Recently in Elizabeth Warren fabulist Category


Elizabeth Warren's website is set up to enable illegal donations from foreign nationals and donors hiding their true identities. Half the money she has raised online, some $18 million, has come through websites that are vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign donations. Michael Patrick Leahy at has examined the records and here is the shocking summary of the records Warren has set:

(1) Most money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations: $18.3 million ($15.8 million in "unitemized" donations and at least $2.5 million in itemized donations from conduit site
(2) Highest percentage of money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations as a percentage of total funds raised: 50.5% (43.7% in "unitemized" donations and at least 6.8% in itemized donations from conduit site

Warren cheated to seek career advantage by abusing federal minority programs. Now she is cheating the federal rules on raising campaign funds.

The Scott Brown website and the Romney websites all have the verification security safeguards against fraud and illegal foreign donations. Warren's does not.

Could this be an accident, a mistake? Hardly.

The full story is as shocking as it is monumental in scope:

Warren has set a total of seven all time fundraising records for campaign contributions raised online from sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations, including these additional five:
1.Most money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate in "unitemized" deductions from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations: $15.8 million
2.Highest percentage of money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate in "unitemized" donations from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations as a percentage of total funds raised: 43.7%
3.Most money raised in a six week reporting period by a candidate for the United States Senate in "unitemized" donations from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations: $3.9 million
4.Highest percentage of money raised in a six week reporting by a candidate for the United States Senate in "unitemized" donations from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations as a percentage of total funds raised: 47.2%
5.Highest percentage of money raised in a single reporting period (quarterly, six week, or other) by a candidate for the United States Senate in "unitemized" donations from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations as a percentage of total funds raised: 47.2%
6.Between her announcement in September, 2011 and her most recent Federal Election Commission filing that included donations up to September 30, 2012, Elizabeth Warren raised $36.2 million. A record setting 43.7% of this amount--$15.8 million-- comes in the form of "unitemized" donations of less than $200 raised online from two sites -- and the conduit site -- neither of which have implemented basic industry standard security techniques to prevent fraud or foreign donations, as reported earlier this month by Breitbart News.

Who else has such defective verification security on fundraising websites? Most prominent is Barack Obama.

Read the entire report.

The mainstream media in Massachusetts and nationally are ignoring this latest evidence of Elizabeth Warren cheating. First, an unsubstantiated Native American claim for career advantage. Then, not bothering to register her law office in Massachusetts as required by law, thus avoiding paying annual fees to the Board of Bar Overseers, which go in part to a fund to help compensate victims defrauded by lawyers. Now, federal campaign rules.

Do Harvard Law professors get a pass on standards of what's right and wrong? Aren't Harvard Law faculty members and Harvard Law graduates embarrassed and ashamed?

For much more on the transgressions of Elizabeth Warren (and lots more good stuff), a great place is Cornell law professor William Jacobson's Legal Insurrection website.



Elizabeth Warren's lies are not limited to her non-existent Native American heritage. She will use words and issues to suit her purposes regardless of what the truth is.

She is publishing TV and radio ads making groundless false statements about Scott Brown, most of which are designed to turn women away from Scott. This terrific new ad by Women's Issues advocate Laurie Meyers sets the story straight. Will the truth catch up with the lies in time?

Are not the faculty of Harvard Law School embarrassed and angry that one of their colleagues is discrediting their institution by her lying?



It's frightening to think that a Harvard Law professor (Elizabeth Warren) can so calmly lie so frequently about so many things with total equanimity. Harvard Law graduates should be ashamed and embarrassed.

Massachusetts citizens and voters should be horrified at the prospect that a person of such deficient character might be elected a U.S. Senator. (Yes, some cynics might say they should be used to that having had Edward Kennedy as a senator for so many years.)

What do you call a person who cheats? A cheater.

What do you call a person who lies? A liar.

Those are the two most important words to describe Elizabeth Warren. Harsh, to be sure, but from all we have seen, read and found out, accurate.

That's not to overlook plagiarism, which is a form of lying, involved in the Pow Wow cookbook recipes she presented as her own "Cherokee" recipes taken from the cookbooks of others.

Or that she runs a law office in Massachusetts in apparent violation of Massachusetts criminal law.

Others use terms to describe Elizabeth Warren such as pathological liar and sociopath, but to the average person those words may not mean so much. The terms do suggest that that the person uttering falsehoods has no concept of right and wrong or truth or falsity or, if he or she does, that the distinctions are meaningless or are of no consequence to the speaker. The words to be used are those best suited to the purpose of the speaker. There are of course limits that even the most pathological must observe: If it's raining, it's difficult to get away with saying it is not. But where one is in total or near total possession of what can be described as the facts, or the narrative, the story can be spun to suit.

So it is with Elizabeth Warren's history. What media reporter will be so indefatigible as to pursue every lead, or to put all the puzzle pieces together, when in reality he or she doesn't want to find anything anyway to dispute what she's saying? It's so much easier to accept at face value what she says with such glib assurance since she is the left wing's -- and the media's -- darling.

Professor William Jacobson of Cornell Law School has taken a special interest in the Elizabeth Warren matter. His blog Legal Insurrection is devastating in its exposé of Warren's fantasy world. He has put together a short video clip highlighting a number of her false assertions that the media and her left wing fan base accept without question.

You can indeed succeed cheating and lying if you are really good at it. She’s a pro.

Plagiarist, cheater, liar, Harvard Law School professor - and U.S. Senator?

At least one Harvard graduate has decided to force Harvard to stop looking the other way and confront the public embarrassment that is Elizabeth Warren. Under a Whistleblower type procedure that Harvard has created, the grad has filed a 73-page complaint demanding an investigation. The complaint can be read and downloaded by clicking on the link below.


Warren is also a much discussed figure in the case currently before the Supreme Court of the United States U.S. vs. Fisher in which the University of Texas' affirmative action programs are being challenged. Professor Jacobson points out why she is such a star in those proceedings.

As always, check out The Real Elizabeth Warren website.



Elizabeth Warren brazenly states over and over again that she never used her Native American claim to get career advancement. Two problems with that:
1. She only advanced the claim (once, she says) in of all places the law school association faculty directory (that of the Association of American Law Schools) used by would-be law professors looking for jobs and law school recruiters looking for candidates for their faculties. What an odd place to make the claim if she wasn't hoping to get some benefit from it.

2. Why did she do it when she did? She and her law professor husband were both settled in at the University of Texas Law School where they both had appointments. Both had registered with the Texas Bar so they could practice law on the side. They seemed to have found the place they had been looking for since they married in 1980, a law school faculty where they could both teach and be able to live together.

But opportunity came knocking -- for her husband, who was a well-known and respected authority in an important but narrow field, American legal history. The elite Ivy League Pennsylvania Law School offered him a position, something a Yale Law grad just couldn't turn down. But how could he leave his wife behind? Reports are that he was insisting his wife be offered a position, too, but she did not have at that time the reputation that her husband did. What could they do to convince Penn she had something special to offer?

How about being Native American at a time when "diversity hysteria" was running high at elite universities, including at their law schools? (For example, Harvard Law that year was in the national spotlight because black activist law professor Derrick Bell, who had just rejoined the faculty. was fulminating at rallies and sit-ins about his law school's lack of diversity.) The hunt for diversity was red hot.

Did law professor husband Bruce Mann happen to call the attention of Penn Law recruiters to his wife's listing in the AALS law faculty directory in which she had checked the box labeled "Native American or Native Alaskan"?

Race table AALS.jpg

Click on box to get bigger picture.

Within months Elizabeth Warren was on her way to Philadelphia to join the elite Penn Law faculty. Soon Penn Law was reporting a Native American on the faculty and letting its colleagues at other elite law schools know of their triumph. The two law professors selected stylish Bela Cynwyd for their home. They had made a giant leap up from Austin, Texas. Honest Injun. Hah.

But she left the false filing on file. Why not? It worked wonders and who knows what other great things might come her way? Indeed, a few years later Harvard Law tapped her and after some dancing around she accepted a permanent appointment and Harvard Law could now claim a Native American on the faculty.

But as soon as she had her permanent appointment she apparently rethought her situation and decided she didn't want to be throught of as just another affirmative action achiever roaming around the Harvard grounds, so she dropped the nine year old listing in the law school faculty search directory. After all, she had reached the top of the law school faculty pyramid, there was no higher to go. How much better to be just another white professor in lilly white Harvard? Harvard's chargrin at this change of color is unrecorded.



Nevada casino mogul Steve Wynn doesn't like Obama, that's clear. More important, he's afraid of him and his anti-business attitude and policies; he says that "every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks." With Obama, Wynn feels he has "a bullseye" painted on his back. And he's not alone.

