Warren: I Will Not Take A DNA Test

official-portraitWe have been following the controversy over the claim of Native American ancestry by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the continued criticism from President Donald Trump who continues mock her as “Pocahontas”. Recently, we discussed Warren’s surprise speech doubling down on her claim and whether Warren would simply take a DNA test to put the matter to rest.  The suggestion was echoed by the media in Massachusetts like the Berkshire Eagle  For $100, the question is why let the matter simmer. Warren answered that question this weekend and the answer is no.

 

Warren told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that she would not take such a test because “I know who I am. And never used it for anything. Never got any benefit from it anywhere.”  Some may find it a bit curious that Warren would not want to confirm an identity that she repeated cited in her academic career and still says is central to her life.  The question is why Warren would not want to know and if any of her family has already had such tests performed.  Since Warren listed herself as a minority on law faculties, this identity was sufficiently important to her to claim as part of her identification as an academic. Yet, she has no interest in confirming information on what degree (if any) Native American heritage is shown in her DNA for a relatively small fee.  Moreover, such a test would effectively silence her critics, including Trump, if it produced confirmation of her long claim of Native American ancestry.

Warren added:

“My mother and daddy were born and raised in Oklahoma. My daddy first saw my mother when they were both teenagers. He fell in love with this tall, quiet girl who played the piano. Head over heels. But his family was bitterly opposed to their relationship because she was part Native American. They eventually eloped . . . That’s the story that my brothers and I all learned from our mom and our dad, from our grandparents. It’s a part of me and nobody’s going to take that part of me away.”

Warren added that she is not going to run for President.  That is a statement of intent that might change with a couple years remaining of shifting political conditions, including possible offers for a vice president slot.  Moreover, media is reporting that she is not ruling out a 2020 run and is positioning herself for precisely such a possible run.

307 thoughts on “Warren: I Will Not Take A DNA Test”

  1. Admit it! Don’t you love seeing PC Professor Lieawatha hoisted by her own liberal posterior for trying to identity politic herself into a favored person status at Harvard? Just shows the in-fashion vacuousness of using immutable characteristics of folks for career advancement instead of their own merit. Warren shouldn’t be president of the Martha’s Vineyard PTA.

    1. mespo – I particularly like that she plagiarized the recipe used for the family Pow Wow Chow book from some famous chef. That shows a certain cunning, legalistic, frame of mind. 😉

        1. mespo – after watching the Clintons and Warren tip-toe through investigations, I thought you would enjoy the very bad reference. 😉

  2. Well, she has taken the “I identify with” approach to this question.
    Throughout her whole life, and through her family tradition, it was a given that there was Native American heritage in her ancestry.

    If it was just that, then I was bemusedly support her right to self identify anyway she wants.
    If she is using it as a method for privilege, then that is a different story — then because she is formalistically seeking some gain from a formal status/class. It is at that point she would/should be obligated to prove it definitively, i.e. DNA testing.

  3. People would have a lot more respect if Warren came out and said she lied about her “Cherokee heritage” to gain employment points on her application.

    1. I am not sure that Lizzie was lying, in the beginning. Many families have such stories, who knows, but maybe hers were true. Or maybe the stories were false, but she believed them to be true.

      But where I do primarily fault her now, is in not putting an end to the controversy one way or the other. DNA tests costs $100, and she is worth mega millions. I think there is no way she hasn’t already taken the test, and already knows the truth. She may actually be part Indian, and will take the test again, closer to the election, and say, “See, I told you so!”

      Or, she is not part Indian, and wishes to avoid disclosure.

      The “other side” had better be careful here, or there is a good chance that they will find themselves hoisted on their own petards! Change to cry to, “Release the DNA Test! and let us all know the truth for sure”, instead of, “Lizzie is a liar!”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  4. Let it go. Let it go! Her genes are of no concern. My God, people should be engaged about the amount of time and public money being spent on this issue. It dose not seem to matter where you were born anyway.

    1. John Austin – no public money is being spent on this. Although a Congressional committee could look into her claims. Which committee of the House oversees the BIA? This would be perfect for them.

    2. John, True, it doesn’t seem to matter anymore………But

      There were some animals in Sen. Warren’s area. Crows, ravens & coyotes. Could be the Yaqui Brujo shape shifters.

    3. John, great deflection! We were talking about her credibility which is relevant for a public official but you oh–so-deftly turned it into a debate on her ancestry. I bet you consider NYC and Boston Marathon cheat Rosie Ruiz a hero because she utilized public transportation rather than her own gas guzzling car to get to the finish line first.

      1. mespo – I did not know Ruiz owned a car. I thought she took the bus because that was that fastest way from point A to point B. 🙂

      1. Tax rebates for the middle class, pension plans that are stronger for the working population, high employment etc. That is useless.

        Linda doesn’t know what she is talking about. Just like with the Koch’s she is either lying again or is terribly ignorant.

      2. Oh, yes, totally agree. I was thinking specifically of the idiocy of this DNA test thing, birtherism, their penchant for conspiracy theories, etc.

        1. “birtherism, their penchant for conspiracy theories”

          “It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was properly lit.
          An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.”

          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton-supporters.html

          (PS I personally have no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.)

          1. Mr. Trump is the person who took hold of this and used it relentlessly against Obama. And he used conservative [conspiracy theory minded] media outlets to spread it widely among the most idiotic of his supporters. Nice try, though.

            1. Started by Hillary supporters, likely Blumenthal. Trump asked for his birth certificate, a legitimate question since the birthplace is relevant to the Constitutional requirements of being President. Hillary was at the center of actual illegal activities. For one the Duck at Trump rallies. She likely invented it and refused to change the Duck to Uncle Sam. That was done illegally since she was not supposed to have anything to do with a pack.

              You ought to start learning a bit about what happened and the difference between legal and illegal. You sound like Linda.

                1. suze – conspiracy theorists were on the birth certificate trail long before Trump hit the campaign trail. It was active during both McCain and Romney’s campaigns.

                2. The Gnat, suze, is at it again. You better read upon on these things, Gnat. This idea started with Obama’s book. Trump was one of just many involved in the discussion. Hillary’s supporters reopened the question during the nomination process. Trump, rightfully, for any American, wanted to see the birth certificate. Not unreasonable.

  5. Trump, “I will not not disclose my tax returns.” Which is more important to American governance, DNA results from Warren or possible evidence of Russian loans to Trump?

    1. Trump family corruption is absolutely breathtaking. At the rate they’re going, every country on earth will have information that they can use to blackmail them [see story on Qatar this AM].

        1. Funny, but to date, nothing of significance has been found. I guess Linda is lying again or is simply ignorant of the facts of the day just like she was with the Koch brothers.

          1. Oh, here we go again with the silliest of the Trumpian talking points, the one where they pretend they get briefed by the Mueller team every week and they actually “know” what’s happening in the investigation.

            1. Suze, the investigation started with FISA warrants that weren’t appropriate and to date way over a year haven’t found anything pertaining to Trump’s campaign or Presidency that was illegal.

              What we do know is that the FISA warrants were political and perhaps illegal. Take note of the Nunes Memorandum summary printed before and then let’s hear your silly statements again.

              * Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.
              * The four FISA surveillance applications were signed by, in various combinations, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein.
              * The FBI authorized payments to Steele for work on the dossier. The FBI terminated its agreement with Steele in late October when it learned, by reading an article in Mother Jones, that Steele was talking to the media.
              * The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.
              * DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele’s bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.

                1. “Nunes memo. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.”

                  Suze, Only stupid people laugh when information, like is in the Nunes Memo, are released. Their smarter counterparts either prove what was said is wrong or they become worried.

                  1. I guess you missed it. The Nunes memos was a very partisan effort to do one thing: discredit the investigation by cherry picking and ignoring loads of relevant information. And they refused to release the Ds memo until two weeks later in order to muddy the waters.

                    1. The Gnat writes: “And they refused to release the Ds memo until two weeks later in order to muddy the waters.”

                      Once again you seem to know nothing about the actual documents. The Nunes Memorandum was carefully released to not affect our secrets and so it would be entirely accurate. Schiff released his document after quickly writing it without concern for national security. It had to be vetted by the FBI and then released. That document appears to intentionally have included a lot of things that had to be kept secret probably to muddy the waters. Upon its release, it didn’t disprove anything in the Nunes Memorandum and in fact with time we see that the Nunes Memorandum was entirely correct.

                      We should be hearing from the House later today. It will announce that nothing was found to implicate Trump something that Schiff has recently admitted.

                    2. It’s evident that Nunes and the GOP are running interference for Russia/Putin in the House and Mueller investigations.

                    3. “It’s evident that Nunes and the GOP are running interference for Russia/Putin in the House and Mueller investigations.”

                      Linda, every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how vacuous you are. The House investigation committee has announced its conclusions. No collusion.

                    4. Erik Prince is hosting a fundraiser for Republican Rohrbacher, who Paul Ryan described as bought by Russia, later claiming he was joking. Tom Garret is one of two GOP Congressmen being used to drum up attendance for the Rohrbacher event. Garrett’s campaign is funded by the Koch’s both directly and indirectly (NFIB).
                      The House report issued by Republican members does not reflect consensus. When historians review Nunes’ process, the judgement will be damning.

                    5. Linda – are you a historian? You don’t seem to think like a historian. And you have no idea how historians will view things. In reality, it will be a minor footnote in history. BTW, I am a historian.

                    6. “minor footnote in history”, is that what it’s called when a GOP member of the committee says that the Congressional majority in the House has lost all credibility in an investigation into Russia’s involvement in the election of a President? Nunes issued his report without interviewing 4 Trump associates under indictments by Mueller.
                      What similar occurrence in decades of recent history can you cite, Paul?

        2. Yup. So “amazing” that Trump breaks the law and won’t implement sanctions that Congress passed, right??

          1. Suze, you sound like Linda. No proof just allegations. There is no question that Trump’s actions have been those of a statesman that recognizes the dangers the Russians present. If you feel otherwise list the actions.

            1. The congress passed that law almost unanimously and many people in the congress have clearances that have allowed them to see information that none of us will likely ever have access to.

              Statesman???

              Try, ill-informed, corrupt, sometimes incoherent, racist, incurious, easily bored, emotionally volatile, draft dodger, sadistic, profoundly needy, deceptive, manipulative, adulterer, credibly accused of sexual assault and harassment, and suck up to the worst dictators on the planet.

              The piece of dust in the corner of my living room is more statesmanlike than he is.

              1. The piece of dust in the corner of my living room is more statesmanlike than he is.

                I’m not surprised you are looking for statesmanship from dust in a corner of your home. In other words, you have the worldview of a gnat.

              2. So far you have managed to say a lot of things, Suze, but are unable to produce any proof. We are going on two years of investigations and nothing so far of significance has been found. It just proves you are a liar unless of course, you have details.

                You talk a lot, but produce nothing.

                1. Mueller was appointed ten months ago. I think that Trump’s campaign manager and deputy campaign manager being indicted for money laundering, bank fraud, and tax evasion is significant. And a number of people have flipped. Watch a couple of episodes of Law and Order and catch up.

                  1. Suze, you have been “gnaticized”. You base your opinion on a fictional TV program. An indictment does not mean wrongdoing or conviction. You are grabbing for straws because the indictment has nothing to do with the Trump campaign. Adam Schiff even has stated the House committee found no evidence against Trump and likely you will be hearing that from the House a bit later today in an official announcement.

          2. suze – Presidents have been doing that since Washington. They implement what they like, don’t implement what they don’t like.

                1. I’ll leave it to the professionals to prove it and that includes the professional porn stars to whom he paid hush money. He’s clearly pretty worried about Ms. Daniels.

                  1. suze – Stormy Daniels is a loose cannon. The question is can he get her lashed to the deck before 60 Minutes is aired?

                    1. suze – if I remember correctly, Monica Lewinsky did not testify in public. If her testimony had been televised, there would have been a new President. I read her transcripts. The press was kind enough to leave out a lot of stuff to protect Clinton.

                    2. “The question is can he get her lashed to the deck before 60 Minutes is aired?”

                      Paul, for money she can be lashed to your deck of choice with or without her clothes and she will almost do anything if the price is high enough.

                    3. Allan – Bill Cosby paid one of his women $3.5m plus an NDA and Stormy only got $130k? Boy, is she cheap?

                  2. “I’ll leave it to the professionals to prove it..”

                    In other words, Suze, you are just a big mouth that likes to talk big but knows nothing.

                    1. The Gnat (suze) writes: “Well, some are watching Carlson and Hannity… I prefer professionals”

                      The problem is your professions aren’t very honest and don’t report all of the news. That is obvious from you gnat sized vision in your room. Hannity, however, has been right on a number of very important issues that the MSM refused to report on. I don’t watch much TV news so I can’t say for sure, but I don’t think the MSM has proven Hannity to be wrong on his facts. I know occasionally people err and honest ones like Hannity will admit their errors, but I have seen a lot of spin from the MSM when it comes to Hannity.

        1. Linda – if you were a historian you would know that releasing your tax returns is a relatively new item in Presidential campaigns.

        2. “They’re actually relevant to American governance.”

          Linda are they relevant to your comments regarding Koch that are now in disrepute?

          “As I mentioned earlier the Kochs owns Georgia Pacific which is unionized. The plants are modern, have American workers and are among the highest paid level for manufacturing jobs. Most of the workers are unionized and the relationship with the unions is very positive. How do any of these facts match with what Linda would like to tell us?

          We have also heard from Linda about how Koch is part of a plan to incarcerate people. From Wikipedia: “In July 2015 Charles Koch and his brother were praised by President Obama and Anthony Van Jones for their bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system.[61][62] For roughly a decade Koch has been advocating for several reforms within the prison system, including the reduction of recidivist criminals, easing the employment process for rehabilitated persons, and the defense of private property from asset forfeiture.[62][63] Aligning with groups such as the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, Koch believes the current system has unfairly targeted low-income and minority communities all while wasting substantial government resources.[62][64]
          In February 2016, Koch penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post, where he said he agreed with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about the unfairness of corporate welfare and mass incarceration in the United States.[65] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

          One cannot trust anything Linda says. Very often she and her sources are factually incorrect.”

  6. The winning talking point here for those that subscribe to it’s nonsense is “birtherism.” Look what it did to elevate the current POTUS with extremist across the US.

  7. In an interview, Putin was asked about Trump’s disparagements of his opponents. Putin declined to criticize. Why ask the foreign leader who selected Pres. Trump to identify his mental defect? When Trump looks at people, his mind zeroes in on what he sees as a physical defect- the unattractiveness of Carly Fiorini and Cruz’ wife, the sleepy eyes of Chuck Todd and Mark Halperin, the sloppiness of Steve Bannon, the lethargy of Jeb Bush, the small hands of Marco Rubio, the lack of athleticism of Samuel L. Jackson, the short stature and weight of Kim Jung-un, etc. And, like a toddler without filters, he announces his observation.

    1. Is that the ‘party truth’ of the day or just your interpretation of the ‘party truth’ of the day? And if so, if thatl, could it be ……fill in your own point if you can find one

    2. You keep posting and making things up. You did so about the Koch’s and still haven’t reconciled your arguments with the reality that is demonstrated on Wikipedia and by the news media. You are either a liar or ignorant or both.

      “As I mentioned earlier the Kochs owns Georgia Pacific which is unionized. The plants are modern, have American workers and are among the highest paid level for manufacturing jobs. Most of the workers are unionized and the relationship with the unions is very positive. How do any of these facts match with what Linda would like to tell us?

