Powered by TypePad

« Metaphor Madness And Profiles In Decisiveness | Main | A Zimmerman Case No-News Update »

May 10, 2012



Bless you for keeping this story going. I swear this woman is going to have to step down. (If I have anything to do with it)



I'm pretty sure at Penn Lizzy listed herself as a Native of The Solomon Islands.

"I must have heard a thousand times, when Aunt Bea and PaPaw would walk in front of that picture on the mantle, that they'd say I didn't have the beautiful high cheekbones of a Cherokee but I darn sure had the gorgeous blonde locks of South Pacific Islanders, so I listed myself as a Pacific native so I could get invited to luah's with people like me who love poi!"

Jim Eagle

Well, if you consider a nagging, haranguing, know-it-all academic who thinks Congress is a bunch of no nothings and has not done anything important since building the first roads is a minority of a few idiots then she makes the grade.


I wonder if she ever participated in a drum circle? Indian Princesses? Gathering of the Nations? Perhaps a pow wow somewhere?

If ever there was a white bread upper middle class yahoo, it's Elizabeth Warren.

Danube of Thought

I'd like someone to challenge her to actually eat poi in front of witnesses.


Who doesn't love poi?


daddy, she'd have to weigh @280 and be @ 5'4 to qualify for that. That poi goes right to the hips and the stomach and all over, especially combined with SPAM.


More proof:


She is a fraud-- UP and HLS should sue her buckskin covered ass, never happen of course. Lest we not forget-- according to Geithner and 'Bam this Fauxchahontas was the INDISPENSIBLE first Chairman of the consumer protection agency, and she ran out of a Congressional hearing saying she understood she could leave. No wonder 'Bam and geithner thought she's indispensible, she's a lying fraud just like them.


Ruh Roh, then again Dimon's genius, has been properly priced here;



Below is a link to Bloomberg's story about Warren getting the boot at CPA-- 'Bam's tight with all of the Affirmative Action machas, perhaps a little birdie dropped a dime on this Fauxchohantas fraud so 'Bam had to back off.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-15/obama-eliminates-warren-as-consumer-head.html

bearded tonto

Romney says he deserves credit for the Gm bailout and says he can't remember an archetypal moment in his HS days.

Sociopaths see lying as right-brain hijinks.

No harm, no foul.


Dimon's flauncy Frenchman has really screwed the pooch here. While the next Congress will repeal Obamacare, and Consumer Protection Agency racket, the Volcker Rule will live on-- the Banksters cannot help or manage themselves....

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Another troll checks in and persuades me that Warren will beat Romney going away.


Let's not forget she was part of Congressional
Oversight on TARP



It's one thing not to remember an event 47 years ago that may never have happened, it's quite another to have an old white guy write a fabulist 'autobiography' and make up composite people and concoct events, then not even read what the old white guy wrote.


Same troll, new war paint.


Henry-- your Wisc lefties have nothing left to say but so they piss into the wind of a political 'investigation'. Should I be feeling good about the June gov election?

Danube of Thought

It is quite depressing that (a) she is not so ashamed that she immediately withdraws as a candidate for an office of public trust, and (b) her poll numbers are not asymptotically approaching zero.


As I pointed out on the previous thread, I have no connection with this "bearded tonto"! Mirror, Mirror notwithstanding, I reject this doppelganger!

The Real Tonto


Well that seems to be in the category, where
they prove that Walker 'is a vicious animal, by choosing to defend himself; see disallowing
a defense fund against expense incurred in fighting ethics complaints.


NK, worry about the vote fraud-- and the senate races will be tight, especially in Racine County. We have to turn out more than they can bus in.



I am still waiting for some HLS student to sue the University for millions for false advertising, and specifically utilizing the reasoning of Bell's Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a reason why.

Under CRT, only Minority Professors can give you the unbiased Minority view of America's unequal Justice system. Since HLS advertised that Native American Lizzie was their Minority Professor, and specifically mentioned it in a Harvard Crimson story to defend HLS against Bell's charges of no Minority Prof's, HLS students in attendance must have thought that they were receiving the valuable Minority view. But they weren't, because Lizzy is a fraud.

I would have to think that here must be a False Advertising charge in there somewhere that somebody could make. Hell, if HLS was a box of porridge or a McDonald's, the FDA would have brought a false advertising charge against it in a heartbeat and shut the place down.

And just for fun, I wonder if anyone out there can find out who currently has more Minority Professors on board, Harvard Law School, or Brigham Young University's Law School?

Googling BYU Minority Prof's I got this:

Why get a Ph.D.? – answering 7 Myths:

"Myth 7, I am a minority, I will never get accepted -- Minorities and women are eligible for millions of additional dollars in endowment monies to encourage them to attend Ph.D. programs. Virtually all Ph.D. programs aggressively admit minority students. Furthermore, most schools, such as BYU, seek out minority professors very aggressively."


Daddy-- the student lawsuit against HLS is a fascinating idea. Such a lawsuit gets discovery into what HLS knew-- complicity in the fraud? Did HLS take 'diversity' funds to pay Fauxchahontas? can those donors sue? This could get very fun.


Henry-- turn 'em out! stick it to the union cheats.


I just love this story. I never want it to go away.Maybe she was eating peyote with Aunt Bea when they were looking at the family album.


That might explain it, Clarice, it's too bad their wasn't a Breitbart at that press conference, with a blow up of that pic in the Daily Mail, and a pointer.

Mad Jack

This is one of the great stories ever, Clarice. Up here in the People's Republic she is a laughing stock. The published polls won't reflect the fact that She Who Lies Like a Rug is doomed but the truth is she is toast and every Dem pol in the state knows it.


State's Rights...meh.

Why are we getting such stupid trolls? States' rights are residual, as in:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amending the Constitution is an appropriate way to augment Federal power, as opposed to doing what the Democrats generally do, which is just ignore the Constitution.


Incidentally, in my 9:15 I'm not implying agreement with Romney's proposal (if it is as described), just pointing out that it's not hypocritical.


I guess one call this, the dog that didn 't bark, four years ago, at least;


Jim Ryan

In case you missed Dawn Loggins. She never gave up, the polar opposite of a nihilist.

There are no excuses. It depends on you and no one else. - Dawn Loggins


I would be a better senator for the state of Massachusetts than Elizabeth warren.

I'm a pretty good umpire and salesman, so I'm more qualified even if I phone it in from senoia.

Jim Ryan

Plus, jimmyk, can you remind me who amends the constitution? I just can't seem to remember...hmm... I know it rhymes with "dates".


I am with DoT on this one. How come her poll numbers are not approaching Edwards' current favorability rating? She is such a laughingstock -- and the excuses are making it worse.


Cocky, you numbskull. Obama has just said he thinks states should have the right to decide what constitutes marriage. OTOH DOMA provides that no state has to give full faith and credit to a SSM of another state and he's refusing to enforce that.That would suggest that he DOESN'T think states should have the right to decide the issue. If a state has to give full faith and credit to what another state decrees is a valid marriage, the second state has lost its power to decide that issue within its own borders.

If that's too hard for you maybe whoever hired you is smart enough to parse it out for you.


Mad Jack, the southies deserve a good laugh at the expense of the chuckleheaded lefties who've walked over them for decades.

Dave (in MA)

Early Elizabeth Warren video surfaces.
I'm pretty sure she's the one on the left.

Danube of Thought

If Romney in fact supports such an amendment, I think he is wrong-headed to do so. It would fly in the face of the very structural purpose of the constitution, which is simply to allocate powers among free institutions. Like an amendment banning abortion, it is a fundamentally flawed idea.

The Founders would never have dreamed that people would want to authorize same-sex marriage, but they would never have undertaken to forbid them to do so if that is what they wanted. I don't think this amendment would in any way further the Founders' ideas about the purpose of the constitution, and in fact would run counter to them.

Federal legislation could oust the federal judiciary of the power to declare what a marriage shall be, or an amendment could do the same. But that's as far as such measures should go.

I am going to vote for Romney, and do so with enthusiasm. But I find it very hard to admire him.


Nuances like this are lost on most voters DoT.....For the voters the issue is whether you are "for" or "against" gay marriage.

I would never vote for Obama, but I personally favor gay marriage and I think that the states should decide.

It's just not that big an issue to most people...


Dave, OMG


A whole new industry .. faux minority rent seeking

Just how many other faux minorities are out there ?


I doubt Romney would waste his time on gay marriage.

Jim Ryan

Dave, I'll never get that 30 seconds back again.


Neo --

As many as the traffic will bear....

I am sure many others have made the same point. In earlier generations people went to great lengths to HIDE or DENY "exotic" ancenstry. Now people make up ancestors of color.

The old practice was wrong and the new one is wrong -- for the same reason. We should judge people on the content of their character and not on the color of their great great great great great grandmother's skin.

What a concept. And the "content of their character" is pretty much revealed if they tell lies about their ancestry for personal gain.


Washington Examiner: More BS from the WH

"President Obama declared his personal support for same-sex marriage yesterday, but the White House chose not to push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act today. "Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked if Obama would call for the repeal of DOMA and endorsement of pro-gay marriage language in the party platform. "That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform."

Mad Jack

Dave. Unbelievable video.


They will not let you decide, that is not part of their plan, as with almost all their
plans, it's about abolishing or coopting institutions, they seize our mineral and fuel
resources with the 'Mutant Star Goat' of AGW, they seize the financial high ground with the astroturf for Campaign Finance Reform, under the disguise of standards, they undermine the foundations of proper education,


I'm in rare agreement with the wingnuts on this issue. While I think Warren has been an excellent public servant, her decision to play the ethnic card in the way she appears to have played it reeks of cynicism, arrogance and incredibly bad judgment, while bringing a taint of shameless opportunism to academic affirmative action in general…

Danube of Thought

I agree, Theo.


And what does this story say about the educational institutions too mendacious to admit what they did?


That video is yet another atrocity inflicted on Mankind by the Germans. LOL


"find it very hard to admire him"

Really? So this is not an issue with two valid sides, and someone being on the "wrong side of history" diminishes respect for them in your estimation?

Seem to recall your claim was that the constitution was open to amendment and intended to be that way when I suggested the leading clause to the 2nd was a "do not tamper" warning rather than a constraint.


It would fly in the face of the very structural purpose of the constitution, which is simply to allocate powers among free institutions.

Fair enough, but as Clarice's comment points out, states' decisions can impose burdens on other states (e.g. through the "full faith and credit" clause), which was in part what the Federal government was created to mitigate. I agree it's still on balance a dumb idea, but only because there seem to be less drastic remedies (like the DOMA).


This piece, includes a link to one of the flawed studies that were used to push for Obamacare and Dodd/ Frank



"states' decisions can impose burdens on other states"

Not only that ... but courts in California have invoked the US constitution to rule against prop 8.


To think that my last employer asked to see the originals of my college degrees


while bringing a taint of shameless opportunism to academic affirmative action in general…

And it was so pure before.


Sometimes the spin is nauseating, and Silva proves that Gabriel Allon's rules apply in real life;



((...just pointing out that it's not hypocritical.))

as opposed to the hypocritical slime of a troll who would be all for an amendment if it supported gay marriage.

Frau Indianer Herz kennt keinen Schmerz

Watch your feathers, fdcol63-
The Germans have a long love affair with American Indians. LUN their Indianer Sommerfest in Freiburg, Germany.

Here's the peace pipe.

Frau Indianer Herz kennt keinen Schmerz

Haha, made you look. From Hell's grannies to German Indians


Yes because Cecilia is a certified energy expert:


Frau Indianer Herz kennt keinen Schmerz

Wunderbare high cheekbones in Freiburg. Eat your heart out , Liz.

Captain Hate

Sometimes the spin is nauseating, and Silva proves that Gabriel Allon's rules apply in real life

Wow, a real world example where the Saudis are the good guys. Speaking of fake double agents, this sounds like a job for the Plames.

Danube of Thought

"So this is not an issue with two valid sides, and someone being on the 'wrong side of history' diminishes respect for them in your estimation?"

Let's start by being forthright and honest in what we say. I did not maintain that Romney was on the "wrong side of history"; Shepard Smith said that.

I did not say that opposition to same-sex marriage is not a "valid" point of view. I think it is eminently valid, and has much to commend it.

I do not say that the constitution should not be amended. It can be and has been, under the very procedures prescribed by the Founders. I simply suggest that it ought not be amended when less drastic measures will do, and I have suggested some of those measures. But most important. I believe that any time it is amended, as amended it should remain a document specifying how powers generally should be vested, as opposed to one proscribing specific conduct in personal matters.

Melinda Romanoff

Now I know what daddy goes through.




can you remind me who amends the constitution? I just can't seem to remember...hmm... I know it rhymes with "dates".

Sweet. I'm on it.

Danube of Thought

See, e.g. The 18th Amendment. Bad, bad mistake.

Frau Indianer Herz kennt keinen Schmerz

Very great find at your 10:02, narciso. Liz really puts the faux in research.

William Demot

On the subject of Romney's bullying at school... It's hardly a surprise. Those preppy schools are rife with bullying and pranks. Teenagers have always been doing dumb stuff like this.

Hell, at my school, the exact same thing happened. And it wasn't because the guy was gay, it was because the guy had stupid hair.

While a teenage Romney was giving impromptu haircuts, we all know what the other Presidents were doing:

A teenage Barry Obama was snorting cocaine and avoiding white people, a teenage George Dubya was guzzling beer while paddling the bare butts of frightened fraternity pledges and a teenage Bubba Clinton was still trying bang his fair share of desperate fat chicks...


Aunt Bea taught little Lizzie to respect the ways of the Indian just like
Homer Simpson.

Hi, how are ya?


"as opposed to one proscribing specific conduct in personal matters"

What conduct? An amendment would simply reserve the word "marriage" for its original meaning.

"... opposition to same-sex marriage"

Not everyone who wants to preserve the original meaning of the word is opposed to an equivalent (but different) term for same sex couples.

My suggestion for an amendment has been:

Marriage is one man and one woman. If any state finds that unsatisfactory or unfairly exclusive that state may substitute some other institution, such as Civil Union, available to all couples. Provided enactment is by legislation or referendum, and not by judicial decree.

Danube of Thought

"What conduct?"

Two people of the same sex getting married.


That's a strange interpretation of "conduct" if you ask me. If that's what you meant in the first place I think you would have just said as "opposed to one proscribing two people of the same sex getting married".

So seems to me that response is trying to be cute.

Danube of Thought

"An amendment would simply reserve the word 'marriage' for its original meaning."

Under the constitution there is no such original meaning. The people who wrote it had no intention of addressing it; it was one of innumerable, unmentioned matters they left to a free people to decide consistent with the principles of governance they had laid down. Why is it now necessary to disturb those principles?


Obviously, we will need an investigation of Ms Warren to see if she or any of the various academic institutions that employed her filed falsely for any federal grants based on her faux status.


"Under the constitution there is no such original meaning."

Oh poppycock. What rot. The word has an original meaning in this culture just like "natural born citizen" has an original meaning.

Sorry but your "if they didn't spell it out in the consitution it can mean whatever I say it does" approach is utterly unpersuasive.

Rick Ballard

If it's the10th, it's time for another Report from Controller Chiang.

Briefly - tax receipts in Californoa are -20.2% from Governor Moonbeam's projections and -6.8% from 2011 actual. The Blue Hell of California is taking on far more water than the pumps can handle and the Democrat farce of a legislature is going to have to get as creative as the Greeks in order to keep their heads within sight of the surface.

Maybe BOzo could offer some advice?


"Why is it now necessary to disturb those principles?"

Hello ... prop 8 ???

Danube of Thought

"Hello ... prop 8 ???"

What about it? It was a state enactment, and it was held by an appellate court to violate the US constitution. Does that mean the latter should be amended?


There is a logic puzzle that no person of the lawyer persuasion should have a problem with ... unless deliberately ...

Bill is a man. Judy is a woman. Sam is one or the other we don't know which ... anyway Bill is looking at Sam and Sam is looking at Judy. In this situation is there man looking at a woman?

(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) There's not enough information to say

Most people apparently answer 3. So there are many situations where it is easy get away with pretending the answer is 3 even knowing that's wrong.


Just as with Prop 187, and SB 1060, and a host of others, the left will not allow their
source of funds, and/or new voters. to be checked.

Danube of Thought

"Oh poppycock. What rot. The word has an original meaning in this culture just like "natural born citizen" has an original meaning."

Apart from the poppycock and rot interjections, which are not very persuasive, I would point out that there is case law dating back at least as far as 1608 dealing with the issue of "natural born." And unlike "marriage," natural-born was something the framers felt it necessary to address.


"Does that mean the latter should be amended?"

Cue replay:

I do not say that the constitution should not be amended. It can be and has been, under the very procedures prescribed by the Founders. I simply suggest that it ought not be amended when less drastic measures will do ...
Bolded text is likely our source of disagreement.

Danube of Thought

If anyone thinks that what Boris said at 11:37 has anything to do with constitutional governance, please explain.


"And unlike "marriage," natural-born was something the framers felt it necessary to address.

You could say the same about "life" and "liberty" for that matter. Are they defined in the constitution?



Meanwhile, the Washington Post is quietly airbrushing passages in the story.

Retracto the Correction Alpaca is back from vacation, tanned (as much as any alpaca can be), rested, and is taking up the case. He/her/it is going to be working overtime in the coming months.

Links at site.


the one thing no one is talking about is Warren's deeply disturbing body of master work; Critical Wannabe Theory.

In this, she argues that those who self-identify with oppressed minorities get automatic hall passes on their curricula vitae.

She explores the sense of victimhood, alienation, and grievance felt by the Wannabe Nation and their right to reparations from the rest of society, especially a share of casino profits.


"has anything to do with constitutional governance"

Who said it did? It was just a personal observation on the nature of discourse.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

I propose:

A special civil category for GLBT individuals who want to formalize a loving and mutually supportive relationship "'til death do us part". My proposal would call that category "GLBT marriage" or something to that effect. The category would have the same responsibilities, privileges and emoluments of regular "marriage" but that term (without the GLBT descriptor) would be confined to the traditional relationships between a man and a woman.

My proposal would permit a religious blessing on such relationships, but would explicitly allow religious organizations to deal with such relationships at their discretion as their doctrine allows or requires.

My proposal would also require that the normal domestic relations laws, including divorce and spousal and child support would apply to GLBT Marriage in the same manner it applies to traditional marriage.



I believe nothing in the NC proposal voted in Tues was inconsistent with something like that as long as it wasn't called "marriage".


See, e.g. The 18th Amendment. Bad, bad mistake.

How about the 13th?


Excuse me, DoT, but that is pure rot. The concept of marriage as between a man and a woman has over 5,000 years of history with almost zero exceptions across cultures.

This did not preclude the acceptance of homosexual or lesbian relationships.

Virtually every generation until the 1990's would have considered gay marriage aberrant.

Danube of Thought

Life and liberty were not defined in the constitution, but unlike marriage they were very specifically addressed, and limitations were imposed concerning how government could affect them. The former remains unambiguous, but the latter has evolved over time through judicial interpretation, and without constitutional amendment. Marriage is not addressed at all.

"Bolded text is likely our source of disagreement." It is. I believe that in every instance it is best to allow the popular branches to decide issues not expressly foreclosed to them by the constitution.

And that is what disappoints me about Romney. I keep hoping to hear a principle or principles, but instead we get this kind of crap: "let's legislate what we like by amending the constitution."

Trust me, it won't happen.



English Common Law strikes again.

Since US Law was based on English Common Law, what "doubts" existed for the Waite court to remark upon?


Maybe the best part of right-wing homophobia is that, inevitably, this or that GOP leader/functionary gets forced out of the closet...
The Top Ten Outed Right-Wing Homophobes


"Virtually every generation until the 1990's would have considered gay marriage aberrant."

True enough and that it one of the reasons marriage was not in the Constitution and why the "status of citizens" was left to the states.

As a practical matter, such an amendment will never pass. If the ERA can't pass, what can? Women are the majority, after all.


"let's legislate what we like by amending the constitution."

Several states have amended their constitutions, including Ca with prop8. If the issue was playing out in the popular branches you might have a point. Since it is not, I consider your statment quoted above to be inaccurate and insulting.


c'mon, really people. What do Americans like more than sodomy?

The comments to this entry are closed.