DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Smears Trump And All GOP As ‘Misogynistic’

Video Transcript:

Appearing on Sirius Radio Monday, Donald Trump ripped into Debbie Wasserman Schultz for stacking the deck in favor of Hillary Clinton in the Democrat debate.

You have this crazy, you know, Wasserman Schultz, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, who’s in there, highly neurotic woman. This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She’s a terrible person.

Schultz fired back, smearing Trump and the entire GOP party as misogynists.

Donald Trump has repeatedly shown Americans throughout his campaign exactly who he is, what he stands for and quite frankly, really is reflective of what the entire Republican party stands for. I mean you know, his misogynistic comments.

When pressed if she was painting with too broad of a brush, she doubled down.

Thomas Roberts: Do you think you’re painting with a broad brush to characterize the entire GOP with a Donald Trump in those statements?

Schultz: I do. I mean very clearly…I mean all the different times that Donald Trump has made insulting comments about individual women specifically, but the offensive way he refers to women. Really it’s just…I will tell you, I’m happy to just have Donald Trump just keep talking…It just helps us eventually elect the Democratic nominee as the 45th president.

Schultz is not new to slandering the GOP, often times using domestic abuse rhetoric.

Schultz: What Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been doing to themselves every single day is showing women in this country, day after day, that they are callously indifferent to women’s health.

Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. There is no, I know that is stark, I know that is direct, but that is reality.

Charlie Crist and the Democrats will have my back, Rick Scott has given us the back of his hand.

Were Trump’s comments misogynistic? Or do you think he’s right about the DNC chairwoman? Share and comment below.

Watch: Trump Just Schooled Dem Party Head With 5 Harsh Words In The Most Trump Way Possible

Billionaire Donald Trump, known for his barbs as he winds his way through the Republican primary presidential contest, is not holding back regarding his opinion of the debate process.

In recent interviews, Trump was critical of the Republicans’ debate system. He then took aim at Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, calling her “crazy” and a “highly neurotic woman.”

“This is a woman that is a terrible person,” Trump said.

Wasserman Schultz is facing some friction within the Democratic Party because she limited the number of debates. The allegation from her critics is that the limited debate schedule gives Clinton a bump over other Democratic candidates. Trump amplified the criticism by suggesting the DNC chairwoman is promoting Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“In all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary (Clinton) because they gave Hillary all softballs,” he said, referring to the first Democratic debate.

The DNC isn’t letting Trump’s comments go by without commenting. They accuse Trump of “misogynistic attacks” and attempt to link his comments regarding the Wasserman Schultz to the Democratic narrative that Republicans are waging a ‘war on women’

“The Republican front-runner’s misogynistic attacks are sadly representative of the GOP’s outdated approach to women and the issues that affect them and their families,” DNC spokeswoman Kaylie Hanson said. “Whether it’s trying to get between them and their doctor, opposing equal pay for equal work, or using offensive language, the Republican Party is wrong for women.”

Trump and other Republicans are not happy with the GOP’s debate plans. All are attempting to modify the rest of the primary process after CNBC received much criticism for looking chaotic and biased when it hosted the most recent Republican debate.

The billionaire continues to blast CNBC moderator John Hardwood. Trump said Hardwood was a “sleaze” for asking his questions that included whether the Trump campaign was a “comic book version of the presidential campaign.”

DNC Chair DWS Says Economy Thriving Under Democrats

Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz was on MSNBC talking about how the economy is doing well under the leadership of Democrats:

Andrea, Americans are longing to continue the 67 straight months of job growth we have had in the private sector under Barack Obama. What they don’t want to do is go back to the failed policies of the past that got us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. That’s the contrast, and any one of our candidates is talking about moving our country forward and the Republicans are obviously all trying to take our country backward.

Has the economy recovered? An article by CBS said:

If the country were a hospital patient, its doctors might want to try another course of treatment.

This Wall Street Journal article said:

The economic expansion – already the worst on record since World War II – is weaker than previously thought, according to newly revised data.

Financial analyst Peter Schiff commented on CNBC that all indicators are pointing to a declining American economy.

Look at the manufacturing numbers. Look at the ISM [Institute of Supply Management] numbers. Look at industrial production numbers. Even, look at the consumer spending numbers, confidence numbers. Everything is going down despite zero percent interest rates. All we got for the Fed to hang its hat on are these phony employment numbers. Yes, we have a low unemployment rate. Big deal. Nobody’s looking for work. They’ve all left the labor force. They’ve all settled for part-time jobs. Meanwhile, rents keep going up. Consumers have no purchasing power. They have lousy jobs. They’re drowning in debt. This economy is a disaster, thanks to the Fed.

Do you think the economy is thriving? Share and comment below.

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