Elizabeth Warren Stands by Claim She Was Fired From Teaching, Despite Evidence Proving She Wasn't

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  2 weeks ago  •  64 comments

Elizabeth Warren Stands by Claim She Was Fired From Teaching, Despite Evidence Proving She Wasn't

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Elizabeth Warren is standing by her story that she was fired from her teaching job for being "visibly pregnant," despite   video evidence   and   school records   that prove otherwise.

In   an exclusive interview with CBS News that aired Monday evening , Warren said, "All I know is I was 22 years old, I was six months pregnant, and the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else. The principal said they were going to hire someone else for my job."

Warren has also falsely claimed Native American heritage. Last year she attempted to put that controversy behind her by taking a DNA test, which ultimately proved that she was whiter than most white people, and was maybe as little as 1/1024 Native American.


Caught in this new lie, I don't even see how she can claim to have been 1/1024th fired, but perhaps she'll try


Warren has apparently been laying the groundwork for this discriminatory firing story for several years. She wrote in her 2013 book,    A Fighting Chance , about being "obviously" pregnant by the end of the year in 1971, and that "The principal did what I think a lot of principals did back then—wished me good luck, didn’t ask me back the next school year, and hired someone else for the job." Today, that story is part of her stump speech on the campaign trail.

On Saturday, a video that had been posted to YouTube in 2008 was unearthed that showed Warren, in her own words, explaining her decision to leave teaching on her own. When asked about this discrepancy, Warren explained, "After becoming a public figure I opened up more about different pieces in my life and this was one of them." That explanation, however, doesn't explain why documents from the local Board of Education where she taught showed that her contract had actually been renewed, but that she resigned two months later. "The resignation of Mrs. Elizabeth Warren, speech correctionist effective June 30, 1971 was accepted with regret," the June 16, 1971, minutes read.

Warren claims that this is not a contradiction at all, and concedes she was officially offered the position for the following year. "In April of that year, my contract was renewed to teach again for the next year," she admitted, but claims up until then she was hiding her pregnancy. Once she could no longer hide it, she said she was "shown the door."

According to CBS News, "Two retired teachers who worked at Riverdale Elementary for over 30 years, including the year Warren was there, told CBS News that they don't remember anyone being explicitly fired due to pregnancy during their time at the school." Warren constructed the narrative that losing her teaching job was instrumental in her pursuing a law career, and that had she not been "fired" she probably would still be teaching today.

It's clear that Elizabeth Warren has no intention of backing down from this fiction at this time, but something tells me she's not out of the woods with this one yet.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 weeks ago

The Rachel Dolezal of Politics tells another lie to make herself out to be a victim.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    2 weeks ago

Credit the Washington Free Beacon for doing the research and getting out the story. The rest of the media was sorely lacking.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    2 weeks ago

Pocahantes speak with forked tongue. (again?)

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    2 weeks ago

I wonder if Warren will volunteer for a pregnancy test now?  

Of course she'll protest that what she said in the 2007 interview and the documentation the school district has is bogus.   

One can't believe their lying eyes and ears, you need to believe the American Indian woman.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  XDm9mm @2    2 weeks ago

It's just a matter of time before she tells the story about Joe grabbing her biscuit to bump him out of the way.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Next, she will claim she was fired because she is a black man. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago

Next, she will claim she was fired because she is a black man. 

Would you be happier if she claimed she was fired because of bone spurs?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    2 weeks ago
Would you be happier if she claimed she was fired because of bone spurs?

I would be happy if she simply admitted that she was NOT fired and made the whole thing up in some weird pandering attempt.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
I would be happy if she simply admitted that she was NOT fired and made the whole thing up in some weird pandering attempt.

Of course you would, facts not withstanding.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
Of course you would, facts not withstanding.

Oh, you mean like the fact that she was NOT fired.

Well, hell yes, that IS what I meant.

Got a problem with that?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

Got a problem with that?

Actually yes, once again you are trying to push off your opinion as fact.  Very disingenuous.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

Show us all where and when she got fired for being pregnant and you MIGHT actually have a worthwhile point that actually contributes to the discussion.

She wasn't fired, period.

Or are we supposed to assume she was lying way back in 2007 when she stated THIS:

"I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married. My first year post-graduation I worked -- it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don’t think this is going to work out for me,' I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, 'What am I going to do?' My husband’s view of it was, 'Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.' And I was very restless about it." 

Can you at least make up your mind on WHEN she is lying?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
Show us all where and when she got fired for being pregnant and you MIGHT actually have a worthwhile point that actually contributes to the discussion.

She has already stated when and where.

She wasn't fired, period.

You were there?

Or are we supposed to assume she was lying way back in 2007 when she stated THIS:

Eliana Johnson, editor-in-chief of the Free Beacon, said in a phone interview that the documents the publication uncovered “seem to undercut” Warren’s story, though they doesn’t necessarily mean she was lying. She tied this instance to broader pressure political candidates on both sides of the aisle seem to face to craft “foundational myths” about themselves and sometimes bend the truth, such as Ben Carson claiming he got a West Point scholarship and Richard Blumenthal misrepresenting his military service. “It seems to me that these sorts of claims, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans making them, warrant scrutiny,” she said.

This is from the Free Beacon that started the story about Warren.  Also, don't forget that it was the Free Beacon that originally funded the Trump Dossier.  Was the Free Beacon lying back then, or is it lying now?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

I don't give a shit about the Free Beacon.

Warren LIED, plain and simple.

Spin it any old way you want.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/official...

And in HER own words:

I actually didn't have the education courses, so I was on an emergency certificate, it was called, and I went back to graduate school and took a couple courses in education, and said 'I don't think this is going to work out for me,'" she said. "And I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I Was really casting about thinking, 'What am I going to do?'"
 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
Warren LIED, plain and simple.

Prove it.

And in HER own words:

So you believe part of the story with this revelation, but not other parts because they go against what you want to believe?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.8    2 weeks ago
Prove it.

I JUST DID.

Is English too hard now? Did you see ONE single mention of her saying she was fired in that quote??

So you believe part of the story with this revelation, but not other parts because they go against what you want to believe?

Yeah, I believe that when she wasn't running for President, she was telling the truth, and now she is embellishing.

You know what THAT is, right?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

Now her new name is "I-should-not-have-had-my-Hontas-poked" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 weeks ago

3

2

1

But Trump response coming!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5    2 weeks ago

Don't you think it is warranted considering his blatant and continual lying?  Where it is wrong for her to lie, why pick on her for doing what they all do.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1    2 weeks ago

Thank you for an example of the but trump logical failure comment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1    2 weeks ago
Don't you think it is warranted considering his blatant and continual lying?  Where it is wrong for her to lie, why pick on her for doing what they all do.

Using that rather impeccable logic, then the left should STFU about any Trump lies, right?

Or do you only apply that impeccable logic to liberals who lie?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

Bingo.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
Using that rather impeccable logic, then the left should STFU about any Trump lies, right?

This. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
6  WallyW    2 weeks ago

America is not ready for this lying old scold granny, and will NOT vote for her. Worse than HRC, if that's  possible

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1  MUVA  replied to  WallyW @6    2 weeks ago

I think is channeling Kate Hepburn shaky granny for sure. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Just for the hell of it, even though it is not clearly so, I will agree Warren "lied" about this. 

She's still about 10,000 lies behind Trump. My question is, how many of Trump's 10,000 lies has PJ Media, or the seeder, pointed out? 

If the combination of Trump's lies and Warren's lies was a bathtub full of water , Warren's portion would be an eye dropper. 

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago

I don’t know about the media would never check anyhow.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago

BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
TTGA
7.2.1  TTGA  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2    2 weeks ago
BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tex, you need to add at least five more BUT TRUMP's on here, because you know that derail will continue as long as they can get away with it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago
She's still about 10,000 lies behind Trump.

So, it's all good because she lies less than Trump?

Of course, that's only as far as we know. Maybe she's just better at it than he is. In some ways, I actually find that to be a little more off-putting because at least when Trump lies, it's easy to spot.

The other thing is that people actually scrutinize what Trump says. But when Warren, Biden, Clinton, Obama, etc. speak, the media just obediently repeats it. If anyone suggests it might not be true, the response is "how dare you!"

I figured out a long time ago that all of these people are full of shit. Your local used car salesman is more honest. Too many voters genuinely believe in the integrity of politicians, which baffles me. I see it as one of those things you have to recognize and be aware of and then look for some other metric to make your voting choices. If you're waiting for the honest politician to come along, you're going to be waiting a long time.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.3    2 weeks ago
She's still about 10,000 lies behind Trump.
So, it's all good because she lies less than Trump?

Is that a yes or no question? If it is,  then of course the answer is yes.  Or do you think the one who lies half the time he opens his mouth is preferable? 

One of the distressingly easy things to predict these days is that Trump supporters will make excuses for him. You do it as much as anyone I've seen. 

As far as we know, Elizabeth Warren lies about 99.5% less than Trump does.  Of course that matters.  Thats like saying that someone who lets his dog poop on your lawn once a year is the same problem as someone who lets his dog poop on your lawn 5 or 6 times a week.  It's ridiculous.

But Trump supporters are immune to comprehending how ridiculous their guy is. 

That is where we are at these days. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.1    2 weeks ago
One of the distressingly easy things to predict these days is that Trump supporters will make excuses for him. You do it as much as anyone I've seen. 

You just can't help yourself, can you. It's just impossible for you to discuss the issues without making the personal attacks. 

I was all set to respond to substance with substance of my own, John, but you kill it with this bullshit. If you want me to respect your ideas, you need to start by respecting me. I didn't attack you with my comment. I addressed the issue. Then you had to change things. If you're so distressed, get off the computer and go have a good cry.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.2    2 weeks ago

Do you read your own comments after you make them? Here it is. 

So, it's all good because she lies less than Trump?

Of course, that's only as far as we know. Maybe she's just better at it than he is. In some ways, I actually find that to be a little more off-putting because at least when Trump lies, it's easy to spot.

The other thing is that people actually scrutinize what Trump says. But when Warren, Biden, Clinton, Obama, etc. speak, the media just obediently repeats it. If anyone suggests it might not be true, the response is "how dare you!"

I figured out a long time ago that all of these people are full of shit. Your local used car salesman is more honest. Too many voters genuinely believe in the integrity of politicians, which baffles me. I see it as one of those things you have to recognize and be aware of and then look for some other metric to make your voting choices. If you're waiting for the honest politician to come along, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Please explain to me how this is not a long excuse for Trump. 

"Maybe she's just better at it than he is. In some ways, I actually find that to be a little more off-putting because at least when Trump lies, it's easy to spot."

"people actually scrutinize what Trump says. But when Warren, Biden, Clinton, Obama, etc. speak, the media just obediently repeats it."

"I see it as one of those things you have to recognize and be aware of and then look for some other metric to make your voting choices. If you're waiting for the honest politician to come along, you're going to be waiting a long time."

The first says Warren is worse than Trump , to you, because you can spot Trump lying. The second one complains that people scrutinize Trump ( a known serial liar). The third suggests all politicians lie and therefore we should not care so much about it. 

You dont say Trump is worse than Warren because he lies a hundred times more than she does (which is something that appears self evident) you say you prefer him because it is easier to see. 

You dont think Trump has earned more scrutiny than Warren because he lies so much, you complain that people who dont lie as much as he does arent getting enough scrutiny. 

Finally you suggest they all lie so maybe they are all kind of the same thing. 

None of that is a good argument. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.3    2 weeks ago
Please explain to me how this is not a long excuse for Trump. 

No. You had your chance to be a civilized person exchanging ideas and you blew it. Peddle your bullying with someone else.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
7.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago
She's still about 10,000 lies behind Trump.

And Obama and Hillary and....

 
 
 
squiggy
7.5  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago
She's still about...

Taxes!    Incest!      Turnberry!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8  Just Jim NC TttH    2 weeks ago

But Trump

 
 
 
bbl-1
9  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

So Warren lied?  Suppose so.  But more importantly, "the hell with the Kurds," right?

What are the Trumpers protecting?

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1  MUVA  replied to  bbl-1 @9    2 weeks ago

I would say some want out of wars we are in not all republicans are chicken hawks or neocons.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bbl-1 @9    2 weeks ago

Their idol with feet of clay.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.3  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @9    2 weeks ago
So Warren lied?  Suppose so.  But more importantly, "the hell with the Kurds," right?
What are the Trumpers protecting?

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

I am sure JR probably has at LEAST one article bashing Trump you can go to.

 
 
 
bugsy
9.4  bugsy  replied to  bbl-1 @9    2 weeks ago
"the hell with the Kurds," right?

You probably did't even know what Kurds were until today

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.4.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  bugsy @9.4    2 weeks ago

Bean kurd.....it goes in Chinese dishes.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.4.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  bugsy @9.4    2 weeks ago

Little Miss Muffet ate Curds and Whey..................whoops, wrong curd...

Cheese curds are all the rage now. Little bits of rubber that taste like cheese.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
9.5  KDMichigan  replied to  bbl-1 @9    2 weeks ago
But more importantly,

What does anything you have to say have to do with the article. There are plenty of TDS sufferer articles for you to comment on without bringing your crying about President Trump here.

 
 
 
Sunshine
10  Sunshine    2 weeks ago

The fanatics will believe her.  Like they believed she was American Indian because of high cheek bones.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sunshine @10    2 weeks ago

Do you call Trump supporters fanatics?  No of course you don't.

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.1    2 weeks ago

Why yes, some I do.

Do you call Warren supporters fanatics?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
10.1.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.1    2 weeks ago

hey look, giraffes humping.....

384

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
10.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

Aww . . . they're in love. jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sunshine @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

Some I do, yes.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

Wow, talk about an out in left field response.  Now that is the fish I miss.

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
In an exclusive interview with CBS News that aired Monday evening

But it's Tuesday now, so the media is done talking about it. If anyone brings it up from here on in, that will be considered sexist. Meanwhile, back to our coverage of Trump's crowd sizes and how that lie is destroying the country.

This is who these people are. All of them. You have to somehow get past that and figure out what they really will do when given the chance.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago

It's kind of funny that a Democrat lies and the libtards are silent.  And they will tell you a double standard doesn't exist.

 
 
 
squiggy
13  squiggy    2 weeks ago

She was only 1/1024 pregnant.

 
 
 
Kathleen
14  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

That woman is so flaky. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
15  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

Maybe she is just taking a note from the Trump How To Get Elected playbook.  Lie and when proof shows it is a lie, lie more.

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.1  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @15    2 weeks ago
Maybe she is just taking a note from the Trump How To Get Elected playbook.  Lie and when proof shows it is a lie, lie more.

You may be right.

Now she can at least stop bitching about Trump lying and proclaiming she is "above that sort of thing", right?

And here the left has been telling us all that they don't WANT that type of behavior in their leaders.

Bunch of freaking hypocrites!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
15.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @15    2 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Fireryone
16  Fireryone    2 weeks ago

This isn't evidence proving her to be a liar or that her leaving her position wasn't coerced because of her pregnancy.  Shit like that has happened to many women, me included.  Of course when it happened to me, the employer didn't document he had fired me for pregnancy...that would be stupid. 

I'm not buying that she lied. I think she's telling the truth about that, because I've seen it happen. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
16.1  Texan1211  replied to  Fireryone @16    2 weeks ago

She had a contract and RESIGNED.

What part of that is hard to understand?

 
 
 
Krishna
17  Krishna    2 weeks ago

What she should do is have a "Minny Rally"!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18  Raven Wing    2 weeks ago

Why is it so wrong for Warren to stand by her 'lies' (if she has lied), and it is A-Okay for Trump to stand by his lies (which he has done)?

If people are going to condemn one person for doing so, then they should do it to Trump as well. After all, the only one on earth who has never lied is Jesus, and Trump does not come anywhere close to being Jesus no matter how he tries to convince his loyal worshipers that he is the "Chosen One".

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

al Jizzerror
Krishna
dave-2693993
Heartland American
loki12


101 visitors