So Elizabeth Warren has presented us with a DNA test that proves she is, in fact, of Native American heritage (said this way because she obviously does not have official membership in a tribe) that goes back "6 to 10 generations." And I have questions.

I did a little research because of the claim that she was an affirmative action hire at Harvard and I have to say... I still can't tell if that's true or not. According to this, the Dean says she was an affirmative action hire, but for being a woman. Elizabeth Warren claims Harvard was not aware of her heritage when she applied, although claims are that she "checked the box" for her heritage. I assume this is that little bit at the end of job applications where they ask your gender, race, disability status, etc. that you aren't required to fill out. This one claims they were only made aware after she was employed. Oddly, this article also claims she is 1/32 Cherokee, pending a cheek swab test... back in 2012. This one claims she did try to benefit, and once told a story that her parents eloped because of discrimination suffered by her part Cherokee mother. 

The bottom line is, without seeing the actual application she filled out, I can't verify if she "checked the box," and I can't verify if she was an affirmative action hire for anything. But it does seem her history with this claim is a little shady. And it is leaning towards she at least tried to benefit from it. 

As stated, there was a "pending" cheek swab test at least as early as 2012. It appears that never happened. Trump offered her $1 million to take the DNA test. She declined. All of a sudden she releases a DNA test from a doctor that proves her claims out of the blue?

I would like to know why this is such a big deal with her. She's so little Cherokee (and the DNA test most likely can't confirm Cherokee) that it really doesn't matter for anything. I've had a DNA test that proves I am 4 different races. At no point have I ever claimed to be any of those races. My great grandmother was Native American - Delaware - and I have seen a photograph of her as well as know her name. I don't claim to be Native American. I don't feel I have enough in my blood to claim that. I can also claim African and Middle Eastern. Again, at such small levels I would never dream of actually claiming minority status because of this. Truthfully, I can also claim "Asian" but the test isn't specific enough to say where in Asia and it might overlap with the Middle Eastern part. 

Elizabeth Warren is so little Cherokee that it doesn't even need mentioning. At no point should any boxes have been checked, and it didn't need to be mentioned to an employer unless it was casual conversation about family history or something. It certainly shouldn't be this big of news. Ever. At any point. 

​So something must have happened for her tiny heritage to be this kind of news for at least six years. Yes, since before Trump. And no, Trump wasn't the first to call her Pocahontas, either. 

Now, as I stated, I have also had a DNA test. I did mine through ancestry.com. When I got the results back they were vague at best. I know a lot of my family history, enough to know that my dad had grandparents who were from Germany and Austria. His grandfather was German and his grandmother was from Austria. She emigrated to Germany where she met and married her husband, then together they came to the USA.  

Now, if I look at my DNA results, they don't say Germany and Austria. They give me a map with huge circles and say I am 18% Germanic Europe and 7% Eastern Europe and Russia, which includes, just barely, Austria. It also includes Hungary, which my father's side of the family claims relations from as well. 

My mom's side of the family is heavily Irish and English. Actually, when my mom did her DNA, it said she was 83% Irish. My DNA results say I am 43% "Ireland and Scotland." I assume it is all Ireland in reality, because we have no record of anyone in our family coming from Scotland, but who knows. I am also 29% "England, Wales, and Northwestern Europe." So by that, I could be Irish or Welsh... maybe I'm French, who the heck knows. 

Here's an interesting fact. According to my DNA test results... I am 0% Native American! Odd, considering I have documented evidence that my great grandmother was, in fact, Native American. And we are blood related. I never met her, she died very young (26). But I got the picture and information from her son... my grandfather. Now, before anyone gets off on a tangent about him telling tall tales, remember the time period he grew up in. At this point in time, being of mixed heritage was not a plus. My family kept it very quiet, even my father. It wasn't something they discussed in mixed company, and even getting the information out of anyone was tough and had to be done in private, one on one. Even with evidence, though, I do not claim Native American status in any capacity. I certainly have never tried to use it for affirmative action. 

Why did I tell you all of this? The point of it all is that the DNA results cannot tell her she is Cherokee. They aren't that specific. It can't even break down exactly where in Europe my family comes from, so they are certainly not going to be tribe specific. 

Also, my DNA results list a ton of other places I come from, but there is so little in my DNA they aren't worth listing. They do, but I have to click a separate link to look at all of those. All of them are 1% or less. At 1% or less, they don't really matter to my genetic makeup enough to be considered. Which means claiming them as part of my heritage would be factual but useless. Any minority listed therein couldn't be claimed for minority status. 

At best, Warren is 1/64th Native American and at worst, 1/1,024 Native American. However, the study was also not based off of Native American DNA from in the USA. So she might actually be Mexican, Peruvian, or Colombian. Again, at such a small level she couldn't claim minority status. It's literally so small a percentage that it isn't worth mentioning. I could tell people all day long that I'm Russian. I wouldn't be wrong according to my DNA results that claim the general region, but it is 7% or less for me. It's meaninglessly small.  I'm Irish and English predominantly. Plain and simple. 

So Elizabeth, you're a white chick. Deal with it. 

​

So I was on Facebook this morning when I noticed a friend shared this article from Fox news. One of the students is sounding the alarm on how the text book is depicting Donald Trump and his supporters. So let's have a look! 

The book is an advanced placement book called, "By the People: A History of the United States" by James Fraser. (This is a sample text being sent out to schools, it hasn't been published for use as of yet)

Liberal indoctrination in schools has been a big issue in recent years, with parents upset by things like white privilege worksheets, worksheets on Islam, school walk outs that don't seem to accept not all students share the same opinion, etc. The issue is real, the jokes are usually viral, and parents are starting to wonder what to do next. 

Then we hear about this text book. So let's go over some of the pieces the article from Fox quotes.

Here's the problem. That statement is true. The Clinton supporters do believe Trump supporters are racist and that Trump is mentally unstable and that we are all just angry all the time. The text here doesn't say "Trump is mentally unstable" or "Trump is a blatant racist." I need more context from the book to judge on whether or not this was an opinion, but as is, this is not an opinion... it is fact. The clipping isn't about Trump... it's about Hillary's supporters. 

If we look back all the way to when it became clear Trump was going to be the GOP nominee, you will recall the statements, signs, and other manure put forth by the Clinton supporters. And it's been a never ending volley ever since he won the election. Being a history book, I don't take issue with this statement being in there in a discussion about the election. It was a historic election. And this garbage was a huge portion of the campaign, the election, and the time following. So if they are going to discuss the campaign and all in the book - as they should - then all of that actually does need to be covered because it was such a huge part of the entire campaign. I mean, Hillary called Trump supporters a basket of deplorables. Like it or not, it was part of the campaign. 

Again... this isn't wrong. Hillary didn't bother campaigning in a lot of the "fly over" states that Trump won, and he needed those states to actually win. Hillary was popular in the city hives because cities usually are full of hive mind mentality and usually go liberal. So yes, Trump took a lot of the suburban areas and rural areas. Known fact. 

Pew Research did their own analysis of the 2016 election. While Hillary didn't do as well as Obama did with minority groups, she still got more of them than Trump did. Same with the age. The amount of democratic votes from young people declined in 2016... but she still got a majority of them. The female vote was a lot closer, with something like 46% of voting women voting for Trump. Which is why, I would guess, they didn't include "male" in that statement.

By those statistics, the clip is actually correct. Trump did better with white voters than minority voters, and most of those votes came from non-city voters. It probably could have been worded better with some of those statistics added in, but the fact is that in text book form this would open a rabbit hole where students would want to know the demographics of every election. Without the time or space to cover all of that - and probably because of the lack of records and how invalid those demographics become the further back in history you go - the author chose to just say that Trump's voter base was mostly white and mostly from non-city areas. Not an incorrect statement. 

So while I agree that liberal indoctrination is an issue and we do need to get back to teaching our kids how to think and not what to think, I do believe this particular instance is not, in fact, a sampling of that bias. It was a truth of the 2016 election and recorded fact. You may not like how it was worded or that it was brought up at all, but it doesn't change the fact that it is truth.  

Now. Let's look at the pictures from Twitter, shall we? Because the pace is about to change. 

The highlighted areas:

Slide 1: They were largely white males, more so than any presidential cabinet since Ronald Reagan (speaking of his cabinet nominees) - Yes, this is also a fact, but not one that I think is critical information. Unlike the demographics of voters and the beliefs of the left, this is a statement that doesn't hold much weight on history other than trying to make the case that Trump is racist and sexist, which is an opinion. A good counter balance to this could possibly be that some Hillary supporters turn on minorities and women who support republican candidates, deciding it is OK to toss slurs in these cases, and could be a reason why more minorities and women don't publicly show support for the right. Just my two cents.

Slide 2: The whole second paragraph, I'm not going to type all of that out. You need it all to get the context of the highlighted areas. This is also an opinion. Race relations did not improve under Obama. Many folks think they got worse. And no one ever claimed seriously that it was a "post-racial era." It was during the Obama years that the simple of act of a white person breathing became racist. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, bananas, air conditioning, etc. all became either racist or sexist. This isn't "post-racial." This is "escalating tensions."

The Black Lives Matter section on Michael Brown is also an opinion. It is being depicted in the "escalating tensions" fashion instead of stating facts and letting students come to their own conclusion about the case.  They seem to have left out the part where Michael Brown was trying to get the police officer's gun away from him after having committed a robbery before being shot. The entire thing is written in a way that gives the students only the information they need to form the opinion that this was a race driven act by a racist police force.

Slide 3: Lots of references to the social fabric tearing. Again, not a wrong statement. That was an ugly election. The rest of the paragraph seems to paint a picture of Hillary having been unfairly treated, though, thus losing the election because she was abused. No mention of her lack of campaigning in rural areas or her insults towards just about anyone who wasn't living in big cities. 

We already discussed the highlighted areas at the bottom of the page.

Slide 4: Wow. His "not very hidden racism." Again, this is an opinion. A very biased opinion that a lot of people don't agree with. The highlights on this page seem to be painting a good portion of the USA as being racist and only voting for Trump because they don't like diversity. Because, again, if you don't vote for the democrat it isn't because you don't like their policies of tax them to death and take away more freedoms while convincing them it's for their own good. You must obviously hate anyone who isn't white, Christian, straight, and male. 

Fox went tame on this one and chose to highlight pieces of text that weren't technically untrue or opinion statements. So from their article on it, it seems like this student was being over sensitive. From looking over the rest of this, I'd have an issue with this text book as a parent. Because, as already stated, I would want my children being taught how to think, not what to think. I want my kids learning how to come to their own conclusions, and this text book does not offer that chance. From missing information to outright biased opinion, this is not a text book... it's a current events book that has no place in school as a guideline for education. 

This is, hands down, a liberal indoctrination book. And the parents need to stand up against this. Even if you are anti-Trump, your concern here should be that your children are not learning the all important skill of forming their own opinions and conclusions. Your kid should be doing their own research, not being handed an opinion. And if you are OK with this, then you aren't doing your child any favors. Teach your kids to think. Make them stand behind their own opinions. And don't force feed them an opinion. 

Pardon me for this entry here, this might be a stream of consciousness. But I'm wondering on some things. 

I was just watching a video about protesters at a Ben Shapiro speech. As always, there was lots of spewing of talking points and walking away from the camera when asked to back it up because they couldn't, crazy conspiracy theories, overt hate, and the always present and always creepy chants. 

My first curiosity is why do you make a claim and then walk away? A lot of things people were accusing Ben Shapiro of being were serious allegations. What is your proof? Why do you walk away? They were obviously getting angry because the interviewer wasn't just blindly nodding along like a mindless bobble-head doll. Is that what is expected by these people? Anything you say is to be believed immediately and the demand to back it up is infuriating to you? How dare they require proof? If you believe your stance and opinion are correct, why are you unwilling to defend it beyond a blanket statement? If it's right, as you say it is, you should be able to easily defend it, right?

What made me sit down to write this, however, was a chant I hear rather often, and you all do, too. "Donald Trump is worse than Hitler." 

Every time I hear this statement I am left speechless. The comparison of Trump to Hitler is a big deal right now, and you are all well aware of that. But I wonder how anyone can make a statement like Trump is worse than Hitler and not see what they are actually doing.

This is a group of people who claims to be fighting hate and bigotry. And they choose to do so by downgrading one of history's biggest atrocities. 

Trump is worse than Hitler? Where are the millions of people that Trump has murdered? Where are the mass graves that Trump had these people buried in? Where are the work camps where he starved these people or gassed them to death or had doctors perform unthinkable "experiments" on? Where are the countries we have conquered and the citizens we left dead in our paths? 

Is this stemming from blind hate, woeful ignorance, or are our schools not teaching about the holocaust anymore? Because I began learning about the holocaust in grade school. In high school, "Night" was required reading and I still hold to this day that that book changed me and began forming the person before you today. That was, to me, one of the most powerful books to ever be put into print. That book, to me, is so powerful that I can feel it in my hand every time I so much as hold it. 

You may not like Trump. You may not like any political ideology right of George Soros. And you may think the way to get laws changed is to cry and scream into the sky about them. But in no way is Trump - or any US politician - anywhere near Hitler. And to claim Trump is worse than Hitler... I don't know if we should be angry at those making that claim, or if we should be angry at our educational system for so desperately failing these little babies.

Enforcing laws on our books and trying to prevent the spread of extremist groups like ISIS is not akin to the horrific murder of 6 million+ people. Nothing Trump has said, done, or suggested is anywhere near what Hitler did. I understand that everything that is said or done by someone you dislike for whatever reason must be inflated with over dramatization, but this is ignorant to dangerous levels. This is the ignoring of history. This is spitting in the face of those 6 million+ people who died and those who managed to somehow survive. Because you didn't get what you want?! 

And that's all this is... a temper tantrum because you didn't get what you wanted. You don't actually care about marginalized groups. You don't care about minorities. You don't care about women. You care that you didn't get what you want and a large portion of the country told you no, something you may have never heard in your life before. And now, because you chose to sleep through history class, you are proving that to be the case by screaming your stupidity and hate through a megaphone and proving to the entire world that your hate knows no bounds at all. If you actually cared one single lick about anyone other than yourself, you'd learn about people, you'd learn history, and you'd think before you made such horrendous statements. 

Trump is not worse than Hitler. Trump would have to work pretty damn hard to get anywhere near the level of Hitler. A wall on our border is not the gassing of millions of people. Wanting better background checks on people coming into our country instead of just letting everyone in is not the same as doctors trying to change eye colors with injections or performing unthinkable and deadly experiments on kids because they are twins. Having a few crazy racists that happen to claim support of you is not the slow brainwashing of an entire nation into the support of exterminating people because they aren't blond haired and blue eyed. 

Read a damn book. For God's sake, you are in college. You have access to a library on campus and there is an endless supply of knowledge literally in your pocket right now thanks to Apple and Android. Take 30 minutes a day away from Facebook and Twitter and read something historic. Spend less time focused on underwater basket weaving as a major and learn something about the world you live in and where we came from. Have just a touch of respect for your ancestors and those who shaped the history of this world. Not just this country... this entire world. Take one less selfie and think about people other than yourself. Life isn't about how many people liked your trash on Instagram. Respect those around you and those who came before you.

​Learn something of actual value. 

I have had this article sent to me several times today, and I wanted to say something about it. 

Chelsea Handler is no friend to Trump or anyone else without a D after their name, and like many others similar to her, she has decided anything but that D means Nazi. In a strange twist, she found out - and was told on TV - that her grandfather was an actual Nazi. 

This is, apparently, whipping the masses into a frenzy because - *gasp* - this woman who thinks everyone is a Nazi is related to an actual Nazi! That makes her... evil?

Well, no. As none of us are responsible for the actions of our ancestors, neither is she. And doing the same thing back to these people gets us nowhere. This is reactionary revenge measures, and what good is that doing? Do you think it is going to make her change her ways? Is she going to look at people with no D after their name and see them differently? It isn't. She may refrain from using Nazi - mostly likely not, because it is the catch term from the left right now - but she isn't going to think differently about non-D folks. 

In the last two years or so, I began trying to trace my family history. I found a lot of strange things that I never knew about my family. The biggest find? I come from a very long line of Virginians. This was a life changing moment for me since my grandmother hated southerners with the fire of a thousand suns, and my mother and I believed our family had strong ties to Philadelphia and surrounding areas. Turns out, my grandmother was born there, but she was the first of our family line to be born outside of Virginia since the late 1600s. Our family spent generations living in Bedford, Virginia, with the occasional straggler who ended up in Lynchburg. 

This interested me to no end and I began to dig a lot deeper. I discovered my family has taken part in every single war that involved the USA aside from the most recent ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our last family member in the military was my cousin who served with the US Army in Desert Shield. We had the most - a father and all five of his sons - serving in the War of 1812. And I admit, I got excited to see three family members fought in the Revolution. Then I found my three ancestors who served in the Civil War. 

For the Confederacy. 

Image my mom's shock when I told her our family had no Union soldiers at all. On my dad's side, the family wasn't here until well after the Civil War. So this was it. As I dug even deeper, I found it. 

One of my ancestors owned slaves. This was news to me and my mom. I couldn't find much information about the slaves since they weren't written down like real people at that point, so I don't know their names or anything like that. But it appeared from the paperwork that it was actually a family - a husband, wife, and child. I was able to trace the family somewhat, and it appears my ancestor kept them together and they stayed with him until the slaves were freed. But when I realized I had a slave owner in my bloodline, I became almost obsessed with learning something about these slaves, anything. I got my anything in the realization that he didn't separate the family and they were freed together. But again, I never did find out their names. 

My ancestor owned slaves. I didn't. I hold no guilt over the fact that I had a slave owner in my family. I didn't know him. No one in my family still living did. And either way... I am not responsible for the sins of my ancestors. I will not feel guilt over it nor will I make "amends" to folks who were also not slaves. I didn't own them, you weren't one. That time is over. Do I wish he hadn't? Of course! But I can't change history. He's long dead, and so are those slaves. 

But in light of that, can we really hold a Nazi grandfather against Chelsea Handler? No! She's a garbage person. I don't like her even slightly. But I am not going to expect guilt or hold it against her that her grandfather was a Nazi. She wasn't a Nazi, her grandfather was. She has no control over that, nor can she change it. And she owes no one an explanation or reparations. Her grandfather may, if he's still alive, which I doubt, since she's pretty old herself now. 

So let's stop. This reactionary turn around revenge is a useless waste of time. Don't do to them what they do to us... be better than them. That isn't hard to do.