Obama's sneering attitude is exactly the same as Elizabeth Warren's:

The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees. By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money 'billionaires and millionaires who don't pay their share.'

In every debate Warren has attacked "millionaires and billionaires" for not paying their fair share. Of course, Warren neglects to point out that her and Obama's millionaires include small businesses earning $250,000.

Both Obama and Warrren are promoting envy, resentment and class warfare and thereby inhibiting economic growth in their quest for political gain.

On the Tuesday broadcast of the nightly Nevada political program "Ralston Reports," Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts sat down with host Jon Ralston to discuss the presidential election.

Wynn, an outspoken critic of President Obama, didn't hold back in his latest criticism of the incumbent president seeking a second term.

"I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back," Wynn said about Obama to Ralston. An excerpt of the interview is below.

Wynn On Obama: "I'll Be Damned If I Want To Have Him Lecture Me"

WYNN: I've created about 250,000 direct and indirect jobs according to the state of Nevada's measurement. If the number is 250,000, that's exactly 250,000 more than this president, who I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back.

The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees. By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money 'billionaires and millionaires who don't pay their share.' I gave 120% of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years. I can't stand the idea of being demagogued, that is put down by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn't even understand how the economy works.

"I'm afraid of the president. I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you Jon that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks."

The only way to revive the economy is to defeat Obama. And the anti-business, extremist Warren in the U.S. Senate would be an obstacle to freeing up the economy so it can start growing again.



It's veering towards unanimous that Elizabeth Warren is a slippery character. As a high school debate champion, she learned to be convincing no matter what side she was on.

From years of practice, her skills at telling the best story even if it is not the true story are world class. Who would have such confidence in her oratorical skills to do all this?

Claiming minority preference in a law faculty search directory when she had no basis for the claim under federal law and regulations. And denying she was using "diversity" to get a job on the prestigious Penn Law faculty to follow her highly regarded scholar professor husband there. (The key question is whether it was fraud or attempted fraud. Was her husband an accomplice in the decision to claim Native American status? When she allows the records to be released, we'll know.)

Denying that Penn Law and Harvard Law knew about her claim of Native American heritage, when Penn Law and Harvard Law both trumpeted the fact they had a Native American on the faculty. (Maybe an interviewer or two didn't know, but the recruiters and those who filed the federal reports -- and crowed to their elite law school recruiter competitors -- knew.)

Running a law office and practicing law in Massachusetts for more than 15 years without registering with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (a crime for regular people -actually, two crimes) though she was busily practicing law on the side while teaching. Plenty of time. She taught only one course a week for her $300,000 plus salary plus benefits. (She avoided paying annual fees that in part were used to compensate victims of lawyer fraud and certifying annually she was in good standing in all state and federal courts. She wasn't, since she wasn't registered as a lawyer in any state for most of those years. An interesting question: Could she legally call herself a lawyer?)

Contrary to her claims she is for the little guy, she represented big companies against the little guys. She explains that away by saying she only represented those big companies that paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars because she was really looking out for the little guys on the other side. (Acting in the interests of an opposing party is a gross violation of lawyer ethics.)

And she said her parents eloped, but records show they didn't. (Damn, she should have looked up the old newspapers.)

And how about the plagiarized recipes for the Native American cookbook? (Totally brazen, Someone else's published French recipes using ingredients such as crabmeat that Cherokee never had access to. Recipes signed: Elizabeth Warren. Cherokee. Plagiarism is a form of lying. Oh, and her husband law professor did, too.)

Is there a pattern here?

Does she only comply with the laws she likes? Is she above the law? She's done a great job of acting as if she thinks she is and, so far, she's gotten away with it.

Media and Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, where are you?

She's getting national attention, because so many are amazed that with her string of apparent law violations, shifting stories and laughable explanations she is still a possibility to get elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.

Will character, integrity and telling the truth be ignored in Massachusetts? Will Scott Brown's successful Senate record working for all Americans regardless of party, his years of service in the Armed Forces recently honored by promotion to Colonel, his even-handed rerpresentation of all Massachusetts citizens in the Senate, the trust his colleagues of both parties have put in him, be ignored?

Many Massachusetts Democrats and Independents are speaking out for Scott Brown and will be voting for him. He has earned their support because he went to Washington and did what he said he would do and represented all the people of Massachusetts.

Read some of the latest. Believe us, there's more.

For more on the real Elizabeth Warren, go here and here.





The Mass GOP has filed a protest with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that the General Counsel of the Board of Bar Overseers inappropriately issued a public statement seeming to exonerate Elizabeth Warren for her failure to obtain a license to practice law in Masssachusetts as required by law. This is a partisan statement from an agency employee of the court system, which should not happen.

This was done even though the General Counsel admitted he had not investigated the facts. In various Massachusetts lawyer blogs, lawyers are expressing irritation if not anger that nothing is being done. They pay fees every year to practice; why should Elizabeth Warren be exempt?



Elizabeth Warren's unsubstantiated claim of Native American heritage was first made in 1986 in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directory used by law school administrators to find candidates for their faculties.

In 1986 diversity hysteria among elite universities, including their law schools, was running high. Harvard Law School was erupting in controversy as black activist law professor Derrick Bell was gaining national attention with his staged protests against lack of diversity on the HLS faculty. Minority candidates were hot properties.

Warren's law professor husband Bruce Mann was offered a position at the elite Ivy League Penn Law School, but he was reported to be insisting that his law professor wife be hired, too, so they could be together. But why should prestigious Penn Law do that? She wasn't famous like her husband, a highly regarded expert on legal history.

What special appeal did she have?

For the first time, Elizabeth Warren declared herself a Native American in that AALS law faculty search directory and nowhere else.

A real question is how could two adult, intelligent law professors look at federal guidelines for minority listing and decide she was qualified. A few minutes' search of the federal law and regulations would have made it clear she was not. What “mammy told me” couldn't be the basis for such an emotionally and historically charged claim in 1986. Nonetheless, she claimed minority status.

Did Warren's husband Bruce Mann happen to mention his wife's brand new Native American AALS listing to Penn Law recruiters? They had access to it. Right there (as the AALS form appears even today), on the first page of the listing, under the place for name, address and phone number, is the section on RACE, with the Native American box waiting to be checked (click on picture to enlarge) :

Race table AALS.jpg

Did that Native America listing do the trick? Within months she too was off to Philadelphia as a "trailing spouse," as characterized by Michael Patrick Leahy in an article at

Why did Warren decided to transform herself into a Native American and list herself in a law school faculty search directory (and only there) if not to make herself more attractive to Penn Law recruiters? What's important is her motivation, not whether academic recruiters might say was their reason for hiring her.

Why else would she make such a listing at that time if not to give herself "special appeal" to Penn Law?

At age 38, she was a full time tenured professor at Texas Law School and has just that year belatedly registered with the State Bar of Texas to practice law (three years after her husband registered). She and her husband seemed to have settled in, teaching together at Texas Law School. But the Yale Law educated husband couldn't turn down that Penn offer. What could they do? They had often said that their goal was to teach at the same place. This must have been a family crisis. They must have faced it together. They needed something "extra."

Soon they were happily teaching in the elite Ivy League at the same law school.

That listing apparently worked so well that she kept it for nine years until she became a tenured professor at Harvard Law School. Having reached the pinnacle of law school faculties, she discontinued her AALS entry. No need to be one of those affirmative action people walking around campus.

Appearing below is a four-page document Issued by the Massachusetts Republican State Committee that contains many of the facts about Elizabeth Warren's Native American claim (at age 38) and subsequent rise to fortune and fame.

To read the document in full size, click on the direction in the upper right. The document can be downloaded or printed out as well.

Elizabeth Warren - Native American Scandal mailer

To read even more about Warren's troubles with the truth, see Professor Jacobson's excellent blog Legal Insurrection, especially here.



In the second Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren debate, Warren was once again not convincing; she failed to prove she is not a liar and a fraud. New revelations about her law practice also disclosed she is not the friend of the working man she pretends to be.

Senator Brown gave another strong performance, emphasizing that he knows how to work with people of all persuasions to get things done.

Warren is running ads trying to deflect attention away from the minority scandal that is rightly dogging her. She doesn't want voters to focus on the real question: Why did she identify herself as a Native American minority in the first place? She says it wasn't for the purpose of career advancement. Her ads do not tell the truth: Law school recruiters had to have known of her Native American claim before she had interviews with any law professors.

Warren, by her own admission, listed herself as a minority in only one place, in a directory used by law school administrations looking for candidates to add to their faculties.That place was the career directory of the Association of American Law Schools. At that time, 1986, diversity hysteria was running high and law school administrators were desperately hunting.

Warren and her law professor husband Bruce Mann had often made it clear they understandably wanted to be able to teach at the same place. Now Yale-educated Mann had an offer to join the elite Penn Law faculty. They needed her to get an offer to join the elite Penn Law faculty so they could be together. She needed some special appeal.

As lawyers and law professors, it would take them only a few minutes looking at federal law and regulations to ascertain she was not qualified to claim minority status.

Nonethelesss, with no genealogical support and no support under the federal rules, she checked the Native American box anyway. It worked. Within months she too was off to Philadelphia.

Penn Law filed federal reports and let the law school world know it had a Native American on the faculty. In due course, Harvard Law School came calling, hired her and made its own federal reports of a Native American on the faculty. Having arrived at the pinnacle of law school faculties, she no longer apparently needed to be considered Native American. In 1995 she discontinued her Native American listing (which had continued for nine years) after Harvard Law granted her tenure.

Why does the controversy linger? Because she won't admit she lied, that she claimed minority status in hopes of advancing her career. In the process of denial and offering excuses, she has just compounded her problems. What she says is laughable except the matter is too serious to laugh at.

Warren says she listed herself as Native American (in just that one legal directory) to meet "others like her." The only people who could see that listing were law school faculty recruiters.

She talks about what "my mammy told me" when she was a child. That has no relevance when two adult law professors are deciding whether to make a historically and emotionally charged claim of minority status under a program governed by federal rules to help real minorities.

From what's been learned, Warren took improper advantage of a program designed to help real minorities. That's not right. Her explanations and excuses simply don't stand up to close examination.

Character, integrity, honesty are important in big matters and small. It also tells us something when we read reports that that these two adult law professors two years earlier in 1984 had apparently plagiarised recipes to put in a Warren cousin's Native American cook book. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty and lying.

Scott Brown is an honest man who has earned the trust of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate on both sides of the aisle.

He has succeeded in breaking partisan gridlock to get important bills passed into law. In Washington, he is considered one of the two most bipartisan senators along with Senator Susan Collins of Maine. The nation has huge problems that need to be solved. Scott Brown has proven he is the kind of person the nation needs.



Elizabeth Warren got caught lying and yet she keeps lying. As one voter says, "We don't need another liar in Washington." Is hers a pathological condition?



Elizabeth Warren "is a proven liar, hypocrite and fraud," and is unfit for the U.S. Senate, concludes the Investor's Business Daily. IBD notes she holds herself out as a cut above the ordinary pol, but in actuality she is worse than the sleaziest.

Democrat Senate Hopeful Warren Exposed As Complete Fraud
September 25, 2012

Politics: Democrat Elizabeth Warren has framed her race in Massachusetts against Sen. Scott Brown around integrity and intellect, as if she's a cut above other pols. In fact, she's beneath even the sleaziest.

On top of fraudulently claiming minority Indian status without any documented ancestry, the Harvard law professor has now been busted practicing law in Massachusetts without a state license.

Worse, her client list includes the type of corporations that Ms. Populist has demonized on the campaign trail as greedy polluters and exploiters of the "little guy."

Read it all.



A young Native American calls Elizabeth Warren's words and conduct "shockingly offensive" and "racist." Watch the video and read the transcript below.




Elizabeth Warren is our above-the-law law professor. She claims she's a Cherokee minority in a law school directory used by law school deans searching for new faculty at a time when diversity hysteria was at or near a peak. Apparently without checking federal or unversity guidelines for such a listing or having her own genealogy checked out, since, after all, for 37 years she has considered herself white.

Eureka! Within months she's hired by the elite Penn Law School and goodbye to Texas. She says she listed herself in the law school directory to meet "others like her." Aren't many Cherokees browsing through that specialized directory, but other law school deans are and in time Harvard Law School comes calling and she reaches the top of the law school faculty career ladder. What "my mammy told me" is now what she says is the basis of the claim she made as a 37-year old lawyer with nine years of experience teaching law. Now really.

What's involved here? Honesty, truth, fraud, false statements to federal officials, seeking unfair advantage under a federal program? Penn and HLS deans deny that being a Native American had anything to do with her hiring, but both schools prominently let it be known a Native Amercan was on the faculty. No matter what they say, what's important is why she listed herself as a Cherokee. It's her intention and motivation that's important. What's more likely? Searching for "others like me" or creating a special appeal that would vault her over other highly qualified candidates?

Senator Scott Brown reviews the question in an ad: Who Knows?



U.S. Chamber of Commerce says Warren is the greatest threat to business on the ballot in 2012.


Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!


Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media


Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Chatham Info
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives