Elizabeth Warren claims minority status as Native American?

What appears to be true is: (1) Warren has at least one verified ancestor (a great-great-great-grandmother) who is Cherokee. She may have more, but they haven't been independently verified yet. (2) Warren's hiring at Harvard had nothing to do with her ancestry, according to long-time Harvard law prof Charles Fried. (3) For several years, Warren did self-identify in a widely-used directory of American legal academics as a minority, which does suggest that, even if Warren herself did not draw on her background in the course of moving to Harvard, people at Harvard may well have been aware of it. (4) The campaign has not handled this especially well. This kind of thing needs to be dealt with immediately and with complete openness about all relevant facts - for example, the media should never have been allowed to "discover" the fact of Warren's directory listing. That should have come from the campaign right away. - promoted by david

I read these stories yesterday and I’m trying to figure out if they are true before I comment. Does anyone know if… EW’s great-great grandmother was a Native American AND that EW used it to have a “Native American” status which allowed her to gain promotions at a quicker pace than other candidates. I realize this might be a tough question or maybe something her supporters will ignore or rationalize, but my concern would be making an issue out of it if she in fact didn’t do it.

So… is it true? Does it matter? Would you care if Scott Brown did something similar? And lastly, how has this possibly damaging news item escaped the pages of BMG?



Discuss

80 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Meh

    According to reports Harvard used her Native American ancestry to promote the diversity of its faculty. Warren claims not to have known about this use of her ancestry nor making such known to Harvard.

    To my knowledge you are the first to make the claim that EW used it to “gain promotions at a quicker pace than other candidates.”

    Nor do you have to take my word for it: She was actively recruited and hired at Harvard by Charles Fried, Ronald Reagans Solicitor General, a man unlikely (to put it mildly) to make a minority hire for the sake of ‘diversity’, who has stated unequivocally that the question of her heritage never arose during the entire process of coming to Harvard.

    It seems like Harvard was over-zealous in it’s regard for it’s own diversity and was lax in fact-checking. Yawn.

  2. She has Native American ancestry -- so what?

    This non-story was discussed here yesterday.

    The Herald, bastion of women’s rights and tireless protector of minorities, loudly proclaims that Elizabeth Warren is an “affirmative action hire” — that she attempted to “gain promotions a quicker pace than other candidates”. Their sole evidence for this, of course, is that she truthfully answered a form inquiring about her ethnic background.

    “[I]f she in fact didn’t do it”?

    If she didn’t do WHAT, John? If she didn’t truthfully acknowledge that she is of Native American heritage? Do you have any insight into just how ugly this makes you seem?

    Once again, the GOP panders to bigotry, prejudice, and false stereotypes. Once again our local right-wing stalwarts repeat the party line.

    Once again, appeals to bigotry, prejudice, and misogyny dominate the “message” of the GOP.

  3. Courage of one's convictions

    This display by Sen Brown’s backers or foot soldiers shows that in contrary to Elizabeth Warren do not have the courage of their convictions. If they thought they had the upper hand on issues or were right they would be touting that instead of this nonsense. It would be interesting to know the process of how this data of no substantial consequence arrived at the Herald. Could our friends at the Heritage Foundation or the Koch Brothers be involved? It smells like it.

  4. What do you think you...

    … have here, John? What’s the scandal? Do you really want to put Brown in the position of insinuating that she didn’t earn her place at Harvard? Do you really want her resume explained to everyone in detail and have Mr. Brown compared?

  5. Bullshit and Trivia

    I can’t believe Massachusetts is going to let Pat Purcell and Howie Carr hijack yet another election with this kind of bullshit and trivia.

    The Herald is a stenographic service for Scott Brown. Hillary Chabot should be having her health insurance paid for by the Brown for Senate campaign since she is a de facto employee.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that EW emphasized or relied upon her ancestry for purposes of obtaining a job or any other thing of benefit. This story makes me absolutely crazy because there is no “there” there and yet the media flog it endlessly.

  6. Brown still needs to explain why

    he never pursued with the police his alleged sexual abuse as a child. He had the courage to make the incident public, but not the courage to get a sex offender off the street. I’d hate to think that it never happened. Was it just a marketing technique to sell books? Who knows?

    • Really?

      Leave Scott alone on that an who cares if she was listed as Native American in one survey. Let’s focus on policy people and why Scott regularly votes against workers rights and jobs.

      • I think

        his point was, fit for the goose is fit for the gander…

        Hey, that phrase really works here.

        In other words, people in Glass Houses…not one person would go after Brown on his sexual abuse history, but his attack on Warren is as ridiculous as attacking him for being abused.

        But obviously satire and wit are far beyond you, jc…

  7. When will you learn, JohnD?

    Do not expect rational responses from left-wing zealots. They are more interested in nit-picking Brown than discussing facts. They will have the usual egg all over their faces in November as they circle the wagons, once again, around their cloned ideology.

    • Awfully bitter this morning,

      Edgar.

      This is a non-issue and a half. It has Fehrnstrom’s fingers all over it. The idea is to throw it at Warren and see if any of it sticks. At best, it makes Warren seem like she’s not one of “us” (whoever that is).

      And I don’t think it’s fair to question Brown’s story about sexual abuse or his actions afterward. A victim’s a victim regardless of his politics.

      • Even worse

        It’s so painfully obvious that this came from the Brown campaign, but

        Brown, speaking briefly to reporters on Monday, and said it’s up to Warren to answer questions raised by the media.

        **rolls eyes**

      • The Fingers of Fehrnstrom are no fit topic

        to discuss out in the e-street where all and sundry may overhear.

        The curious are therefore invited to

        (( Apply Within ))

        Happy days.

  8. But since we can't get a policy discussion out of Brown

    its tit for tat. (Leave Scott alone? I think not)

  9. "Promoted by david"

    The question is: Why?

  10. This looks bad.

    Maybe it will turn out to be nothing. Maybe it’s based on nothing.

    But, from what out there so far, the perception of this will not play well in Springfield. It should be taken seriously, and if Warren has been misrepresented, it should be strongly rebutted.

    I don’t think this is the time to ignore it and hope it goes away. Or at least, if it’s still an issue in 3 days, a good response should be put forth.

    • Being From Springfield

      I think most people will just be like, “What?” I’m from Springfield and I don’t think anybody will be that upset about it. Maybe if she claimed to be black, Hispanic or Vietnamese, but Native American? Not so much.

  11. Okay, I'll be nice..sorry Scott

    Fehrnstrom wants to make his “elitist hypocrite” label stick, that’s all, hoping to discover that she does not have native american heritage. Either that or it is simply a case of stereotyping: she doesn’t look native american so she can’t be.
    Bizarre.

  12. It's not about Harvard, it's about Elizabeth...

    The Warren campaign needs to become as transparent as saran wrap on this issue or it will only grow larger by the day. It’s not about Harvard’s smarmy use of a native American designation on Warren to make themselves look less hypocritical, it’s about Warren’s use of the designation. Harvard did not know about Elizabeth Herring Warren’s indian roots by ESP. Somewhere along the line they were made aware of it. If Warren did not tell them when applying to teach there, then maybe they read it in vetting background materials. BUT, somewhere, sometime, some how that little genealogical factoid was made known to someone by Warren…was it on an application to college? on a job application? …I hope not…because the only reason to mention it on either of those would be for advantage in a marketplace that gives points for such things…I think to stop this story in its tracks, she will have to release every application she has made to prove she did not use it for advantage…and it would be good to do so before Brown’s PI’s or the press do so.

  13. As someone else

    who also has distant Cherokee heritage, I’ll say that I’ve always kidded with my two children that if the world ends we’ll start checking different boxes on the college financial aid applications to see what happens (but would never do so). I wouldn’t represent myself as a Native American; appears from review that Professor Warren chose otherwise sometime in the past.

    BTW, no mention of the Travelers insurance representation (finally played in the Globe today). Not a great week for the Warren campaign.

    • "chose otherwise"

      Are you implying that she got her job based on her minority box being checked??

      Please.

      She was in a directory. It’s highly doubtful in ANY case, and the guy who was instrumental in her hiring at Harvard has come out and said so in this particular one.

      • No

        not implying that in the least; on the other hand, one could conjecture in an affirmative-based hiring system that her being counted as a minority could have precluded the hiring of someone of say a slightly higher percent than 1/32nd.

        • But is that really...

          … an issue? It’s not a campaign issue. Assume she benefited from affirmative action, what does that say about her or her candidacy. So what?

          She’s still well qualified (way more than Brown). She’s still an effective advocate of the middle class. All it does is bring up an irrelevancy that is a pet issue for some on the right to clutch their pearls at – an issue that has no impact on who she is, her history, or her qualifications.

          • Agreed on relevancy

            however Travelers may have more resonance. Haven’t seen that discussed anywhere on this board myself.

            • Over $200,000?????

              She got paid $200,000 for helping Traveller’s avoid a lawsuit? That’s more than I have made my entire career, added up (hmm, maybe not but its close). And that was on the side! She was also raking it in from Harvard, and now she wants us taxpayers to bail out the student loans that paid her exorbitant salary.

        • Yeah, she was counted in their informal quotas

          Assuming she was going to be hired even if she hadn’t been listed as a minority, then their numbers would have looked worse, so they would have been more apt to hire an actual minority for another position.

    • Hmm

      More like not a great three months, the more she sinks to his level and takes the eyes off the economy and jobs the more likely it is he will win. We need to stop playing on his turf and the silly likability contest and point out his record and how Warren will fight. I’ll admit I’m out if state and don’t see the air war or the ground game but what friends and family relay back it sounds like its slipping away. Time to play to Elizabeth’s strengths rather than focus on removing Browns and engaging in his frat boy babe calling and infantile attacks.

  14. All the universities she has associated with...

    say her heritage had nothing to do with her work there. And she is native american, even if its 1/32, which is enough to claim status as such, which she did not.

    Is it that inconceivable to think that during an interview with, or filling out a questionaire for, the Association of American Law Schools she may have mentioned that fact? After all, mike-from-norwell just shared his anecdotal claim to Cherokee roots.
    But if it turns out to be on a college app or financial aid form – that’s a problem.

  15. This is a great issue for Brown.

    The average unenrolled voter who doesn’t follow the news closely will hear at the end of it all:

    “Elizabeth Warren said she was a Native American when she wasn’t.”

    It won’t be a sole factor in voting, but it will be a good size one.

    Split hairs, discuss motives, compare examples, blame Harvard, it doesn’t matter to the vast majority. This is the world we live in today- impressions are what matter.

    • Except she is!

      Egg on your face?

      God people are so silly. Definitely silly season. I love this…it just feeds into the Empty Suit storyline we have about Brown. Except that our storyline about Brown is TRUE! I do love me a meme you can prove by the candidate’s own stupid actions…

      • One Drop Rule?

        She is not a minority. Her great-great-great-grandmother was a minority. Did Warren or any of her parents or grandparents ever get discriminated against for being Cherokee? Did she have to overcome racial prejudices and white supremacy?

        The one-drop rule is a relic of white supremacy and hopefully no one thinks that way anymore. She can claim to have a Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother, but she can’t claim to be Native American. Sorry but there are people who can make that claim. The descendents of white settlers who decimated the Cherokees cannot, even if 100 years ago one of them married a Cherokee woman.

        • A quote from Woody Allen

          “I went to an inter-denominational camp” where I was unmercifully beaten by every race, color, and creed.” Your remarks are about as ridiculous expecting every minority member to be the target of prejudice.

    • non sequitur

      The average unenrolled voter who doesn’t follow the news closely will hear at the end of it all:

      “Elizabeth Warren said she was a Native American when she wasn’t.”

      It won’t be a sole factor in voting, but it will be a good size one.

      Split hairs, discuss motives, compare examples, blame Harvard, it doesn’t matter to the vast majority. This is the world we live in today- impressions are what matter.

      You are positing the absurd notion that an unsophisticated voter is able to grasp what is, actually, a rather sophisticated argument in order to come to the conclusion you most favor…

      … where would that kind of, ahem, nativism come from?

  16. Of course people are silly

    in particular the voters. …Empty Suit Storyline we have about Brown. You problem is the we. You have to convince a ton of people that your storyline is superior to what they already “know.”

    They don’t “know” Warren, so they are receptive to the story that she misrepresented herself.

    • I don't have to do much at all

      He’s doing it to himself each and every week this campaign drags on.

      He lost the women vote and this is not going to get it back.

      BTW he looks like a total moron now that there’s documentation that she really does have native american heritage.

  17. I believe she claimed to be a woman too.

    Scandal!

  18. Which shows how far out of touch you are

    “lost the women vote?” Do you ever go outside 128?

    “looks like a total Moron” Are you reading the coverage of this?

    • I LIVE outside of 128

      Geesh. Surrounded by them, we are…

      But hey, you know, I don’t run one of the biggest blogs in Lowell, and these are not the droids you’re looking for.

      And yes, he lost women with his blunt amendment stupidity, as did Mitty Mitty Bang Bang.

  19. If she was the one who brought it up to bosses, a low-class move.

    Unfortunately for Brown I plan on pretty much voting my economic self-interest, so something like this has about as much chance of swaying my vote as his half-court shot the other day.

    • Not me. I'm voting

      for the person that most reflect my identity. I may have to write in Ed Asner or Dennis Franz, but it’s who you are that counts.

  20. 40 posts as of 3:20 on what many says is a nonissue

    which proves the point that it is an issue.

    hey petr- how do you know so much about the unsophisticated voter? do some research and read the Herald comment section and see what they have to say.

    i think that the Travellers thing is a nonissue because people will say, “She’s a lawyer and she defend a company. Isn’t that what lawyers do?”

    • Huge issue

      This is a huge issue, and so is the Traveller’s $200,000 (and maybe more prior to that). She is supposed to be a full time law professor and paid big time to be. She has students she is supposed to be teaching. Why couldn’t she let some other lawyer defend them? Why did they hire her? Is she an expert in asbestos? I bet the victims barely get anything from these lawsuits anyhow, if they prevail in court. Their lawyers get paid big time though. What a scam, and us regular people pay for it in our premiums.

    • hey petr- how do you know so much about the unsophisticated voter?

      I said nothing whatsoever about voters, sophisticated or no. I merely pointed out that your argument rests on the assumption that the voters (you mentioned) are, simultaneously, sophisticated and unsophisticated: to wit, that they are too unsophisticated to be trusted with the truth, but sophisticated enough to grasp a rather subtle argument that, conveniently, fits your narrative.

    • Actually, I think non-issues

      attract more commentary because there’s nothing to do with them but nitpick.

      Seriously:

      Brown: Warren said she was Native American when she wasn’t.
      Reporter: Well, she is at least 1/32 Cherokee.
      Brown: Ummm….

  21. This IS just about the biggest non-issue

    and a quick scan (as opposed to a definite count) appears that the majority of the 40+ comments are saying so in various ways. It also appears we have from the right on this thread both insinuations that she benefited from her Native heritage and that she lied about having Native heritage.

    Which is it? This is in the same category of accusations that the President is either a radical Christian under the influence of Jeremiah Wright or a closet Muslim, or that the President is either a Communist, Fascist, or Czarist – again, which is it? Of course none of this Warren heritage flap means squat when it comes to issues, and to those complaining about elitist and condescending attitudes on a recent thread it’s frankly stuff like this that makes it difficult NOT to have such attitudes when people decide that these factors rather than actual policy benefits are going to determine their votes.

  22. You ""nailed" certain truths

    about voters. They don’t pay much attention so they hear candidate Barack Hussein Obama and they think Muslim.

    As to Rev Wright Obama wanted to cover the fact that he never went to church. That’s why he never heard those sermons.

    • Right

      A huge chunk of voters think Obama’s a Muslim.

      Oh, wait. Just a huge segment of low-information Republican voters.

      Who are themselves far less than a majority of voters.

      Right.

  23. Not sure why everyone seems so blind on this.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

    This episode appears to me to be campaign ending. Not only does it solidify the notion that she is an elitist hypocrite, but it’s hard not to look at her and see a fraud. Most people would not do what Warren did, not because they are ashamed of their heritage, but because they would be embarrassed to claim a status based on so distant a relation. The sneaking suspicion of a lot of folks is that affirmative action is a racket and diversity is a scam. Her 1/32 bit of Cherokee made the Harvard faculty more diverse how exactly? What was the practical difference between Warren and some other woman who was not 1/32 bit of Cherokee? None of this is to say that her claimed status impacted her hiring. Who knows for sure? Would anyone actually admit that her heritage was a factor or that is was a factor for any hire? If it were a factor, would that be problematic to anyone here? Placing a thumb on the scales when all else is equal in order to help someone who is disadvantaged is considered good right?

    If you disagree with me on things, here’s a test. Defend affirmative action and diversity in the space underneath this photo of a native american. I’ll help you start. “Diversity in the workplace is important because ___________.”

    • Hertiage and ethnicity

      People are trained from childhood to give their ethnic background – their heritage. I have friends who told me they’re “Irish, German, and a little bit Russian”, for example. I also have friends who are 100% the same ethnicity because their parents were immigrants. None of those kids did genealogical research to find that stuff out. They got the information from their parents and grandparents. Sometimes people mentally latch onto certain ethnicities even though it isn’t the majority.

      Elizabeth Warren’s grandmother was 1/8 Cherokee. It is possible that she knew her own grandparent who was half Cherokee. She likely instilled that ethnicity into her children, who instilled it into Elizabeth Warren.

      One of my grandmothers called herself French. She is actually 3/4 French – but she identified herself as 100% French. That makes me 3/16 French, and that makes my child 3/32 French. Not much French in my child, right? But my child, when asked, will list French as an ethnicity.

      Should I tell my child that it is fraudulent to mention French ethnicity since it is just 3/32?

      Bottom line is that Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee, and she apparently believes that another grandparent had Indian heritage too. The reason conservatives are bringing this up are twofold. First, she doesn’t *look* Cherokee. Second, they are obsessed with affirmative action, and thus believe that she must have benefited from it. The criticisms say a lot more about Republicans than anything.

    • Patrick, you've been drinking

      that Ron Paul stuff too long.

      It takes a hell of a lot to make this an issue. There’s no evidence that she did anything wrong. Yeah, you can imagine a scandal here, but there’s no scandal here so far. Brown’s daughter benefiting from ACA is more newsworthy.

    • For thee... but not for me?

      Most people would not do what Warren did, not because they are ashamed of their heritage, but because they would be embarrassed to claim a status based on so distant a relation. The sneaking suspicion of a lot of folks is that affirmative action is a racket and diversity is a scam.

      Actually, most people have done exactly what she has done… and with even greater distance: as I noted earlier, the Mayflower Society and the Daughters of the American Revolution exist solely for this purpose. The fact that they are private institutions is also germane: white people of a certain lineage have long ‘taken care of their own’. Nobody bats an eye at the notion that 1/128 of Mayflower blood makes you someone of distinction or whether or no you are somebody because your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandmother once bandaged up an injured minuteman at Concord. That we need the government to do for Cherokees what whites have long done for whites, even in 2012, speaks volumes about who we are as a society.

      In fact, the Gospel of Matthew starts with tracing the provenance of Jesus all the way back past King David (14 generations) unto Abraham (another 14 generations). Jesus’ claim to the Kingdom of Israel rests on this lineage…. much more than either Elizabeth Warren or Mayflower descendants are claiming. If it’s good enough for the Son of God, it’s good enough for me.

      I’m all for a stronger clarity with respect to provenance FOR EVERYONE. I’m aware of members of the Polish side of my family that arrived in America in the 1870′s and some of the Irish side who arrived even earlier, in the 1840′s. I, personally, think that the Mayflower Society and the DAR are good and useful institutions. I do not think we should eschew that which good an useful because the beneficiaries are not white.

      And I think manufactured notions of triviality, ‘rackets’ and ‘scams’ with respect to a Cherokee heritage, but not a white one, is, in the least self-serving, and at the most, racist. I do not contend that you, patrick, are a racist only that you have bought into their particular frames of reference.

      • Mayflower and DAR are historical groups

        not employers. The raison d’etre of these groups REQUIRE some historical connection. But being hired by Harvard Law School doesn’t. Or shouldn’t.

        But wait — it looks like it does! The beef with Warren is that she used her 1/32nd Native American heritage as a hiring advantage. From the WP:

        According to the Boston Herald, Warren was billed as a Native American employee by Harvard Law School in the 1990s. And the professor proactively described herself as minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory between 1986 and 1995. The implication in these stories is that Warren used minority status to advance her career.

        The the Herald is correct, then the quota-hire accusation is true.

        Hey, I forgot, isn’t John F. Kerry Jewish?

        • Except it's not correct

          Why rely on fact when conjecture is so much more fun?

          The professor who recruited Warren to Harvard, Charles Fried, told the Associated Press that Warren was hired for her qualifications, not any part of her ancestry.

          “That’s totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong,” Fried, also a Harvard Law School professor, told the AP on Monday. “I presented her case to the faculty. I did not mention her Native American connection because I did not know about it.”

          (From Masslive.com, quoting an AP article)

  24. Seriously, Patrick?

    What part of having filled out a survey once indicating a partial heritage is at all elistist or hypocritical? Where is the evidence that she ever got an unfair advantage out of it? How does this detract from her already impressive resume or the validity of her views on the issues in this race? Don’t know what the point of your thought exercise is. I’m actually not the biggest fan of affirmative action or other deliberate attempts at diversity, but I’ve never thought of her (and still don’t) as being the beneficiary of such attempts, as I’ve yet to see ANY evidence of a connection between her ethnicity and being hired by Harvard.

    • It's a character issue- but not a game-changer

      When you bring up ethnicity in the context of an employment search, given what everyone knows (or at least assumes) about “Equal opportunity” and Affirmative Action, you are angling for an advantage based on belonging to a historically disadvantaged group. Mentioning such a thing in a professional directory is basically the same thing- you mention it with the knowledge that it might positively impact your economic prospects, or perhaps make your accomplishments seem even more impressive given that you come from a group that has suffered discrimination. For instance: someone very close to me is 1/16 African-American, but has never tried to claim to be black on a job application, student loan application, or any other such thing. Because it would be dishonest and immoral to do so, an attempt to “cash in on affirmative action” to the detriment of others for whom certain progressive policies have been instituted. If Warren did it, and knowingly allowed Harvard to “use” her self-identification to bolster their diversity cred, it was likewise Dishonest and Immoral. How would you feel if Joey MacEachern from Southie, also 1/32 Native American, checked that box on his application to join the fire department? It’s a character thing, not the biggest thing, and not a game-changer. But it is something.

  25. I have a specific example of this.

    I spent two years of college in NROTC. As many (in the 1970′s it was >75%) do, I left before I had any commitment.

    The Navy gave me an honorable discharge so technically I am a veteran.

    I never say I’m a veteran, never check the box.

    Because while technically I am, I’m not.

    Elizabeth Warren checked the box.

  26. It really has become comical to read these rationalizations

    from avowed intellectuals. When are you fanatics going to realize that Marisa DeFranco, would, indeed, be the most formidable senate candidate for your party?

  27. EW answers the question. She admits to listing herself as a Native American...

    so we can at least stop blaming Harvard for doing this without her knowledge as some have alleged… Elizabeth Warren did it, to meet people like her.

    From the Globe tonight…

    US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday that she listed herself as a minority in directories of law professors in the hopes of networking with other “people like me” — meaning those with Native American roots.

    Asked whether she considers herself to be a minority, the Democrat said, “Native American is part of my family. It’s an important part of my heritage.”

  28. Apparently johnD

    thinks Warren should deny her native american heritage.

    Would that make it all better johnd?

    • Please don't put words in my mouth or imply anything like this.

      As someone upstream noted, we are all descendants of a variety of nationalities and ethnicities, no pureblood Americans since even they had to get here from someplace else. Trying to turn the narrative of this story from her “denying” her Native American roots or any racism against Native Americans is more than silly. The objections people seem to have is that EW may have used this minority status for her advantage which would be offensive. And let’s have an honest moment, do you all really believe that BMG wouldn’t be having a field day on a non-issue like this if it were Scott Brown (or any of the other names you name callers like to use for him) had done this in his past?

      I’m Irish but to be honest I don’t have records of every race/nationality of my great-great or great grandmothers and grandfathers so maybe I’m Native American too. Should I check off the boxes of 32 different backgrounds when I’m asked about my nationality, surely I have a lot of mixed blood in me from so many sources. When do people stop checking off the minority box 1/32th, 1/64th, 1/128th…

      • What's this box?

        John, you’re not the first one to bring it up, but what box? The word seems imply Warren is pretending to be a minority on a job application or something. She checked off something in a directory, it seems. So what?

  29. Offensive according to you Johnd

    But then your position on all matters is offensive. Typical right wing BS. Warren is suspect because you don’t have recordsof your nationality that goes back 5 generations. Warren must be working the system because you can’t prove that you’re native american too.

    i wouldn’t attempt to put words in your mouth with all thise feet in there. And as for name calling, try this:
    Elitist Hypocrite.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 1 Oct 10:15 AM