CHART: Elizabeth Warren DNA = 99.9% NOT Native American + 0.1% Peruvian…

Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren lied about her Native American ancestry.
Findings from her own DNA test published by the Boston Globe:^[1,2]
– They did not compare her DNA to Native American samples (explanation below*), but to samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia (South America).
– Warren is less than 0.1% to 1.56% “Native American.”
– That means she is 99.9% to 98.4% NOT Native American.
– The average American has more Native American genes (0.18%) than Warren’s 0.1 % (0.097%).

Why do we care? Because Elizabeth Warren has used this fake claim to advance her professional and political careers. Isn’t it time we stop politicians from dividing us into different groups?

ANALYSIS
Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren released a DNA test yesterday claiming that “she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations.”^[1,2]
That means, Warren’s so-called Native American DNA could be between 0.1% to 1.56% . (That is a Native American* ancestry between 1/64th and 1/1,024th.)

If Elizabeth Warren had a Native Ancestor 6 generations back in her tree, it means that:
She has 1/64th Native American* ancestry, which means she shares only 1.56% of her ancestors’ DNA, on average.
That means her DNA is 98.44% not Native American.

If Elizabeth Warren had a Native Ancestor 10 generations back in her tree, it means that:
She has 1/1,024th Native American* ancestry, which means she shares less than 0.1 % (0.097%) of her ancestors’ DNA, on average.
That means her DNA is 99.9% not Native American.

*They did not use Native American DNA samples but Mexican, Peruvian, and Colombian samples:
From her DNA test, page 3:^[2]

For Native American references, we used samples within the 1000 Genomes project of Native American ancestry; these samples come from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. (It is not possible to use Native American reference sequences from inside the United States, since Native American groups within the US have not chosen to participate in recent population genetics studies.)

The Boston Globe^[1] explained further:

Detecting DNA for Native Americans is particularly tricky because there is an absence of Native American DNA available for comparison. This is in part because Native American leaders have asked tribal members not to participate in genetic databases.

“The tribes have felt they have been exploited,” explained Lawrence Brody, a senior investigator with the Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch at the National Institutes of Health. “The amount of genetic data that is available from Native Americans is sparse.”

To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American.

The average American has 0.18% Native American genes (that is more than Warren’s DNA), as published by The New York Times:^[3]

The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.

On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans.

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.

REACTION
The Cherokee Nation^[4] rejects Warren’s claims and shenanigans:

Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr.

TAHLEQUAH, Okla. — Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. issued the following statement Monday in response to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test claiming Native Heritage:

“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,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. “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 proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.“

SOURCES:
[1]- Boston Globe: Warren releases results of DNA test (October 15, 2018)
#https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html
[2]- Boston Globe: Warren DNA test (October 15, 2018)
#https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/read-results-warren-dna-test/mBPi8QxENhtHHTP2B1fFBO/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article
[3]- NYT: White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier (Dec. 24, 2014)
#https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html
[4]- Cherokee Nation responds to Senator Warren’s DNA test (10/15/2018)
#http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20181015_Cherokee-Nation-responds-to-Senator-Warrens-DNA-test

Advertisements

Trump Mocked or Just Cited Christine Ford’s Contradictions? Obama Did Mock Us [Vid & Facts]

COMPARING TRUMP VS. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION “MOCKING” PEOPLE
If you analyze the facts with your brain, Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony was full of contradictions. Up to now, Dr. Ford and her team have not been able to provide evidence against Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
Just because someone accuses you (without evidence), doesn’t make it true. #MeToo does not replace innocent until proven guilty.

This is what Trump said two days ago at the Mississippi rally:

WAS TRUMP LYING OR JUST STATING THE FACTS?
Many people have been analyzing the facts, here below are just a few:

Our Chart of the changing dates of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell found many inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford:
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
• Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
• When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
• Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.
• Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
• Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
• Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
• The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

John Nolte listed the many contradictions (and no evidence) in Ford’s story:

• She straight-up lied about being afraid to fly.
• She said she wanted anonymity but continually reached out to the far-left Washington Post.
• Her polygraph is a farce.
• Her story has been carefully weaved into a Kafka-esque nightmare no man (even with detailed calendars) can ever escape from.
• Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story — has no memory of the gathering in question or says it doesn’t happen, and this includes a lifelong friend.
• Her team was so desperate to have The Woman Who Wants Anonymity to testify publicly, they turned down the opportunity to have her questioned in private at her home in California — and then lied about it.
• Ford’s therapist’s notes from 2012 also refute here tale, even as the media and Democrats try to gaslight us into believing the opposite. Ford originally claimed four boys tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-eighties. Now she says it was one rapist and one bystander when she was 15 in the early eighties.
• Ford refused to give her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
• In the statement she wrote out in her farce of a polygraph test, Ford crossed out “early 80’s” so it would only read “80’s.” […]
• Ford told the Committee the “primary impact” of the event occurred during the “four years after” it happened. She goes on to say, “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in College. When I was 17 I went off to college, I had a very hard time.” Note how she skips over two whole years, her junior and senior years in high school; the two school years directly after the attack (unless it did indeed happen in her late teens).
• To later confirm the event did in fact happen in 1982, Ford told the Committee she was able to pin it down to 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her drivers’ license. But… she also says she doesn’t remember how she got to or from the house party, so how does she know she didn’t drive herself?
• […]

• After she locked herself in the bathroom, her rapists didn’t try to get at her? Didn’t jiggle the doorknob? Didn’t try to claim they were kidding? All tuned up for a rape, they just gave up and went downstairs laughing like nothing happened?
• She remember how many beers she had (only one), but has been wildly inconsistent on the number of people who attended this small gathering, the number of people who were  in the room where the assault allegedly happened, and by extension the number of boys who tried to rape her.
• She left without telling her best friend?
• She left without WARNING her best friend there were two rapists in the house? […]
• She can remember how many beers she had (one) but not whose house she was in, how she got home, the date, the place, how many people were there (sometimes it’s 4, or 5 or 6), or anything solid?
• She will show the Washington Post her therapist’s note but not the Senate, which represents We the People?

Margot Cleveland, adjunct law professor and longtime high-level law clerk, has been analyzing the many discrepancies in Ford’s story – check her twitter thread.

THREAD: Let me ask you something. If a woman came forward and said that she was sexually assaulted in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 by one boy, with a second in the room egging her on, and to corroborate her claim she pointed to small portions of notes from a therapist 1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2018

Guy Benson also wrote about Ford’s discrepancies:

[A]ccording to the [Washington] Post, Ford described a rape attempt in her “late teens,” perpetrated by four boys. Ford now says the “four boys” element was a mistake on the therapist’s part (two boys attacked her, four were at the party), but that is an inconsistency nevertheless — in addition to the other evolving inconsistencies about how many people were at the alleged gathering. Furthermore, 15, Ford’s stated age at the time of the alleged incident, would not qualify as “late teens” under any definition. Her attorneys have declined to turn over these redacted records to the committee. […]

This may all seem like preposterous nitpicking, but we have very little actual evidence to review in this case…Ford’s memory, her statements, and her therapy notes are really all we have, in terms of substance. So shifts (a) from the mid-80s to the early 80’s, (b) from her late teens to early teens, and (c) from four perpetrators to two, cannot simply be ignored. […] Given the total lack of contemporaneous corroboration in this case, inconsistencies between the therapy notes and Ford’s ‘final’ story (plus conflicts within various iterations of Ford’s story) have to matter. At the very least, they help highlight why it would be profoundly unfair to defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination over a single, unsubstantiated claim from 36 years ago, based on the information we currently have.

REMEMBER HOW DEMOCRATS HAVE MOCKED US
• Obama Mocked the Tea Party Anti-Tax Protests [2010 Video]
• Joe Biden Called Trump Supporters ‘Virulent Dregs Of Society’ [2018 Video]
• Obama’s AG called us Cowards [2009 Video]
• Obama Maligned Americans [2008 Video]

REMEMBER THE FILTH FROM THE LEFT
We don’t need moral lessons from the Left.
• Jennifer Lopez Called Sarah Palin a B*tch in Spanish (Video)
• Louis CK’s Vile, Sexist Tweets & Rants against Palin (Images, Video)
• Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa about GOP: “Take These Sons of B*tches Out.” Obama Later: “Proud of Hoffa.”
• Politico’s Vulgar Cartoon of Sarah Palin
• Leftist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Calls Senator Inhofe a ‘Prostitute’ and a ‘Call Girl’
• Anti-Woman Comments by Leftists Bill Maher, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, Montel Williams, etc.
• Montel Williams to Rep. Michele Bachmann: Use the Knife to Kill Yourself
• Politico & MSNBC Refer to Conservative Florida Voters as ‘Crackers’
• Democrat Gov. Candidate Jerry Brown’s Camp Calls GOP Meg Whitman “Whore” (audio)

Clarence Thomas 1991: “I DIED a Thousand Deaths” after being Unjustly Accused of Sexual Harassment (Video)

Thomas to the Senate in 1991: “The day I get to receive a phone call … and told that this was going to be in the press, I died”
Where was the empathy from Democrats?

TRANSCRIPT: (October 12, 1991)

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah):

Could you have guessed that some people, including people on this committee, people in the media and others would dredge up stories about drug use, wife beating, advocating Louis Farahkan’s antisemitism, lying about your neutrality in Roe v. Wade, sexual harassment, maybe even implications of other things? Did you think you would have to face scurrilous accusations like those, which you have refuted?

Judge Clarence Thomas:

Senator, I expected it to be bad and I expected awful treatment throughout the process, I expected to be a sitting duck for the interest groups, I expected them to attempt to kill me, and, yes, I even expected personally attempts on my life. That is just how much I expected.

I did not expect this circus. I did not expect this charge against my name. I expected people to do anything, but not this. And if by going through this, another nominee in the future or another American won’t have to go through it, then sobeit, but I did not expect this treatment and I did not expect to lose my name, my reputation, my integrity to do public service. Again, I did not ask to be nominated, I did not lobby for it, I did not beg for it, I did not aspire to it.

I was perfectly happy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is a lifetime appointment. I did not expect to lose my life in the process.

Senator Hatch:

A Washington Post article just today said that you said—and I recall you saying—you told of reporters sneaking into my garage, interest group lobbyists swarming over divorce papers looking for dirt. I remember you said this is not the American dream, this is Kafka-esque, it has got to stop, enough is enough.

[Senator Hatch continues reading from the Washington Post.]

——————-

Sen. Hatch: (video mark 13:12)

Everybody here knows what I am talking about, everybody here. People have tried to make this, have tried to make sexual harassment the only issue here. Now, sexual harassment is ugly, it is unforgivable. It is wrong. It is extremely destructive, especially to women, but to men, too. Sexual harassment should not be allowed.

I would like you to describe now, for this gathering, what it is like to be accused of sexual harassment. Tell us what it feels like. And let me add the word, unjustly accused of sexual harassment.

Judge Thomas: (video mark 14:05)

Senator, as I have said throughout these hearings, the last 2 1/2 weeks have been a living hell. I think I have died a thousand deaths. What it means is living on one hour a night’s sleep. It means losing 15 pounds in 2 weeks. It means being unable to eat, unable to drink, unable to think about anything but this and wondering why and how? It means wanting to give up. It means losing the belief in our system, and in this system, and in this process. Losing a belief in a sense of fairness and honesty and decency. That is what it has meant to me.

When I appeared before this committee for my real confirmation hearing, it was hard. I would have preferred it to be better. I would have preferred for more members to vote for me. But I had a faith that, at least this system was working in some fashion, though imperfectly.

I don’t think this is right. I think it’s wrong. I think it’s wrong for the country. I think it’s hurt me and I think it’s hurt the country. I have never been accused of sex harassment. And anybody who knows me knows I am adamantly opposed to that, adamant, and yet, I sit here accused. I will never be able to get my name back, I know it.

The day I get to receive a phone call on Saturday night, last Saturday night, about 7:30 and told that this was going to be in the press, I died. The person you knew, whether you voted for me or against me, died. In my view, that is an injustice.

BACKGROUND:
Thomas Second Hearing Day 2, Part 3
C-Span video (OCTOBER 12, 1991)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?22218-1/thomas-hearing-day-2-part-3

Thomas Second Hearing Day 2, Part 3:
The committee continued to hear testimony from U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas in his reopened Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Judge Thomas continued to respond to questions from committee members concerning the charges of sexual harassment put against him by University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill, who worked under Judge Thomas when both were employed by the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the early 1980s.

MORE:
– Video 1991: Clarence Thomas against Democrats’ High-Tech Lynching
– Clarence Thomas 1991: “I’d rather Die than Withdraw…I don’t like Bullies” (Video)

RELATED:
– Mark Levin: 30-Year History of Democrat Tactics to Destroy Judicial Nominees [Video]

Funny: Women Test Joe Biden’s Shotgun vs AR-15 (Video)

This video is in response to Joe Biden’s stupid advice to women: ‘Buy a double-barrel shotgun; an AR-15, it’s harder to aim.’

Obama’s Unqualified RINO Approved by Senate for Defense Secretary

OBAMA GETS HIS RINO CHUCK HAGEL; AMERICANS LOSE Allahpundit explains the crazy votes: The final vote: 58-41, which is a bit closer than the 71-27 margin on cloture earlier today. There are 15 Republicans who think voters are too dumb to realize that the cloture vote is the one that assured Hagel’s confirmation and that, by voting yes on that and no on the meaningless final vote, they can pretend that they “opposed” Hagel. And in fairness, they’re probably right; most voters likely are that dumb. But let’s name those 15 anyway: Alexander Ayotte Blunt Burr Chambliss Coburn Collins Corker Flake Graham Hatch McCain Murkowski Sessions Thune […] I can’t believe a single one of those 15, let alone the scores of Democrats who voted for this guy, seriously believes he’s prepared to run the Defense Department…The next time McCain and Graham pound the table about defense cuts or O’s foreign policy, remember that they both voted to send Chuck Hagel on to the final vote. That’s how serious they are. As for Republicans voting yes, there were four: Cochran, Johanns, Shelby, and … Rand Paul, who voted no twice on cloture. That’s the most bizarre vote array on a nominee I could imagine. Liberatarian Rand Paul Voted for Chuck Hagel Allahpundit writes: Here’s Paul’s reasoning: “I voted no because I wanted more information and I think that part of what the Senate does is try to get information about the nominees,” Paul told reporters …“There are many things I disagree with Chuck Hagel on…but the president gets to choose political appointees,” Paul said. […] If “the president gets to choose political appointees” is sufficient reason to vote yes, then (a) we should get rid of the Senate’s advise-and-consent responsibility and (b) at the very least we should not be filibustering nominees, as Rand Paul voted to do twice. Even if he did that purely to squeeze the White House for more information, why would he vote yes on the final vote when they never gave him that information? And if the president’s entitled to his nominee of choice, why would Paul demand more info about Hagel in the first place? Just rubber-stamp him. Vote yes on every vote, no questions asked.

Hollywood Welfare Paid by Taxpayers

George Clooney’s film, Argo, received $6.21 million in tax credits

Via Forbes: Even as the Hollywood glitterati ruminate about social responsibility and the need for the wealthy “one percent” to pay their “fair share,” Hollywood millionaires and moguls are bagging an estimated $1.51 billion in tax revenues annually through something called “film tax credits.” Consider a few of this year’s Oscar nominated films. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Institute, Quentin Tarantino’s controversial spaghetti Western, Django Unchained, featuring Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio has applied to receive an estimated $8.4 million in film tax credits from the State of Louisiana. Actor-director Ben Affleck and producer George Clooney’s film, Argo, received $6.21 million in tax credits from the California Film Commission. Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, featuring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones, hauled in $3.5 million in tax-free film credits. Silver Linings Playbook bagged a cool $5.6 million. Indeed, 40 states now have some form of subsidy or incentive that allow filmmakers to defray income and/or sales taxes incurred during filming. Thirteen states even offer so-called “transferrable film tax credits” that allow filmmakers to convert unused credits into cash—at taxpayer expense, of course. […] [T]ax and policy analysts who have studied film tax credit programs say industry claims of job creation are vastly overstated. Worse, say critics, they drain vital state resources from things like education and healthcare. […] What’s more, the Tax Foundation says “that states lose money by offering tax credits for film production” and that “movie production incentives are costly and fail to live up to their promises” because “they create mostly temporary positions with limited options for upward mobility.”

RELATED – Hollywood’s Pious Hypocrisy