      We have also heard from Linda about how Koch is part of a plan to incarcerate people. From Wikipedia: “In July 2015 Charles Koch and his brother were praised by President Obama and Anthony Van Jones for their bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system.[61][62] For roughly a decade Koch has been advocating for several reforms within the prison system, including the reduction of recidivist criminals, easing the employment process for rehabilitated persons, and the defense of private property from asset forfeiture.[62][63] Aligning with groups such as the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, Koch believes the current system has unfairly targeted low-income and minority communities all while wasting substantial government resources.[62][64]
      In February 2016, Koch penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post, where he said he agreed with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about the unfairness of corporate welfare and mass incarceration in the United States.[65] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

      One cannot trust anything Linda says. Very often she and her sources are factually incorrect.

      1. One cannot trust anything Linda says. Very often she and her sources are factually incorrect.

        LOL! Breaking News! Water is wet.

  8. According to the simple “look white, are white” standard of the jailhouse, Warren is white, not an indigenous, and actually nobody much cares one way or another.

  9. “Warren told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that she would not take such a test because “I know who I am. ”

    I believe her. She probably did the DNA test under an assumed name and found out what most of us already knew. If the DNA showed what she wanted it would likely appear as a headline at the New York Times.

    1. You think A DNA test would show that she does not have predominantly European ancestry? Sir, perhaps you should check your eyesight

      1. Kurtz, unfortunately, my two entries were separated. The one just prior to this one said: “Of course, Elizebeth Warren shouldn’t take the DNA test. If she did we would find that looks are deceiving and that she is neither white nor Indian. Her DNA can prove that she is a Jackass.”

  10. Of course, Elizebeth Warren shouldn’t take the DNA test. If she did we would find that looks are deceiving and that she is neither white nor Indian. Her DNA can prove that she is a Jackass.

  11. Politicians make these sort of statements, whether they are true or not. The ego, holier than thou, routine is the primary vehicle for entering politics, ‘to do the world some good’. On a scale of one to ten this level of ‘stupidity’ is probably a four. Now, compare that to ‘off the charts’ Trump and then sit back. Warren, even if she is lying, can’t hold a candle to the ‘Liar in Chief’, America’s shame.

    1. A local genealogy librarian described her family folklore. The story was that her family came over on the Mayflower. She researched the story and found that the “Mayflower” carrying her ancestors was a river boat in the 1860’s. Want her DNA tested?
      Just like Warren, it never advantaged her. It wasn’t a lie. It was a family story.

      1. Not unless she’s running for office or the librarian slot is for example indigenes only and and using it as way to attain the position but does not exhibit those traits which is fine those that don’t make it a big deal no problem.

        I refer to the Atlantic Magazine article where they researched the whole thing including the claim of the wedding license application It’s the only article that makes any attempt at verification without taking sides. inlcuding the position of the three tribal councils involved who rejected the claim.

        The rest is the usual unfounded unsupported personal opinion.

        If there is a question which certainly seems to be the case Warren brought it on herself but then like Harris being an unthinking motor mouth is probably the reason who is now refining the ‘story’

        The only support, though unproven, is a great great great grand mother’s application for a wedding license for an OC Sarah something but the individual another college professor failed to come up with the document.

        The Harvard paperwork for both years got an answer saying it wasn’t a point used in hiring although they did not dispute the X marks in the box for native american both years. .

        As for Warren not taking advantage if that were true how come Harvard carried her on their books as indigenes and how did the local group of native americans know how to send letters every year inviting Warren to their meetings? Which she refused to answer or attend.

        Some days it pays to be an objectivist dealing in supported facts instead of mystical wishful thinking of a third, foruth, or fifth kind. .

        1. After Trump discloses his tax returns and/or Mueller reports on the Deutsch Bank records and the Trump Tower and Seychelles meetings, the American people will deal with the Russian threat. After that, America will decide what its next priority should be. Warren’s ancestry won’t be on the list.
          No doubt Hannity will continue to use a double standard like he is doing now relative to a proposed Presidential meeting with North Korea- chastising Obama, cheering Trump.

          1. The queen of double standards and the queen of lies and vacuousness, Linda is now chastising Hannity for having a double standard. Hannity has an opinion. You have the double standard absent fact.

            In any event an interesting op-ed on Korea that you mentioned. The Dilbert’s comic strip writer who certainly has a better understanding of international relations than what should have been a comic strip, Obama the failure.

            ‘Dilbert’ Scoops ’em All On the Inside Story Of Trump Korea Talks
            By IRA STOLL, Special to the Sun | March 12, 2018
            Give “Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He deserves it for understanding and explaining all along what’s been going on with President Trump and North Korea, in a way that the coastal establishment elites missed because of their blinding contempt for Trump.

            For those who haven’t been following the political commentary of Mr. Adams, it’s worth going back and reading.

            In an April 12, 2017, blog post headlined “The North Korea Reframe,” Mr. Adams wrote about how Mr. Trump had reframed North Korea as a challenge to China.

            “President Trump has said clearly and repeatedly that if China doesn’t fix the problem in its own backyard, the USA will step in to do what China couldn’t get done,” Mr. Adams wrote. “See the power in that framing? China doesn’t want a weak ‘brand.’…His reframing on North Korea is pitch-perfect. We’ve never seen anything like this.”

            Mr. Adams followed up with an April 17, 2017, post headlined “How To Structure a Deal With North Korea.”

            continue at https://www.nysun.com/national/dilbert-scoops-them-all-on-inside-story-of-trump/90212/

            1. Counting your chickens before they hatch. After Trump releases the results of a current I.Q.test (not the dementia test results he released), we can consider if he has the capacity to plan and execute strategy.
              BTW-typical questions/directions from Trump’s dementia test …fold a piece of paper in half and place it on the floor…what season is it?….in a couple of minutes I’ll ask you to repeat 3 words that I tell you now.

              1. “Counting your chickens before they hatch.”

                Of course not. His attempt might not work out and he might change strategies and I might disagree. However, presently his strategy seems to be smarter than the strategies of the prior 20-30 years where nothing was done, but where we heard a lot of self-congratulations, especially from Bill Clinton.

                I think Trump is shrewd and as evident from your arguments I think you are not. Additionally, you make many statements that are factually incorrect and never admit to your mistakes as proven by the Koch dialogue that you continuously used over and over again without ever responding to the request for proof.

            2. Excellent posts Allan. They ALL seem to underestimate the abilities of “The Silver Fox-POTUS, Trump.”

    1. Did you mean “Lie-A-Watha?” That Senator? Of course, she doesn’t want a DNA test-she knows she’s full of it. The other one in the picture is Another Joke….let her go to Nigeria and TEST them on her blackness!

          1. I want to hear the three Eve’s this brings up visions of polygamy or multiple monogamy or all sorts of different combinations and perhaps ‘bring together all the beasts’ might have been bring together all forms of life …. google had nothing except the usual Seth and Lilith . Apparently their were no tabloids in those days.

          2. Michael Aarethun – supposedly using DNA they have traced everyone back to a single male and three females. I just remember an article on it. Think they traced myocardial DNA but someone may remember better than I do. I don’t stand behind this 100%. 😉

            1. The correct term is mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the female gamete during mitosis and does not undergo recombination with DNA from the male gamete during meiosis.

              P. S. There’s no scientific proof of “infarction” during cell division.

  12. I vaguely recall filling out a form which inquired about ethnicity, check all that apply. So I checked White and Native American as there were no boxes labeled Norwegian, French-Canadian or English, so I couldn’t check those as well.

    This is silly.

    1. The wayi to handle those forms neatly print “This question is racist and you should be ashamed of your self for asking.” So far no complaints but one government agency wrote a letter stating an apology, an agreement and remarking they would bring that up at their next review of the requirement. All inthe best bureaucratese wording.

        1. David Benson – to whom are the statistics actually useful and why should we let them have them?

Leave a Reply