Okay! I'll take the challenge. I recommend the video, because it's acted out amusingly, very entertaining:
But here's the text, because Trump did say "you better read that again." And reading is great for the kind of textualism that any lawsuit to enforce a contract would have to focus on:
But let's say I'm debating Pocahontas. I promise you I'll do this: I will take, you know those little kits they sell on television... learn your heritage!... And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she is of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheek bones. That;s her only evidence, her mother said we have high cheek bones.All right, the conditions for accepting the offer by taking the test have not yet arisen. There has been no debate and certainly no proclaiming of Indian heritage in the middle of a debate. I don't think Elizabeth Warren would ever make the relevant proclamation. But she certainly hasn't done it yet.
We will take that little kit -- but we have to do it gently. Because we're in the #MeToo generation, we have to be very gentle. And we will very gently take that kit, and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't hit her and injure her arm, even though it only weighs 2 ounces, and we will say: I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian.So the test to be taken is the one that Trump would toss to Warren in the middle of a debate. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, and who thinks it ever would happen? Trump isn't going to throw something at Warren during a debate, even gently. It's a comical scenario, and we don't even need to argue with people who might say he really meant it, because it's plainly true that Trump has not yet tossed a DNA test kit at Warren during a presidential debate. She has not taken that test, and that's the only test he spoke of, and it's all purely hypothetical. There's no offer to accept, and what Warren did wasn't what Trump was talking about.
But if somehow a court would say that the test she did (allegedly) take is good enough, there would still be the question whether the result "shows [she's] an Indian." I don't think it does, but can you imagine Warren bringing a lawsuit and trying to convince a court that a DNA test indicating 1/32nd or only 1/1,024th Native American genes "shows you're an Indian"? I think it would be worth it to Trump to pay the $1 million to get her to do that.
Posts
467 comments:
1 – 200 of 467 Newer› Newest»Poor Elizabeth. She was born with a silver moccasin in her mouth!
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity."
Charity.
He should have said "I will give YOUR favorite charity a million dollars." That is what he meant anyway. What is her favorite charity? Probably something that helps leftists.
He should donate a million to Americans United for Life in Warren's name.
My father married a pure Cherokee
My mother's people were ashamed of me
The Indians said I was white by law
The White Man always called me "Indian Squaw"Half-breed, that's all I ever heard
Half-breed, how I learned to hate the word
Half-breed, she's no good they warned
Both sides were against me since the day I was born
We never settled, went from town to town
When you're not welcome you don't hang around
The other children always laughed at me "Give her a feather, she's a Cherokee"
Cher, "Half-Breed" (1973)
Elizabeth searches for her inner quadroon!!
We’re all Indians now.
If he doesn't toss her the test, he's broken the promise to toss her a test. So she will never take that test and will never pass it. No damages. She hasn't done anything to accept it if he doesn't toss it.
Althouse should have taught contracts. The Perfect Acceptance rule.
Nice job!
Ann said....
I don't think it does, but can you imagine Warren bringing a lawsuit and trying to convince a court that a DNA test indicating 1/32nd or only 1/1,024th Native American genes "shows you're an Indian"?
------
Indeed. And yet that's exactly what's going to do. Talk about white privilege.
I'll repeat my comment from the earlier thread. This is the perfect opportunity for Warren to say, "White man speak with forked tongue."
It's far more likely that Trump will donate a million to a chairity... in her name... that Warren and her allies will find absolutely infuriating (like Unkown suggested @1:26 PM).
"I'll repeat my comment from the earlier thread. This is the perfect opportunity for Warren to say, "White man speak with forked tongue.""
Maybe, they could just bury the hatchet.....
Somebody needs to read the original Boston Globe article which was corrected. The writer made a math mistake and the number was 1/1024 = 0.000976563. That's even less than statistical 'white noise'. Moreover, the morons who tested Warren's DNA (some idiot professor from Stanford) did not even test it against Native Americans but took South American DNA (the word used was "teased" - in other words - garbage).
what a pathetic Trumpian weaselly post by Ann. She also like the cheesy art, and regards the president as an honest man. It's enough to drive a person to root for the Dodgers.
I would let Warren pick the "charity"- it could be illuminating all on its own. But this test is not really "strong evidence" if half of Americans are more Native American than Warren, which would seem to be the case. What kind of minority is that?
Being a donor-conceived adult, I have my DNA up on every major site looking for my genetic relatives. [successfully: I have found a half-brother, two half-sisters, a paternal uncle, and a first cousin] Both 23andme and Ancestry agree that I am 100.0% European without a drop of Native American. This surprised me greatly as I assumed that most Americans have a little native stock grafted onto the vine.
"six to 10 generations ago"
...is too far back. At 6 generations or more you don't necessarily have any DNA from any given ancestor.
A few minutes with Google shows that most tribes require a minimum of one-sixteenth to one quarter Indian ancestry to enroll in the tribe. So Warren is not Indian by tribal rules, which are the only ones that matter.
10/15/18, 1:26 PM
Blogger Unknown said...
He should donate a million to Americans United for Life in Warren's name.
10/15/18, 1:26 PM
Based upon the amount of 'supposed' Cherokee blood that would come out to $9.76 for the charity (1/1024 = 0.000976563) favorite charity? Probably something that helps leftists.
This surprised me greatly as I assumed that most Americans have a little native stock grafted onto the vine.
That's because of their advertising, but Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
"Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 6th to 10th generation relative. The generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests she’s between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American." I can't wait for Trump to start discussing 1/1,024. What a gift.
hstad - I'm not so sure about your math there!
Yeah, it is more comical and stupid stuff from Trump.
But do any of you think that it would be foolish, for Warren to, say, file a lawsuit against Trump to enforce the terms of that earlier trashtalk? If you do think it foolish, then you are not remembering Trump's $5 million lawsuit (withdrawn by Trump after it was savagely ridiculed*) against Bill Maher. That was the "orangutan parentage" lawsuit.
*Haha! I totally forgot that Michael Cohen was representing Trump at that time and Cohen said that the suit was only being temporarily withdrawn, to be refiled again shortly after it was amended.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-withdraws-bill-maher-432675
Some vintage Trump bullshit.
Trump's wife has more Indian blood than Warren since scientist say Europeans have on the average .18 percent Indian blood!
More seriously. on the other thread,
wildswan said...
This professor is central in the field of ancestry detection. He has been on the boards of Ancestry.com and 23andMe. He is closely associated with efforts to link ancestry with disease susceptibility. He is not a supporter of Nicholas (Troublesome Inheritance) Wade and in letter to the NT Review of Books Bustamente and many others accused Wade of misusing data developed by the field of ancestry genetics.
His MA was statistics and his PhD Biology meaning he works on the field of quantitative genetics on the quantitative side. In his report you notice that he had another unnamed person do the actual genetic work and that Bustamente worked with this other unnamed person on the interpretation of results. In other words, the genetic results needed to be interpreted in terms of probability. Warren has a stretch of DNA on chromosome 10 in a variation which is more likely to occur in Indians than in Europeans.
So the challenge is this: Is Bustamente saying that this variation does not appear in Europeans?
Bustamente looked at the DNA of 185 Europeans and found that Warren's chromosome 10 variation differed from all of them. But 185 is not very many.
Or is he saying that the variation is 12X more likely to appear in Native Americans than in European Americans?
But this leaves open the possibility that the variation does appear in European_Americans. Isn't this why Bustamente says "suggests". When you say A is more probable than B, aren't you saying there is a chance that B is true? At about 7:30 pm on Election Night 2016 there was a 70% chance that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election, according to Nate Silver. Others put Hillary's chances higher. Even as they spoke of probability, Florida had voted in reality, and Hillary's chance was nil.
Then there is the fact that the Cherokee and other US tribes have refused to participate in the studies being run by the Stanford geneticists. They and many other Native Americans, including some Aztec and Inca leaders, ask why geneticists have been accorded the right to determine who is and who is not an Indian. As a result, the Stanford studies are all based on those Mexican and Peruvian Native Americans who agreed to participate. All this creates a potential error in probability caused by two "bottlenecks" or "founder effects" First, the group Stanford studied is a self-selected group of South American Native Americans. Second, there is no evidence that the Chromosome 10 variation Elizabeth Warren has is twelve times more likely to appear in Cherokee tribe than in Scotch-Irish Americans.
It's worth studying the kind of probability at issue here, regardless of whether Warren turns out to be part Native American or wholly exploitative politician. The group of experts Bustamente belongs to are working to develop race based medicine with race based solutions. That is why they are working to develop knowledge of ancestries. This kind of medicine could save thousands of lives by enabling quicker diagnosis of which medicines to use or this kind of medicine could become a new and more dreadful version of the Tuskegee syphilis study, refusing saving treatments because of a race-based diagnosis. The fact that Bustamente works at Stanford with Jeremy Freese who is on the Editorial Board of the journal of American eugenics society - Biodemography and Social Biology shows that eugenics is present as the field of ancestry genomics creates itself. One thing needed to prevent the worst outcome is to develop an informed understanding of how ancestry and probability work as the field is defined by Stanford.
10/15/18, 1:03 PM
Warren had her DNA "studied" to prove she's more white than the average white person.
Chuck, no one is going to credit Warren with telling the truth if it is even as high as 1/32nd. This test basically proves Warren's claims were in error all along, and that is me giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know her parent's stories were errors themselves. Sure, I would love to see her file the lawsuit here, but I suspect Trump will one up her by paying her charity about $30,000 beforehand- it would highlight how ridiculous this result was.
It would advance racial relations. Put that 1 drop stuff behind us.
Of course, she never claimed to be an indigenous American, only that she had been told by her family that they (and she) had indigenous American heritage. Turns out they were correct, insofar as they believed it to be true and DNA evidence provides support for their belief. So, she wasn't lying. The only question is not whether their belief in their heritage was honest, but whether it was accurate.
@ Jeff Saved me typing!
Warren is running for president. She's "checking the boxes" now, so to speak to get her lefty bona fides in order.
In addition to the DNA, on her 2017 Mass state income tax return she checked the box to pay the optional higher rate.
Howie Carr reports:
Massachusetts has a marvelous option on its state income tax forms. In order to accommodate the throngs of Social Justice Warriors yearning to virtue-signal, the Legislature 15 years ago gave the trust-funders a chance to literally put their inherited money where their mouths are...
Anyway, after all these years of stiffing the people she claims to care so much about, the fake Indian finally checked the Line 22 box on her 2017 returns, paying at the higher rate on her $956,364 income.
But the question remains, why didn’t she contribute her “fair share” in all the earlier years, dating back to 2008?
If she had paid at the higher, voluntary rate over the past decade, the state would have had another $51,328 to provide for the oppressed victims of the Eurocentric Republican cisgender transphobic plutocracy blah-blah-blah …
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2018/10/howie_carr_elizabeth_warren_s_return_taxes_imagination
"This surprised me greatly as I assumed that most Americans have a little native stock grafted onto the vine."
Why? I assume very few Americans have any trace of indigenous American heritage.
Trump should pay and Warren give it to planned parenthood
Yancey Ward said...
Chuck, no one is going to credit Warren with telling the truth if it is even as high as 1/32nd. This test basically proves Warren's claims were in error all along, and that is me giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know her parent's stories were errors themselves. Sure, I would love to see her file the lawsuit here, but I suspect Trump will one up her by paying her charity about $30,000 beforehand- it would highlight how ridiculous this result was.
The millions of people who hate Trump's guts will love it, and will think Trump all the more foolish for his heavy-handed attack on her. She seems to be proven right on the barest factual assertion that she has some vague family history with Native American ancestry.
Where you and I (and Althouse, and every conservative with a brain) will AGREE, is that Warren never had any freaking business getting any sort of affirmative action consideration in hiring at Harvard. THAT is the story. But once again, Trump's own native stupidity and simplicity has him in a spot that makes it easier for his detractors to attack him, and harder for his defenders to help him. Trump just wanted to make it out that she was a liar. Instead of making the case on the grounds of how silly affirmative action hiring is.
I have a friend from Oklahoma, we met a few years back and caught up. Apparently she qualifies as a member of the Cherokee(?) tribe (1/32? 1/16?) but her children do not. The point is that one can be a few generations removed, but there's a threshold below which one does not qualify and is not considered a member of the tribe. I suppose the point is congratulations, she took the test. The test shows she is less Native American than the average white person. And even then it sounds like the accuracy of the test is in doubt. Plus there's some dispute about the bet itself (which brings us to your post).
Reps do better with more Warren MSM facetime, especially if they can get her into prime scolding form
Robert Cook said...
"This surprised me greatly as I assumed that most Americans have a little native stock grafted onto the vine."
Why? I assume very few Americans have any trace of indigenous American heritage.
I was going to say the same, Robert. In my case, I am going to find out. I have a friend who did some litigation work for Ancestry.com, and who in the process was given some kits for family and friends to try out to get familiar with the company. I have one of the kits, and I am looking forward to doing it.
Trump should give Lieawatha's charity $976.56 -- 1/1024th of a million bucks! Lulz
FullMoon said...
...regardless of whether Warren turns out to be part Native American or wholly exploitative politician.
That Venn diagram is not disjoint.
"Chuck, no one is going to credit Warren with telling the truth if it is even as high as 1/32nd. This test basically proves Warren's claims were in error all along, and that is me giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know her parent's stories were errors themselves."
I credit her with telling truth. She was simply repeating what her family had told her, and she accepted it. Would you discount your parents' accounts to you of your ancestry? Would you feel compelled to reject what they told you until it had been confirmed by DNA testing?
Remember, DNA testing is very recent, so who knows how many people believe they have this or that ancestry simply on the basis of family accounts? (Probably most who bother to inquire.) How many of those people are wrong in their beliefs? Whatever the percentage, it doesn't mean they are lying, simply that they are mistaken.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"....Of course, she never claimed to be an indigenous American......"
What a disingenuous post! You mean when she was at Harvard and U. of Penn., the tooth fairy did her bona fides and claimed native american heritage. Sounds like a Liberal to me.
"And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she is of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheek bones. That;s her only evidence, her mother said we have high cheek bones."
Courtesy of our paternal grandmother, one of my cousins has high cheekbones. She worked one summer at Crater Lake National Park. One of the park visitors, noting my cousin's high cheekbones, asked her if she had Indian ancestry. My cousin replied that she was the great-granddaughter of Cochise. My cousin said so jokingly, but the questioner probably took her seriously. In later genealogical investigations, we found out that we had a Shawnee ancestor, which would have meant we had -IIRC- 1/512 Indian ancestry.
My two maternal aunts -by marriage- were 1/8 Indian. You could see their Indian/Native American ancestry in their facial features. But you could see something similar in my 1/512 Indian paternal cousin.
Both maternal aunts, in addition to being wives and mothers, had successful careers. Neither derived any financial or professional benefit from their ancestry- which is the complaint about Elizabeth Warren. When Harvard proclaimed that it had a Native American named Lizzie Warren on its law faculty, it is rather hard to deny that Warren gained some advantage from her then alleged Native American ancestry.
Given the two hundred plus years of the existence of the frontier, most who can trace their European ancestry to having arrived here before 1800 probably have some Indian/Native American ancestry.
The 1/32 figure has already been debunked in the other thread. The top end of her range of 6 to 10 generations is 1/2^6 = 1/64. Judge Napolitano was saying this morning that 1/32 is some sort of legal dividing line (for benefits, maybe?), so she finished out of the money.
No soup for you.
Klavan says Warren should go by her native American name, Walks like a Duck.
Althouse, As I said in the previous thread, it's as much as 1/64, not 1/32.
most Americans have a little native stock grafted onto the vine.
Maybe not "most," as so many come from European immigrants who by and large married other European immigrants. But anyone who's more than a 3rd-generation American or who has some Central or South American ancestry likely has as much or more than Lizzie. That's got to be a pretty substantial group.
She didn't take a standard off-the-shelf test from 23andMe or Ancestry or other reputable DNA testing company. She allegedly took some sort of private test evaluated by someone who is probably politically aligned with her, based on unverified techniques. If she were to be tested by Ancestry and it would find her 1/1024 Native American, it wouldn't even show up. Anything below 2% or so is considered noise, unverifiable.
Why? I assume very few Americans have any trace of indigenous American heritage.
I guess because when you grow up on the west coast as I did and everyone's great-grandparents were pioneers, it's part of your received wisdom that interacting with the natives is part of your family's fairly immediate cultural history.
My great grandparents' marriage license, for example, was #000004 issued in the newly-organized county they married in, which was named for a still living Indian chief.
I never stopped to give it any serious thought, but I suppose you don't think that way if you're from back East and the natives have all been dead and gone for hundreds of years.
Ha! The modern-day "Carbolic Smoke Ball"!
Besides, this is all such bullshit, anyway. My husband looks like your classic stereotypical Irish bartender ~ curly hair, rosy cheeks, lively green eyes ~ and we have a classic Irish last name, along the lines of Kennedy or O'Donnell. As everyone knows the Irish were treated like shit by the English for a thousand years until they came here where they were treated like shit by American-English for a hundred years. No one cares anymore and no one tries to right that historical wrong and no one is handing out goodies to my little rosy-cheeked Irish-surnamed kids. As they shouldn't.
Trump wins bigly if he pays the $1M -- and notes that Warren is by the test's own admission at most 1% Native American. And on this she bases her claims to an underrepresented class.
Get it out there that she cheats on things. Hammer it home.
Right now I see the claim in the Democratic Media that this 'proves' she has Native American heritage. I suppose it does. But this is a losing tactic for Democrats, because to have a G-G-G-G-G-G-G-Grandparent to be Native American, and to base your entire heritage claim on that? Well, that stinks, and every American will understand that.
Robert Cook said...
"Chuck, no one is going to credit Warren with telling the truth if it is even as high as 1/32nd. This test basically proves Warren's claims were in error all along, and that is me giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know her parent's stories were errors themselves."
I credit her with telling truth. She was simply repeating what her family had told her, and she accepted it. Would you discount your parents' accounts to you of your ancestry? Would you feel compelled to reject what they told you until it had been confirmed by DNA testing?
Cook demonstrates how destructive and pathetic affirmative action is.
Leftists cannot survive without some sort of government spoils system.
I credit her with telling truth.
Democrats long ago defined the "one drop" standard for membership in the "Negro" race (which appears now to be the acceptable term for African Americans according to CNN talking heads and their ilk). I guess Warren and her family were simply following Democrat tradition, applying the "one drop" standard to membership in the Native American race.
That seems logical.
That really reduces qualifications for teaching jobs at Harvard, though.
I have a friend here in Texas who is 100% Native American (1/2 Navajo and 1/2 Cherokee) and whose family still lives on a Navajo reservation in Arizona. She laughingly says that when white people learn about her ethnic background, nearly every one claims to have a Cherokee great-grandmother.
The most interesting thing about this little news snippet is that it pretty much confirms that Elizabeth Warren has ambitions for a 2020 presidential run. The Pocahontas schtick was and probably still is a problem, not because of the claim of American Indian ancenstry itself, but because it has the appearance of a White woman exploiting affirmative action designed for minority groups. Harvard did list her as a professor of color, noting her Native American ancestry.
I think her taking this test was a silly move on her part. She should have just stuck with the family lore thing. Now she has her own witness saying, she is at best 1/64th American Indian and at worst 1/1024th. Frankly when you get beyond 1/4 or 1/8th you are are already in the silly range.
For what it is worth I think that Rachel Dolezal is blacker than Elizabeth Warren is Native American. This has also reminded me of this scene from Blazing Saddles.
Blazing Saddles
Indian identity should be whatever the tribes say it is, and the Cherokee have two tests (I think there's a split-off tribe), and neither is less than 1/16. So she's not an
Indian.
Trump must pay her $100,000,000 for slander, and punitive damages. He must pay Hillary $1,000,000,000 for Putin's damage to the country - only 1/1024th of the actual damage to the country. He belongs on the "reservation" to face tribal justice for Income Tax evasion, fraud, and conspiracy. His golf courses must be returned to indigenous people who were uprooted, and displaced. Trump wants to deport Native American's to the shithole country they came from, but he can't name the country - it's to the North of shitty Puerto Rico, and to the South of Justin Trudeau's house.
If she runs this is all anyone will be talking about. Fatal political move.
”Frankly when you get beyond 1/4 or 1/8th you are are already in the silly range.”
Well, she is a member of the Silly Party*.
*Classical reference.
What to do when you don't want to check a box?
http://missliberty.com/how-jack-became-black-film-review/
@Crack - also for your collection.
The contemporary standard for diversity is self-identification i.e. #SelectiveJudgment: 1/1024 or zero. Unless you're Asian, then you have exceeded your quota, and claims to diversity will have progressive returns.
Diversity a.k.a. "identity politics" -- denial of individual dignity and racism under a semantic play.
Interesting (long) post here about accuracy and limitations of this type of testing. Sharing as the science behind this, the statistics involved, and interpretation seem to be even less assured than what is being claimed in this instance. Link:
Ethnicity Testing
"If she runs this is all anyone will be talking about. Fatal political move."
Indubitably. She blinked -- he won.
He should give her 1/1024 of $1M.
Of course, she never claimed to be an indigenous American ...
So, she just checked the box for kicks and grins?
Someday, you people will stop trying to defend the indefensible. Apparently, today is not that day.
A snip from the article I linked previously. This was written in 2015 so technology may have improved.
"Ethnicity tests are unreliable in consistently detecting minority admixture. Minority in this context means a small amount, generally less than 5%. It does not refer to any specific ethnicity. Having said that, there are very few reference data base entries for Native American populations. Most are from from Canada and South America.
In the context of ethnicity, what does unreliable mean?
Unreliable means that the results are not consistent and often not reproducible across platforms, especially in terms of minority admixture. For example, a German/Hungarian family member shows Native American admixture at low percentages, around 3%, at some, but not all, vendors. His European family history does not reflect Native heritage and in fact, precludes it. However, his results likely reflect Native American from a common underlying ancestral population, the Yamnaya, between the Asian people who settled Hungary and parts of Germany and also contributed to the Native American population."
"She was simply repeating what her family had told her, and she accepted it. Would you discount your parents' accounts to you of your ancestry?"
When no relative I know is actually Indian, and none of the ancestors actually identified by my parents is actually Indian, of course I would "discount" parental accounts as family lore. As an honest person, I would shudder at the thought of exploiting mere family lore for professional advantage by claiming minority status.
Of course, I do not believe that Warren believed she was in any sense "Cherokee," nor do I believe that she would consider someone 1/512th black, black for the purpose of being treated as black for affirmative action advantage. In other words, she is a liar acting in bad faith. Not that we needed a DNA test to establish that fact.
donate a million to Americans United for Life in Warren's name
Perfect. A civil and human rights organization that recognizes individual dignity and intrinsic value, in the face of progressives' diversity and selective-child ethics.
But once again, Trump's own native stupidity and simplicity has him in a spot that makes it easier for his detractors to attack him, and harder for his defenders to help him.
Think rope-a-dope, Chuck.
It worked for Ali against a heavily favored Foreman.
It is working for Trump.
Fake News Indian: I'm an Indian.
Trump: Prove it.
Fake News Indian: How!
Probably anyone whose ancestors were on the North American continent long enough can find some scintilla of Amerindian blood if you go back far enough. Mine came over from England in the early 19th Century, and we're supposed to have some very, very, VERY distant Amerindian kinfolk somewhere in the family tree. Yet somehow it would never occur to me to call myself "Native American" or evem "Part Native American."
But then, with Fauxcahontas, you're dealing with someone whose political philosophy is essentially legalized pocket-picking; so how trustworthy would you expact her to be? After all, "there is no truth but socialist truth"--right, comrades?
So does this make Elizabeth Warren as white as ivory soap — i.e., ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent pure?
"As everyone knows the Irish were treated like shit by the English for a thousand years until they came here where they were treated like shit by American-English for a hundred years."
I wonder why that was?
Robert Cook said...
"Chuck, no one is going to credit Warren with telling the truth if it is even as high as 1/32nd. This test basically proves Warren's claims were in error all along, and that is me giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know her parent's stories were errors themselves."
I credit her with telling truth. She was simply repeating what her family had told her, and she accepted it. Would you discount your parents' accounts to you of your ancestry? Would you feel compelled to reject what they told you until it had been confirmed by DNA testing?
Remember, DNA testing is very recent, so who knows how many people believe they have this or that ancestry simply on the basis of family accounts? (Probably most who bother to inquire.) How many of those people are wrong in their beliefs? Whatever the percentage, it doesn't mean they are lying, simply that they are mistaken.
That is all true. I don't need to fight that one out with you.
I also don't need to fight with the Trump fans here, that Warren's apparent affirmative action status at Harvard is and was a joke. A disgrace to her, to Harvard and to the whole national AA scheming.
My position is the middle one; there may indeed by proof of some tiny Native American DNA. But a tiny, distant, nearly-incomprehensible component of DNA ought to have no bearing on a Harvard faculty hiring. Again, I think that Althouse and I are in complete agreement on this one.
And what is Trump doing? He is bludgeoning his way through a divisive fight that seems to be primarily motivated by that very divisiveness. Trump is aiming to thrill his base, as he aims to piss off the opposition. Getting as many stupid people as possible to fight with each other.
I'm not playin' that one.
> She was simply repeating what her family had told her, and she accepted it.
Where did you hear this?
Isnt it true that she might have less Native in her than your average white person?
Apparently she qualifies as a member of the Cherokee(?) tribe (1/32? 1/16?) but her children do not.
A caller to Rush today pointed out that you had to enroll in the tribe and the minimum was 1/16.
Cookie is just being honest about his support for affirmative action for Obama's kids to get into Harvard as "black."
trumpit is, of course, hoping for affirmative action for psychotics.
And what is Trump doing? He is bludgeoning his way through a divisive fight that seems to be primarily motivated by that very divisiveness.
As opposed to Romney who ran up the white flag at the first sign of opposition.
My European brother in law did the 23andMe test and came back as 0.1% Native American. My wife's test came back with the same amount of Yakut DNA. The lesson I've learned is that classifying DNA is tricky business, and depending on the test the same DNA can be classified a number of different ways.
What's 1/1024 of a million? He should donate that.
And what is Trump doing? He is bludgeoning his way through a divisive fight that seems to be primarily motivated by that very divisiveness. Trump is aiming to thrill his base, as he aims to piss off the opposition. Getting as many stupid people as possible to fight with each other.
I actually think the primary motivation for Trump to do this is to preemptively attack a possible democratic presidential candidate before the 2020 election. Donald Trump has that rare and frustrating quality where most negatives about him don't affect his support or him politically. He really does have a Teflon quality. We saw that in the Republican primaries and in the general election against Hillary. If he can get Warren involved in a negative back and forth it will only hurt her chances.
There is no such thing as race. Anyone who believes they are a Native American is a Native American. One should clarify with Senator Warren whether or not she subscribes to the hateful, white supremacist notion that race is a biological reality.
Harvard Law School listed Lieawatha as the school’s “first woman of color". They misspelled "pallor".
trumpit
Perhaps Hillary should pay US back, for her criminality with the Russians.
The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.
Think that was just a coincidence? As former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy points out, the Uranium One deal is not a national security scandal, it is a corruption scandal involving "Clinton family self-dealing." Ask yourself: How many half-a-million-dollar speeches has Bill Clinton given to Kremlin-linked banks since Hillary Clinton was defeated? How much Russian money is flowing into the Clinton Foundation's coffers today? If Donald Trump had given a $500,000 speech paid for by a Kremlin bank, and his private foundation had accepted $145 million from Vladimir Putin-linked oligarchs and their Western business partners, do you think that his critics would be insisting there was nothing to see here?
Linky
Donald Trump may be had, but it is not going to be by anybody going in thinking he is smarter than The Donald.
The real issue is that she got jobs by "checking the block." Particularly, she got a job on the Harvard Law faculty when she wouldn't have qualified based on her academic credentials. She profited by claiming something that wasn't true. Plus, (just as an aside) no assistant professor at Harvard makes $365,000 one year and $435,000 the next to teach one class. Harvard essentially funded her senate campaign, while doing an end-run around the Campaign Contribution laws, by calling it salary.
Chuck said...
And what is Trump doing? He is bludgeoning his way through a divisive fight that seems to be primarily motivated by that very divisiveness. Trump is aiming to thrill his base, as he aims to piss off the opposition. Getting as many stupid people as possible to fight with each other.
I'm not playin' that one.
We know. It makes Chuck mad that we finally have a leader that is willing to fight for us.
But what really makes Chuck mad is that we will fight him and his democrat friends with Trump.
The uniparty, both republicans and democrats, will never forgive americans for electing Trump.
You can hang around Chuck. Pretend to be one of us when it suits you. But we know you will betray us if you get the chance.
The next congress wont have a rather large number of uniparty traitors. Flake, Corker, Ryan, McCain etc. I love that they all started jumping ship when everyone in DC bought into the Blue Wave garbage. Record numbers of republican lifers all gone.
Bye Felicia.
Razib Khan's twitter feed is essential reading today.
From Warren's DNA Report
“the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
By this standard, I've had sex with many Chrerokee women, perhaps even a few Eskimos.
J. Farmer,
"One should clarify with Senator Warren whether or not she subscribes to the hateful, white supremacist notion that race is a biological reality."
I want to applaud, but how can it not be true when biological traits are used to define certain races? I know people who have been treated appallingly for literally skin-deep surface traits. That I find this moronic and infuriating doesn't change that reality.
I just don't buy that Sen. Warren has suffered societal injustice on account of her high cheekbones, or that it never occurred to her in listing herself as Native American that this might confer an incremental professional advantage.
Things I learn by reading comments first instead of posting from ignorance. Referenced Native American is Mexican and Peruvian, not USA Indian.Out on a limb, Ima guess some Spaniard conquistador in there.
Via wildswan, above.
"Then there is the fact that the Cherokee and other US tribes have refused to participate in the studies being run by the Stanford geneticists. They and many other Native Americans, including some Aztec and Inca leaders, ask why geneticists have been accorded the right to determine who is and who is not an Indian. As a result, the Stanford studies are all based on those Mexican and Peruvian Native Americans "
The rolls are closed for the Eastern Band of Cherokee (Cherokee, NC). If one of yours parents was on the rolls, you can be added. Otherwise, nobody joins the rolls.
The Western Band of Cherokee (Fort Sill, OK) has different standards for membership.
So a lot of you quoting fractions for tribal membership are dead wrong as it varies even between the two Cherokee tribes. Also, as an aside, the two tribes have some animosity between them. It is complicated.
The next congress wont have a rather large number of uniparty traitors. Flake, Corker, Ryan, McCain etc. I love that they all started jumping ship when everyone in DC bought into the Blue Wave garbage. Record numbers of republican lifers all gone.
Achilles:
The next Congress might be a lot of fun. Democrats with a modest majority in the House, tormenting Donald Trump personally day after day. And as always with a majority, the various factions of the Democrats will expose themselves and create tension.
They might even impeach Trump. That would be fun. Of course Trump will never be convicted, but between a Democratic House and the Office of Special Counsel, they could make Trump unviable as a 2020 candidate.
Meanwhile, a small continued Republican majority in the Senate can allow Trump to keep filling federal judgeships using lists generated by the Federalist Society. Fulfilling the one sensible purpose of a Trump presidency.
I looked it up to find why the Mormons have been so instrumental in collecting ancestry data. They are the ones behind ancestry.com and 23and me and lots of other efforts. Here's what I found.
Mormons trace their family trees to find the names of ancestors who died without learning about the restored Mormon Gospel so that these relatives from past generations can be baptized by proxy in the temple. For Latter-day Saints, genealogy is a way to save more souls and strengthen the eternal family unit.
True? Not sure yet. I wish Crack were here.
Since this is already ridiculous...
In honor of Lieawatha, I present Tim McGraw:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kqlR4IEl_04
Even if he did agree to donate to her favorite charity, she would insist it be Planned Parenthood.
Then what?
"Max Boot republican" Chuck: "The next Congress might be a lot of fun. Democrats with a modest majority.."
Ill bet you do love the idea of dem majorities!
Talk about the least surprising thing posted online today!
LOL
Birkel said...
Annie C,
I have heard the church charges a fee for the dearly departed.
Ah, there we go. It's all about the Benjamins. My shocked face goes here [ ].
A million bucks to charity is a good idea. Trump ought to pay up. Warren, if she's smart, should donate it to a worthwhile U.S. Veteran's charity.
Trump apologized to the real Pocahontas for the insult of associating her name with Elizabeth Warren. Heh. Don't say Trump never apologizes.
We're seeing first hand how in Academia one hand washes the other. First was Professor Ford of Palo Alto and now this Stanford professor demonstrates that the "resistance" is strong in Silicon Valley. Republican students at Stanford are an endangered species. Liberal professors have decided to use their respectable titles for political purposes, and not matter that they are presenting very flimsy evidence. No matter because people believe absurd headlines. I find all that deeply dishonest and offensive.
From what I've been reading Warren did not benefit directly by checking off Native American status, but Harvard benefited from her doing so to comply with the demand for increased minority hiring. Did anyone ever ask her why she had chosen to officially identify as a minority? Did someone ask to do that or was she just being a team player? Also BS is Warren going dramatic in her campaign ad, emotionally defending Native Americans, as if Trump's attacks are ever directed towards them.
Best part of that clip is Trump dumping on the #MeToo hysteria.
I do find it refreshing that LLR Chuck is no longer even pretending to be supportive if tax cuts, deregulation, improved business environment and economic performance, stronger military, etc.
Baby steps for our Dick Durbin cuckholster people. Baby steps.
How upset will Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, be if Democrats do not take the House?
Imagine a Senate with 56 or more Republicans.
Will a fopdoodle survive?
Damn! He has the timing of a professional comedian.
I saw this online, a new nickname: "Microhontas."
Drago said...
I do find it refreshing that LLR Chuck is no longer even pretending to be supportive if tax cuts, deregulation, improved business environment and economic performance, stronger military, etc.
The next Republican president can do most of that, without the ruinous tariff wars, and with a less-ruinous deficit.
How about a Native American charity.
Back in 2011, I was afforded the opportunity to attend an art show in Cody Wyoming. An annual event held at the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody Wyoming. It's an unbelievable showcase of some of the best American painters out there. Anyway, at the auction, I sat next to an artist named John Potter. Learned all about him, where he grew up etc.. He grew up on an Indian Reservation in Wisconsin. He said that art saved him. Life on a reservation is a depressing deal. Many of the people suffer from depression and drug and alcohol abuse. If you can escape that life, you can save yourself. Many don't know how, or have the opportunity.
Birkel said...
How upset will Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, be if Democrats do not take the House?
Imagine a Senate with 56 or more Republicans.
Will a fopdoodle survive?
I will be thrilled, with a 56-seat majority for Republicans in the Senate.
You stupid fuckhead.
And it won't matter what I think, about the House. I haven't even made any predictions.
Not that I think Trump owes her jack squat.
Real test and real results - then OK.
Might be 1/32nds? Did I get that right?
The only question is not whether their belief in their heritage was honest, but whether it was accurate.
No. The only question is whether she used her "status" as an oppressed minority to gain an Affirmative Action advantage.
Misplaced pants, I can assure you that there are still plenty of Native Americans on the East Coast. Take a trip to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in Connecticut some time.
But Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, how will you use an increased Senate majority to attack Trump?
I think your programmig is not Three Laws Secure.
I have a higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA, I want my club swinging rights restored!
I think you get 1/32 Indian from just doing a little peyote. It's the best 1/32 of being an Indian.
The real political question is does Warren have any American in her?
Chuck, after inadvertently revealing his gleeful anticipation of a Democratic House that will preclude advancing the Republican priorities he often professes to prefer, accidentally stumbles upon another truth:
And it won't matter what I think
It never has. Your credibility evaporated somewhere between your relentless harping on Trump’s bloviation and your uncontrolled, self-delegitimizing profanity.
Good point, bagoh20.
Warren is 1/1024th Native and 1023/1024th socialist harpy.
How long have Warren's ancestors been in the U.S.? I think that, six to ten generations back, most of my ancestors were still in Europe. At her age, wouldn't that many generations be late 1600s to late 1700s?
I had my DNA tested and it was 100% European. (Boring, but no surprise, since I know the origins and immigration times for all but one family of ancestors.) You can get it tested for free-ish (it costs time, not money) by the University of Michigan and Genes for Good. You do need Facebook to do it, since you have to answer health-related questions through a FB app. Once you've answered enough questions, you can request a test kit. You only get the raw data and an ancestry pie chart back. I did it a couple of years ago and I think it cost about $5 to $10 to have that data analyzed through Promethease.
"Someday, you people will stop trying to defend the indefensible. Apparently, today is not that day."
Hahaha!
I don't want to assume, but are you a Trump supporter?
They are the ones behind ancestry.com and 23and me and lots of other efforts. Here's what I found.
I don't think that is correct about 23&me. That was begun by the wife of a Silicon Valley billionaire. I forget who.
Her two sisters are Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube and a former executive at Google[2] and Janet Wojcicki, anthropologist and epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
Wojcicki married Google co-founder Sergey Brin in May 2007.[6] They have a son, Benji Wojin, born in December 2008, and a daughter, Chloe Wojin, born in late 2011.[15] News reports on August 28, 2013, announced that Wojcicki and Brin were living separately but that they were not legally separated.[16][17] In March 2015, Wojcicki filed for divorce, which was finalized in June 2015
As an aside, when you go through this DNA process, the company that ran your test owns your results forever. You have no control over their use of it. My son did it, and now ancestry.com even claims ownership of the DNA info of his dad and I, too.
Participate with eyes open.
nbunny62 said...
I have a higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA, I want my club swinging rights restored!
I dunno. I have 3%. Maybe we should meet.
There is a 1 out of 200 chance that I own everything between Western China and modern Turkey.
Five times more likely than Warren is Native.
Althouse does a disservice to her reader for not post the Boston Globe's "correction".
Publish fake news to establish a narrative, then issue a correction after the fake news narrative is established:
BOSTON GLOBE: "Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024."
Boston Globe issues another correction on the Warren story: She is "between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.”
Further, they used no American Indian/Cherokee DNA i the analysis. They used DNA from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia.
@JPS:
I want to applaud, but how can it not be true when biological traits are used to define certain races? I know people who have been treated appallingly for literally skin-deep surface traits. That I find this moronic and infuriating doesn't change that reality.
I am not 100% sure on what exactly you're asking. I was obviously being sarcastic in my position, as the leftist shibboleth that "there is no such thing as race." As for "people who have been treated appallingly for literally skin-deep surface traits," that is an obviously wrong thing to do. The standard, as always, is that you judge people on an individual basis and in terms of their character and personality and not their group affiliations. That is a basic ethical position. But it does not require denying the empirical fact that humans do exist in groups and that average differences between groups exist.
I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind
All my friends call me Bear Claw
The Village Cheaftin' is my paw-paw
He gets his orders from my maw-maw
She makes him walk the line
You can find me in my wigwam
I'll be beatin' on my tom-tom
Pull out the pipe and smoke you some
Hey and pass it around
'Cause I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind
I ain't lookin' for trouble
We can ride my pony double
Make your little heart bubble
Lord like a glass of wine
I remember the medicine man
He caught runnin' water in my hands
Drug me around by my headband
Said I wasn't her kind
'Cause I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind
I can kill a deer or buffalo
With just my arrow and my hickory bow
From a hundred yards don't you know
I do it all the time
They all gather 'round my teepee
Late at night tryin' to catch a peek at me
In nothin' but my buffalo briefs
I got 'em standin' in line
'Cause I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind
Indian Outlaw
Tim McGraw
I posted this earlier this morning --
(_) indicates a generation
If you have one full blooded Indian that is your parent, you are 50% Indian (1); grand parent, you are 25% (2); great grand parent 12.5% (3); gg grand parent 6.25% (4); ggg grand parent 3.125% (5); gggg grand parent 1.5625% (6); ggggg grand parent 0.78125% (7); gggggg grand parent 0.390625% (8); ggggggg grand parent 0.1953125% (9); gggggggg grand parent 0.09765625% (10).
I'm 72 years old, and...
My 6th great grandfather was born in 1701 and died in 1760
My 10th great grandfather was born in 1571 and died in 1659.
Boston Globe updates:
The Boston Globe has issued a second correction on the Elizabeth Warren DNA test story.
1st version: Between .19 and 3.1 % Native American
2nd version: Between .09 and 3.1 %
3rd version: Between .09 and 1.5 %
Original Mike said...
Well, she is a member of the Silly Party*.
*Classical reference.
So I guess we can look forward to her running-mate being Jethro Q. Walrustitty.
I want this Bustamonte character to give me the percentages, and if he won't do that, I want him to shut the fuck up.
Cherokee Nation has issued a statement:
"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, who ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."
- Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr.
An interested person could visit a Rez in Minnesota or South Dakota and see what a real, true, Honest-to-God Native American looks like, with or without cheekbones.
Warren less gracefully than Beto feeds the idea that white people can become non-white. But that is the idea driving Democrat politics: the white person can be baptized in the holy grace of melanin.
Shorter Cherokee Nation statement to Sen. Warren:
"Go rent Dances with Wolves and just shut up, Paleface."
There are two Cherokee Nations: Eastern and Western.
They are governed separately.
My goodness, rehajm.
I remember the Paul Revere & The Raiders version, but that one stopped me in my tracks.
Indian Reservation - Orlando Riva Sound
I had to watch it all the way through!
Native American professor: Warren shows 'privileges of whiteness:
Money quote:
A university professor chided Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for taking a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage, saying her action ultimately does more harm to Native Americans.
Kim TallBear, part of the native studies faculty at the University of Alberta, said Monday that Warren taking a DNA test is “yet another strike — even if unintended — against tribal sovereignty.”
TallBear 1, Senator Paleface 0
Blogger tcrosse said...
An interested person could visit a Rez in Minnesota or South Dakota and see what a real, true, Honest-to-God Native American looks like, with or without cheekbones.
I have driven across the Navajo reservation in Arizona. It is about a three hour drive to the famous trading post. I bought a gorgeous Navajo rug there, which is framed on my wall. It came with a tag that had a photo of the woman who had woven the rug. Its gotten lost the past 20 years and I wish I knew where it is. The trading post had a big room stacked high with rugs of all sizes. The biggest were about $25,000. and were 8 by 10. Mine was about 3 by 5 and about $3500. There must have been 100 rugs. We plan to go back this winter.
Seriously Althouse,
Why have you not corrected the 1/32 to be 1/64 in your comment title. It is a major difference, and the title is not in quotes. So now it's your statement, not someone else's. You're an influential blogger, and for those that don't go beyond the title, it leaves the impression that this test proved far more, i.e. twice, than it did. Indeed, from what I've read, the researcher pinned 8 plus or minus 2 generations (1/256) as the most likely percentage.
Soon it'll be Gattaca all the way down. I hope our elites are ready for the results of the genetic tests! And what neutral person/entity will administer those tests? I know, the Clinton Foundation! Could Chelsea really be Homo Superior?
Uh-oh, genomes. Wait until PP gets off work. They know all about genomes.
A 2014 news account seems to provide useful context. “In recent years geneticists have been uncovering new evidence about our shared heritage, and last week a team of scientists published the biggest genetic profile of the United States to date, based on a study of 160,000 people,” reported Carl Zimmer in the New York Times. Mr. Zimmer added:
The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.
These broad estimates masked wide variation among individuals. Based on their sample, the resarchers estimated that over six million European-Americans have some African ancestry. As many as five million have genomes that are at least 1 percent Native American in origin.
J. Farmer, 4:29:
Thanks for your response.
"I was obviously being sarcastic in my position,"
Obviously or not, I managed to miss it. Sorry. In the leftist environment where I work, it's now racist to downplay in any way the importance of race. And that leftist shibboleth has become, in their eyes, the right-winger's excuse for not doing the obviously right thing (adopting their entire program on race).
@JPS:
Obviously or not, I managed to miss it. Sorry. In the leftist environment where I work, it's now racist to downplay in any way the importance of race. And that leftist shibboleth has become, in their eyes, the right-winger's excuse for not doing the obviously right thing (adopting their entire program on race).
I'll retract "obviously" ;)
I have talked about race quite a bit on here in the past so made a bad presumption that people already knew my point of view. As for your last sentence, I agree completely with that assessment.
If you were 1/512 Jewish, would you be sent to the death camps in Nazi Germany?
All this is good for is to give the news organizations license to say "See! She's really part Native American!"
That's it.
“Trump's wife has more Indian blood than Warren since scientist say Europeans have on the average .18 percent Indian blood!”
Um...no. I don’t know where you pulled that out of.
The one-drop rule imposed by racist Democrats that was horrendously applies in Plessy v Ferguson should forever be abolished. No reasonable person can support the Plessy standard.
But here comes every Leftist - like Royal ass Inga - to defend Democrat Party racism from the 1880s.
If Cherokee Nation tries to sue Senator Warren for false misrepresentation, she can always hire her Harvard colleague, Professor Laurence TRIBE to defend her.
The next Congress might be a lot of fun. Democrats with a modest majority in the House, tormenting Donald Trump personally day after day. And as always with a majority, the various factions of the Democrats will expose themselves and create tension.
And it won't matter what I think, about the House. I haven't even made any predictions.
HMMM......
I don't think it does, but can you imagine Warren bringing a lawsuit and trying to convince a court that a DNA test indicating 1/32nd or only 1/1,024th Native American genes "shows you're an Indian"? I think it would be worth it to Trump to pay the $1 million to get her to do that.
Sounds like a job for Justice Kavanaugh and the team of nine!
“Why? I assume very few Americans have any trace of indigenous American heritage.”
Most Americans have no indigenous American DNA. Try watching a bunch of DNA reveal type YouTube videos, so many believe they have “ “American Indian” DNA. Vast majority of them don’t.
"So, she wasn't lying. The only question is not whether their belief in their heritage was honest, but whether it was accurate."
The only question is was it enough to merit an affirmative action hire by Harvard. By any standard, clearly not.
Its a shame Trumo does not drink. He would have been a great drunk. Listening to him lay out this bet made me think of all the great bar arguments i've heard over the years. Drunks can be very creative but Trump is creative without the booze! He could have been world class barfly!
Robert Cook is the only man who can say if she is a Leftist, though.
He controls the official rolls.
@Crack - also for your collection.
I'm waiting for Crack's song about this to be released.
He can call it: "Reservation for One"
And what is Trump doing?
Hammering nails in the coffin of affirmative action.
Please try to keep up.
The Cherokee Nation builds a wall:
"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."
- Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr.
Inga: "Um...no. I don’t know where you pulled that out of."
The science is settled. Warren has less native american DNA than the average American of European descent.
The good news?
Every single one of us is now an official minority, by the latest and greatest lefty standards!
Huzzah!
Adios to toxic whiteness!
LOL
The best part of all this? Warrens latest shenanigans was actually her best shot at putting this to rest!
LOLOLOLOLOL
Kamala is going to have a field day with this pasty white poseur from Boston!
What AP claimed about Trump was false then. And since they did not give a link, one should infer it was deliberate. The intent to deceive is also quite clear from the suppression of the link. In other words, AP lied.
AP lied.
I like Elizabeth Warren, but aren't a huge proportion of Americans 1/32 Indian?
Anyway, she did this to get in a dig at Trump. Not very effective really: so he looks like a loud-mouth cretin. What's new?
"“Trump's wife has more Indian blood than Warren since scientist say Europeans have on the average .18 percent Indian blood!”
"Um...no. I don’t know where you pulled that out of."
Oh, just the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html
"Latinos, on the other hand, had genes that were on average 65.1 percent European, 18 percent Native American, and 6.2 percent African. The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American."
So Latinos have ON AVERAGE 100 times more native american DNA than Warren.
That is pure awesome.
Chuck: "She seems to be proven right on the barest factual assertion that she has some vague family history with Native American ancestry."
Virtually all human beings have at least a fraction of a percent of mixed ancestry. Human population migration patterns over the millennia have really scrambled the human gene pool.
No human being is a purebred.
Elizabeth Warren thought this would be the Trump card she needed to put this behind her.
She envisioned the entire country waking up today and telling Trump he owed her a million dollars and newly excited at the prospect of electing our first Native American Woman President.
She had no idea the Cherokee Nation would be putting out statements saying she didn't qualify.
To quote Glenn Reynolds: Heh!
I’ll repeat what I stated at another Blog; Since MyHeritage.com claims I am 1% ashkenazi Jew does that now mean that my deceased parents owe me a very overdue bar mitzvah? I think not since 1/100 no more makes me Jewish than her 1/1024 th makes her Cherokee Indian.
Actually, no, latinos have 100x more native american DNA than white europeans (0.18%). They have TWO hundred times the native ancestry that Warren (0.09%).
And she's claiming this vindicates her.
If she has a point, I'd give her certificates (non-transferable and for her use only) at Trump hotels, golf courses and such.
Chuck: "She seems to be proven right on the barest factual assertion that she has some vague family history with Native American ancestry."
Frankly, her cookbook entires were more persuasive.
And, it is not that uncommon, especially among the Iroquois, for people who identify as Indian and even live on a reservation, to have only a small fraction of Indian blood. Living too close to Europeans for too long.
Send her a MAGA hat and be done with it.
Um...no. I don’t know where you pulled that out of.
Not out of that full bedpan, I hope.
“She was hired because she was one of the best 100 law professors in the last half century.”
“Not out of that full bedpan, I hope.”
Not out of your butcher scraps that get tossed to the local dogs, I hope.
let her take a REAL dna test.
Inga: "Not out of your butcher scraps that get tossed to the local dogs, I hope."
Ha!
Inga thinks Michael K is one of her beloved abortionists!
Inga thinks Michael K is one of her beloved abortionists!
Poor Inga. I plan to see "Gosnell" this week. I wonder if she played a part?
Noted Defender of Stolen Valor dem hack liar Dick "Da Nang" Blumenthal and LLR Chuck: "She seems to be proven right on the barest factual assertion that she has some vague family history with Native American ancestry."
LOL
I was wondering if LLR Chuck would dare to add this episode and this laughably transparent lie by Warren to Chuck's ever increasing Pantheon of Dems Defended By LLR Chuck, but there you go!
LLR Chuck never disappoints!
There is literally nothing any dem could do, up to and including shooting someone on 5th avenue, for which LLR Chuck would not mount a vigorous defense!
Well played Chuck. You have exceeded my "how much does LLR Chuck love dems?" expectations.
Again.
There are more than 100 Harvard Law professors.
Tell us, Inga, which do you rank behind Fauxcahontas?
Well one positive thing that’s come of this is we’ve now got evidence for that elusive DNA segment that codes for high cheekbones.
Actually the funny thing is I really don’t think her cheekbones are very prominent.
Michael K: "Poor Inga. I plan to see "Gosnell" this week. I wonder if she played a part?"
They need someone to play the "nurses" in the videos who cackled and screeched with delight as they pulled little baby body parts of their piles.
"here's a leg!" "Here's an arm!"
Yes, we need to listen carefully to our lefty betters lecture us on morality, including the morality of falsely claiming minority lineage to advance one's career.
I wonder if when Li'l Tomahawk Warren was pulling her schtick if she ever in her wildest dreams thought that she could get a LLR Chuck or two to defend her?
“So Latinos have ON AVERAGE 100 times more native american DNA than Warren.”
Latinos have native blood because they aren’t pure Spanish, the Spaniards mixed with the indigenous population, that’s a duh. Most European people do not have Native American DNA. You are referring to European Americans, who have been born here and whose family has been here for generations, not Europeans.
—————————
“Trump's wife has more Indian blood than Warren since scientist say Europeans have on the average .18 percent Indian blood!”
"Um...no. I don’t know where you pulled that out of."
“Oh, just the New York Times.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html
"Latinos, on the other hand, had genes that were on average 65.1 percent European, 18 percent Native American, and 6.2 percent African. The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American."
Uh oh. Inga is doing her "mindless cuttin' and pastin' which undermines her position" stuff again.
Who has the heart to tell her?
Royal ass Inga,
Do you think Melania Trump is not European or not American?
That will help us know in which way we are to mock you.
Its clear the lefties are a little discombobulated due to Hillary's latest revelation that there is no big deal when a boss hits on an underling regardless of the institutional power imbalance!
LOL
On top of that, a judge tosses Michael Avenetti's latest nonsensical suit against Trump and orders Stormy Daniels to pay Trump!
Tough day for Inga and Chuck.
Tough day.
And lets not even get started on the complete Russia Collusion lefty/LLR lie collapse. That would simply be too cruel to mention.
Birkel said...
The one-drop rule imposed by racist Democrats that was horrendously applies in Plessy v Ferguson should forever be abolished. No reasonable person can support the Plessy standard.
But here comes every Leftist - like Royal ass Inga - to defend Democrat Party racism from the 1880s.
10/15/18, 5:54 PM
---
Ahahahahahahaha of course the intellectual frauds are out in full force for this thread.
“Trump's wife has more Indian blood than Warren since scientist say Europeans have on the average .18 percent Indian blood!”
European Americans whose families have been here for generations are not Europeans. The DNA results of European Americans and Europeans have distinct differences. Most Europeans do not have the wide array of ethnicities as do most European Americans. It is highly rare to find a European to have any Native American DNA. Almost unheard of. Do your own research.
Just in: Stormy Daniels owes Trump his attorney's fees!
Qwinn said...
"“Trump's wife has more Indian blood than Warren since scientist say Europeans have on the average .18 percent Indian blood!”
"Um...no. I don’t know where you pulled that out of."
Oh, just the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html
"Latinos, on the other hand, had genes that were on average 65.1 percent European, 18 percent Native American, and 6.2 percent African. The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American."
So Latinos have ON AVERAGE 100 times more native american DNA than Warren.
That is pure awesome.
10/15/18, 6:17 PM
---
Ahahahahaha goodness this is some amazingly bad reading. That the average E-A has a certain % doesn't not give you evidence about any particular E-A. Sheeeeeeesh. This is especially so given that we can reasonably suspect that Mrs. Trump's family has not been in the US for generations.
Liberals do some dumb stuff, like Hillary's "defense" of Bill. But the reasoning of the 'conservatives' who flock like moths around here...
Post a Comment