great grandfather, was apparently a member of the Tennessee Militia who rounded up Cherokees from their family homes in the Southeastern United States and herded them into government-built stockades in what was then called Ross’s Landing (now Chattanooga), Tennessee—the point of origin for the horrific Trail of Tears, which began in January, 1837.
Where's Al Sharpton when you need him? Shouldn't he be calling for Warren to pay reparations to the American Indians?
When Republican officials commit wrongs or are otherwise caught with their hands in the cookie jar, their party inevitably abandons them, sometimes to a fault. The Democrats are exactly the opposite; they stood by Bill Clinton during his impeachment - in both the House and the Senate. That's what makes this seemingly minor development more than just a little interesting.
Attorney General Eric Holder has a defector in his midst. A Democratic congressman has come forward to say Holder should honor the subpoena issued to him by Oversight Committee Chairman, Darrell Issa.
Indiana Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that he supports the House oversight committee’s efforts to enforce the congressional subpoena of Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious.
“One of the duties of Congress is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch,” Donnelly told TheDC. “There has been a serious allegation of federal law enforcement misconduct and we need to get to the bottom of this issue without playing partisan politics.”
Holder has demonstrably failed to comply with the congressional subpoena House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa served him on Oct. 12, 2011. Holder has failed to comply with all 22 categories of the subpoena that demands he provide documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. With 13 of the categories, Holder has provided no documents whatsoever. When it comes to the other nine subpoena categories, Holder is still far from compliant, as TheDC reported late last week.
Those who are unwilling to imagine a scenario under which something could come of all this because the Democrats control the Senate, fail to factor in things like what Donnelly is doing.
Yes, it's true that Issa's contempt citation for Holder would be issued to Holder's subordinate. Yes, it's true that even if Holder were to be impeached, the Senate is controlled by Democrats. And yes, it's true that Holder and Obama are close friends.
None of those things will matter if the dam breaks. The loss of one Democratic congressman is not insignificant.
I'm cross-posting this from Shoebat.com because this is Glenn Beck at his best.
This is a very compelling video from Glenn Beck. In it, he references a trip he took to the Vatican and discussions he had with Cardinals. According to Beck, those Cardinals understand that the world is moving toward a spiritual war between good and evil and that the Pope has appointed six very socially conservative Cardinals who “get it.”
Walid has long been making the case that the anti-Christ will not be European but Muslim. Adherents to the European anti-Christ model inevitably include the Catholic Church in their calculations but if Beck is right here, the Pope is actually choosing to fight evil. Though Beck doesn’t talk about Islam in this segment, the implication is that the Catholic church is under assault for a reason and it’s not being attacked by forces for good but of evil. After all, it’s currently fighting against things like abortion, which is the murder of the unborn, among the most evil of earthly acts.
Are we to believe that anti-Christ will fight itself?
Beck also references Ephesians 6. Here are verses 10-20 of that chapter, which seem to be the ones Beck is referring to specifically:
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[c] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
This story is outrageous on so many levels. Two newspaper reporters - one male and one female - for the Virginian-Pilot were assaulted and beaten when they got out of their car after it had been hit with a brick three weeks ago. Despite what appears to be an obvious hate crime - or at least racially motivated - virtually no one wants to touch the story, not even the editor of the paper, Denis Finley.
I said "virtually" because fortunately, Fox's Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Watters are willing to cover it. In the news report below, Watters actually confronts Finley, whose responses are quite lame. At one point, Finley makes the claim that he doesn't know that the attack was a hate crime or the result of a black mob. O'Reilly is incredulous at this because, as he points out, it's a newspaper's job to find these things out.
The police appear to have mishandled this case as well, so much so that the assault victims are pressing charges against them. The Attorney General for Virginia - Ken Cuccinelli - has publicly stated he will not intervene or call for the release of the 911 recordings. Cuccinelli, as some might remember, is one of the state Attorneys General who has been at the tip of the spear with respect to the Obamacare lawsuits across the country.
**UPDATE** I sent the following e-mail to Mr. Finley:
Sir,
If there's even a modicum of truth to the story that appeared on the O'Reilly Factor last night, you are both unwilling to stand by your own reporters AND unwilling to doggedly pursue the truth about what happened to them.
Those things are at the very core of an editor's responsibility. It makes one wonder why you're in the journalism business at all.
It'd be like someone with acrophobia choosing to be an airline pilot.
Do what's right, Denis.
Conquer your fear of flying or get off the plane.
I received the following response:
It was totally mischaracterized, Mr. Barrack. Not even close.
I appreciate your note.
Denis Finley
That prompted me to hit "reply" and send this:
Denis,
Five black males attacked YOUR non-black employees and you call it a "street altercation" instead of a "black mob."
Instead of an "assault," you call it a "fight." If it was a fight, were either of your reporters cited by police? If not, why was a black teen the only one arrested? Isn't that a racially biased act on the part of the police if it was a "fight" and not an "assault"?
Perhaps you should report it that way (if it's the truth).
Instead of saying your reporter was "attacked," you say she was "involved."
Instead of saying your reporters were "assaulted by several blacks," you refer to them as a "handful of people" who were "involved in the fight."
Then you say, "there's no way for me to know if it was racially motivated." What have you done to determine that? Would you say the same thing if five white males attacked a black couple?
With all due respect, you might see O'Reilly's story as a "mischaracterization" but your answers to Mr. Watters' questions appear to be those of someone who is rationalizing uncomfortable truths.
Just curious, are you pro-life, pro-infanticide or.... pro-choice?
This is what I got back from that:
Thanks for the note.
Yes, I know she was attacked. I don't know right now if the attack was racial. Every time a black person attacks a white person or a white person attacks a black it is not necessarily racial. I can't report assumptions.
If we determine it was racially motivated, we will report that.
Thank you.
Denis Finley
I have a note into Mr. Finley, asking him what the reporters said about their attackers? Did the assailants say anything that might help us find out if is was racially motivated?
**UPDATE** Mr. Finley has responded that his paper asked both reporters if the assailants said anything racial. According to him, they said there was "nothing racial" and that "no epithets or slurs were spoken." When I asked him if he told Jesse Watters that, he said:
I told him (Watters) a lot of things that were left out.
He then said:
I did not watch, but I asked those who did if he included that I said I have been critical of the rush to judgment in the Trayvon Martin case, yet I am being asked to do the same thing in this case. Apparently, he did not.
I also said that in hindsight I think we could have done a story, but (and this was cut off), it would have been very short and inside our local section, which I doubt would have appeased our critics, although I don't want to assume.
