Ouch! This EPIC Goof By The DNC Could Be The Biggest Fail Yet For Hillary’s Clueless Party

Right there, for all to see, prominently displayed on the Democrats’ web page reaching out to “Veterans and Military Families,” was a photo intended to show how the party of Hillary Clinton understands and supports U.S. service men and women. However, as the publication Military Times noted of the image depicting military veterans, the folks at the website Democrats.org got their countries mixed up:

Democrats’ election outreach efforts to veterans may need to start with a refresher course on what U.S. troops look like.

For starters, they don’t wear Polish military uniforms.

Twitter users were quick to pick up on the epic “Polish” goof by the Democrat National Committee (DNC), which many would say shows just how out of touch Democrats are when it comes to recognizing the true nature and value of America’s war fighters.

Image Credit: Twitter/Allison Moore

Image Credit: Twitter/Allison Moore

As the article in Military Times points out, the DNC had originally used a White House photo of President Obama greeting Polish military veterans during a 2011 trip to Warsaw. “The president had been cropped out, but faces of four elderly veterans wearing European-style military uniforms were visible above several paragraphs asserting the party’s ‘commitment to America’s veterans.’ The Polish military’s White Eagle insignia was clear on the headgear of two of the veterans.”

When Military Times alerted the heretofore clueless website managers of their photo faux pas, the image was quickly changed. Social media users, however, were not so quick to stop the snark about the egregious error.

Screen shot 2015-08-28 at 10.25.33 AM

Screen shot 2015-08-28 at 10.25.01 AM

Screen shot 2015-08-28 at 10.24.46 AM

Screen shot 2015-08-28 at 10.23.50 AM

Screen shot 2015-08-28 at 10.22.40 AM

We’ve heard no word yet on whether the head of the DNC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, intends to push for Polish military vets to receive VA benefits or possibly even have U.S. voting rights…as long as they pledge to support the party’s nominee. (Okay, that’s a bit of Friday humor.)

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Democrats And Socialists – A Distinction Without A Difference

Sometimes what’s not said in response to a direct inquiry is more noteworthy than what is said. When the chairman of the Democrat National Committee was asked recently what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was, she sidestepped the issue and went a totally divergent direction. It would have provided a valuable service if she’d answered the question directly; for there seems to be no substantive distinction.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The DNC chairman started to laugh, so Matthews tried again. “I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think?” Wasserman-Schultz started to sidestep the issue again, so Matthews tried a third time. “Yeah, but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.” Intentionally avoiding Matthew’s question, she responded, “The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican.” Her dogmatically superficial and fallacious explication ensued.

A little later, NBC’s Chuck Todd, on Meet the Press, asked the same question, which she responded to very similarly, choosing to answer a question not asked. But when the Matthews interview is looked at contextually, she may have already answered the question when she called Bernie Sanders “a good Democrat.”

That’s a significant statement even at face value; for Bernie Sanders, the junior senator from Vermont and a Democrat candidate for president, is a self-avowed socialist. He’s officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them 98% of the time, according to Socialistworker.org.

The significance increases further when Sanders’ burgeoning popularity in the Democrat presidential polls is analyzed. Having started out in single-digit support just two months ago, Sanders has significantly reduced frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s lead. In Sanders’ neighboring state of New Hampshire, one of the early voting states, Sanders now leads Clinton by 7%. Considering only 38% of Americans feel Clinton is “trustworthy,” it’s surprising the former Secretary of State has any lead in any polls, anywhere.

Sanders is attracting larger campaign crowds than any of the other presidential candidates. Last week, he attracted nearly 28,000 in Los Angeles, 28,000 in Portland, Oregon, and over 15,000 in Seattle.

When looking at his proposals, it’s difficult to identify any substantive differences from mainstream Democrat Party doctrine. Sanders is pushing for universal single-payer health care; supports redistribution of wealth; advocates “free” college; fosters an antipathy toward corporations and “big business”; wants military spending cut by 50%; opposes natural resource development for energy; advocates government control and solutions for all economic or cultural challenges; and emphasizes egalitarianism rather than merit and achievement.

These tenets fit comfortably under the socialist umbrella, which, in general terms, is “An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. While capitalism is based on a price system, profit and loss and private property rights, socialism is based on bureaucratic central planning and collective ownership,” according to Investopedia.

There are some distinctions that should be made, however. The American variety of socialism (liberalism and progressivism) has a democratic component that doesn’t require a revolution, as many of the European and Asian models featured, but rather relies upon a democratic vote to incorporate. This necessitates the means to organize communities and proliferate propaganda, in order to effect electoral change. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals rose in direct response to that need, as a playbook for societal polarization and proliferation of socialist objectives. And perhaps not coincidentally, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on the Alinsky model; and President Obama taught it as a community organizer and has implemented it to perfection nationally.

Jason Riley, a Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow, wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week: “Mr. Sanders’s socialism appeals mainly to upper-middle-class professionals and fits neatly within the parameters of mainstream, income-inequality-obsessed Democratic politics in the 21st century. He may have an affinity for a political ideology that has given the world everything from the Soviet Gulag to modern-day Greece, but in this age of Obama, the senator is just another liberal with a statist agenda.”

Founded in individual liberty, America has always been the one nation under heaven where equality of opportunity has taken precedence over equality of outcome. The whole concept of the “American Dream” is based on the individual freedom to become, to achieve, to build, sell, and succeed. This requires individual freedom (which is diminished proportionate to expanded governmental power) and a free market economy (not centralized planning, or government control over the means of production). Consequently, socialism is philosophically, morally, and pragmatically antithetical to American values. Deductively, it is clearly anti-American.

Which brings us back to the chairman of the DNC. With the apparent inability to make any substantive distinction between the major tenets of socialism and the contemporary Democrat Party, it’s perfectly understandable that Wasserman-Shultz would not attempt to note any contradistinction. For as Riley observed in his WSJ piece, “These days, it’s largely a distinction without a difference.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Right Before The GOP Debate, Democrats Tried To Steal The Spotlight

In a post uploaded Thursday to Medium, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz detailed the schedule and scope of her party’s 2016 presidential primary debates. Though the first Democrat debate is still more than two months away, Schultz’s announcement came on the same day as the initial Republican debate.

“With six debates scheduled,” she wrote, “—at a pace of roughly one per month—voters will have ample opportunities to hear our candidates discuss their visions for our country’s future.”

The apparently truncated debate schedule gave many Democrats an uneasy feeling regarding the party’s handling of the 2016 election.

“6 debates only?” one reader wrote. “Is this a primary debate schedule or a coronation?”

The same commenter asserted that Schultz has overstayed her welcome at the DNC’s helm and should be replaced.

Another reader pointed out that the 2008 presidential election contained 26 Democrat debates.

“Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic Party say they believe in democracy and transparency,” another critic wrote.

Many commenters suggested the limited schedule was concocted in a way to make Hillary Clinton’s ultimate nomination more likely.

Critics on the other side of the aisle were generally more pointed, often lambasting the imagined content discussed during such a Democrat forum.

Will you be watching the Democrat primary debates? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Look Who Just Asked Dems To Watch The GOP Debate…And Here’s The Real Reason Why

For weeks now, the first Republican presidential debates scheduled for Thursday have themselves been the subjects of debate with regard to the rules set by the Fox News Channel as well as the potshots taken by the GOP contenders vying to be in the primetime top-10 forum. Now, the country’s top Democrat has weighed in on the pre-debate hubbub, asking his fellow party members to tune in to Fox News and watch the candidates go at it.

One might consider this presidential request somewhat ironic, given that Obama has repeatedly singled out Fox News for criticism and ridicule and advised people not to pay any attention to what’s on the channel that dominates the cable news landscape.

As The Hill notes, the Obama email urging Democrats to check out what the Republican hopefuls will have to say was blasted out by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and is “one of the first steps taken by Obama to publicly campaign for Democrats in the 2016 presidential race.”

The Hill article on the presidential message quotes Obama as saying: “Tune in, listen carefully to what the Republican candidates for president say, and then hold them accountable for trying to undo all of the hard work we’ve done to move this country forward.”

But as Jordan Fabian’s article in The Hill also points out, Obama and the DNC under the leadership of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have a specific, strategic motive for taking this approach in asking Democrats to watch the debates on the cable channel they love to hate.

“The email,” the article points out, “is a way for Democrats to collect data from voters to build a list of supporters. It contains a link where people can enter their personal information and pledge they will watch the debate.”

In his message urging Democrats to watch the GOP presidential contenders, Obama mentions four policy areas where he says the candidates will likely concentrate their fire. According to The Weekly Standard, those targets are Obamacare, climate change, immigration reform, and same-sex marriage.

The president says any effort to attack those areas would be to deny, in his words, “the progress we’ve made together over these past six years.” And Obama warns his fellow Democrats that, “While these Republicans may have bad ideas, they’re still smart politicians.”

Those “smart politicians” — all 17 of them — will take to the debate stage on Thursday in two separate events. Fox News, in conjunction with Facebook, will present the big-ticket face-off from Cleveland from 9-11pm ET with the top-10 candidates as determined by late polling. An earlier debate with the remaining seven contenders for the GOP nod in 2016 will air at 5pm ET.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: She Gets Asked The One Question A Democrat NEVER Wants To Hear, And It Gets Awkward…

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s face began to turn the color of her dress when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews threw her off-script, busted her for trying to spout tired talking points, and insisted that she answer a question that put her in an awkward spot for which she obviously wasn’t prepared.

Wasserman-Schultz, the Florida representative who serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was pressed by the clearly frustrated host of Hardball to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. The discussion on Thursday night’s show related to Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who’s gaining traction in his challenge to Hillary Clinton for the party’s 2016 nomination for president.

As TheBlaze notes in its coverage of the tense exchange: “Matthews first began questioning Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) on whether presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist, would be given a slot on primetime to speak at the Democratic National Convention.”

Matthews kept after Wasserman-Schultz until she finally blurted out an answer – you’d have thought he had a GOP spokesperson on the hot seat. But then the interview came close to going off the rails entirely when Matthews — a long-time Democrat loyalist who used to be chief of staff for House Speaker Tip O’Neill — insisted on getting an answer to his question:

What’s the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?

That’s when Debbie tried to play dodgeball on the show called Hardball. By clicking on the video above, you can see for yourself how the interview took on a decidedly downhill course.

What do you think the difference between a Democrat and a socialist is? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth