Category: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

Top Democrat Leader’s Aide Indicted

Posted on

Democrat aide Imran Awan (left); Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (right).

Here’s a huge scandal that CNN will pretend doesn’t matter:

FOX News reports former IT aide for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Imran Awan, has been indicted on four counts. In July, Awan was arrested at Dulles airport while trying to flee the United States.

More details from Fox News:

Imran Awan, a former IT aide for Democratic Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was indicted Thursday on four counts including bank fraud and making false statements.
The indictment also includes his wife Hina Alvi.
The grand jury decision in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia comes roughly a month after Awan was arrested at Dulles airport in Virginia trying to board a plane to Pakistan, where his family is from.
Awan and other IT aides for House Democrats have been on investigators’ radar for months over concerns of possible double-billing, alleged equipment theft, and access to sensitive computer systems. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Schultz had kept him on until his arrest in July.
The indictment itself, which merely represents formal charges and is not a finding of guilt, addresses separate allegations that Awan and his wife engaged in a conspiracy to obtain home equity lines of credit from the Congressional Federal Credit Union by giving false information about two properties — and then sending the proceeds to individuals in Pakistan.
The case has put renewed scrutiny on Wasserman Schultz for keeping Awan on the payroll for months, even after a criminal investigation was revealed and he was barred from the House IT network. 

(Hat-tip: Memeorandum.) We expect CNN to blame this on Russian hackers, just as soon as they finish blaming the Barcelona attack on Confederate monuments. Must! Defend! The Narrative!



 

The Science Is Settled: It’s a Baby

Posted on Comments

Kirsten Powers on what we might call “The Sonogram Effect”:

Pope Francis has correctly described the unborn as “the most defenseless and innocent among us.” But in the sordid tale of strategic crushing of the unborn to better harvest their hearts, lungs and livers, many Democrats have incredibly cast an organization with a roughly $1.3 billion annual budget in the role of the innocent and defenseless. Hillary Clinton emerged as Planned Parenthood’s highest profile protector Monday, decrying the “assault” against her allegedly helpless campaign donors.
The Democratic Party shilling for barbarism — whether by politicians, liberal media outlets, union officials or unrestricted abortion advocates — is not likely to be viewed favorably by future generations. These Democrats will be remembered for demonizing the activists who lifted the veil on a previously sanitized process and for seekingrestraining orders to silence truth tellers. They will be remembered for publishing dehumanizing decrees — as The New Republic did — that people stop criticizing Planned Parenthood because as a medical matter, “The term baby … doesn’t apply until birth” (that thing on your sonogram is nothing more than a “product[] of conception.”) And they will be remembered for demanding investigations into citizen journalists for meticulously exposing atrocities in our midst.

Read the whole thing. Science is on the side of life. For more than 30 years now, parents have had the experience of staring at that ultrasound screen and seeing their own children alive in the womb at 10 or 12 weeks gestation. And, because of advances in neo-natal care, there are adults alive today who were born more than three months premature.

Madeline Mann, who was born in 1989 weighing less than 10 ounces, graduated with honors from Augustana College in 2012, and last year got her master’s degree in psychology. She is certified in suicide prevention.

Life deserves a chance.

Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise . . . Well, they’re evil.

The science is settled.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

PREVIOUSLY:





 

Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Recycles ‘War on Women’ Theme

Posted on Comments

The DNC chairwoman issued a statement on Women’s Health Week in which she evidently presumes that (a) abortion is essential to “women’s health,” (b) opposition to abortion is an “extreme agenda,” and (c) all women think ObamaCare is awesome:

[A]t the state and national level, Republicans have repeatedly taken actions that restrict access to health care for women and families. Yes, they’ve voted more than 50 times to repeal or undermine Obamacare, but their disregard goes beyond even that. Just last week, the RNC passed a resolution that makes their restrictive and extreme women’s health agenda one of their focuses going into the midterm elections. . . .
When the RNC backs extreme policies like that, there are real-world consequences for women. In my home state, Florida Republicans including Gov. Rick Scott are taking constrictions on women’s health to a new level. The state legislature recently passed two new restrictions that will interfere with a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions with her doctor, and instead inserts the GOP’s extreme agenda into these very private discussions . . .
If Rick Scott signs these bills — and I’m sorry to say that I’m confident he will — my home state will be the next in a long line of states to roll back the clock on women’s rights. It is senseless and it is wrong. This National Women’s Health Week, I’m standing with Florida women.

(Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers.)

 

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Has A Point: Having Aborted Common Sense, Babies Should Be Easy For Charlie Crist

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Will the altars of Moloch be smiling in the Sunshine State?

Wasserman Schultz added that Crist was “going to have to prove himself with some of our Democratic leaders before that’s a sure thing.”
The only thing “sure” about Charlie is that he’s looking out for #1.
When DeFede asked the congresswoman about Crist’s past and his current position on abortion, Wasserman Schultz said that “we are the big tent party. We elect on the issue of a woman’s right to choose.” She added that Crist was going to have “a lot of ground work to do” to convince Democrat leaders and constituents that he would best represent their next Governor.

This is all in the context of Charlie Crist mounting a challenge to Rick Scott for Florida Governor in 2014. Ol’ Rudderless Charlie seems quite flexible in terms of what courses he steers.

via The Shark Tank

RNC Trounces DNC in Fundraising as Democrat Party Goes Bankrupt

Posted on Comments

The official Federal Election Committee reports for September are out, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s DNC is a complete wreck. The Democrats ended September with cash on hand of $4.6 million, compared to the Republican National Committee’s $82.6 million.

That’s nearly an 18-to-1 cash advantage for Republicans.

Worse still for the DNC, they had to take out loans to pay the bills so that they owed $20.5 million at the end of September, meaning that that (subtracting cash on hand from total debt) they were $15.9 million in the red — essentially bankrupt. Wasserman-Schultz’s committee only raised $3.7 million in September; at that pace, it would take them more than four months to clear their debt, even if they didn’t spend another dime in the meantime.

Somehow, this seems an apt metaphor for the Obama era.

Now, go back to something I reported at The American Spectator last month when I was in Ohio, and Obama was leading the polls:

DAYTON, Ohio — Reporters circled around Reince Priebus at a campaign rally Monday in Lima and one asked the Republican National Committee chairman what he thought of polls showing Mitt Romney trailing President Obama in this crucial battleground state. Priebus said he was satisfied that the GOP challenger was “within a field goal” of the incumbent, and made a bold prediction: “We’re going to outspend the DNC 10-to-1 [in Ohio] for the next six weeks… We’re going to crush ’em on the ground.”

How many people actually believed that prediction? As incredible as it seemed at the time, Priebus and the RNC appear to be in a position to do exactly that and more. Meanwhile, reacting to reports that the DNC’s vendors are owed millions of dollars by Wasserman-Schultz’s committee — essentially taking I.O.U.’s from the Democrats — Jim Geraghty says:

Attention, vendors: Stop falling for this, make Debbie pay you in cash.

Worst DNC Chairman Ever!

Update (Smitty): welcome, Instapundit and Chockblock.

Update II (Smitty): more linkage at DaTechGuy

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: ‘You Know Who Likes Killing Babies? Jews Do!’

Posted on Comments

The headline is not a direct quote, but this is:

“[T]he president has an incredible record of support and advocacy on the issues, domestically, that Jews care about — fighting, for example, to make sure that women have the right to make their own reproductive choices . . .”

OK, so why does the Democratic National Committee chairwoman insist that “reproductive choice” is such an important issue that “Jews care about,” in a way that gentiles do not?

Are there no pro-life Jews? Is there some specific ethnic, religious, or cultural reason why Jews are devoted to keeping abortion legal?

Perhaps someone could ask her a few questions like this, because otherwise people would be compelled to guess that what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz actually meant to say is (a) most Jews vote Democrat, and (b) Democrats are the Party of Abortion.

Any other interpretation could be anti-Semitic, causing people to think that this bloody horror was inflicted upon our nation specifically by Jews.

Not me, of course. I blame the Episcopalians.

UPDATE: I was concerned this post might push the “deliberately provocative headline” thing a bit too far, but I’m reassured by Yuval Levin’s horror at DWS’s claim that abortion is a Jewish value:

Politicians used to insult Jewish voters by implying that all they cared about was Israel. Surely this is much worse.

Meanwhile, in the comments below, an observant Jewish reader points out that, quite logically, the pro-abortion enthusiasm of liberal Jews has had the effect of making conservative Jews the fastest-growing segment of the Jewish population. The same is true among Protestants, I would add. The future belongs to the fertile.

Essay Contest Winner: ‘Why I’m Not a Democrat, in Three Words’

Posted on Comments

And those three words are, “Debbie Wasserman Schultz“:

Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.

At least there’s no need to out-source hypocrisy, eh?

Framing the Narrative: Using Evangelicals as Hook for MSM ‘Mormon Mitt’ Meme

Posted on Comments

“You watch, they’re going to throw the Mormon church at him like you can’t believe.”
— Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, April 3

Just a quick follow-up on last night’s post about the the predictable emergence of an anti-Mormon message in the MSM, which they held back until they thought Mitt Romney was really “inevitable”: A lot of Republicans seem shocked by the suggestion that our tolerant liberal friends would actually employ appeals to religious bigotry against a Republican, and further seem to assume that all Republicans have to do to deflect this is to point it out for the cheap partisan trick it is.

Good luck with that.

Notice how Debbie Wasserman-Schultz disingenuously disavows it:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired back Wednesday at Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch’s claim that Democrats would attack Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith in the fall election, saying the charge was “nonsense” and that the issue of religion was off-limits.
“That is just preposterous,” the Florida Democrat, who chairs the Democratic National Committee . . .
“That suggestion is utter nonsense. Let’s remember that President Obama has had so many things hurled at him — birth certificate questions, whether he is or is not a Christian,” Wasserman said. “For them to suggest that religion will be injected [into the election] by President Obama and the Democratic Party, I mean, I think they need to take a look inward at the accusations that their party and their supporters have hurled before they take that step.”

Translation: “Turnabout is fair play.”

And, while Debbie denies that Obama and the Democrats will themselves “inject” the Mormon issue into the campaign, her pledge doesn’t obligate them to muzzle their media allies, does it?

Unlike Da Tech Tech Guy, who saw this coming long ago, some Republicans were shocked — shocked! — by Lawrence O’Donnell’s Tuesday night anti-Mormon rant. Others were mystified as to why, in an appearance with Jay Leno, Meet the Press host David Gregory casually asserted that Mormonism “is the core of who Mitt Romney is” and — oh, just by the way, Jay — did you know Mitt was actually an LDS bishop?

These remarks by O’Donnell and Gregory were rather unsubtle hints of what our liberal media friends are chatting about amongst themselves, and perhaps some Republicans are too stupid to imagine how this meme might make its way into Serious Journalism. But here’s the trick: Rather than raising the subject themselves, liberals will introduce the topic of Mitt’s Mormonism by referencing criticism from evangelical Christians. This two-birds-with-one-stone tactic gets an early workout today from Tim Murphy at Mother Jones:

The Mormon issue has been dogging Romney since he began his first presidential race five years ago. According to a Gallup poll, 18 percent of Republicans say they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon for president — and it’s not a coincidence that throughout the 2012 contest, Romney’s success has been inversely proportional to the percentage of evangelicals voting in a given state. . . .
[I]n December, [Texas Baptist minister Rick] Scarborough explained in a radio interview that nominating Romney would take the GOP to “a place I don’t want to go.” He continued: “There are some aspects of the doctrines of Mormonism that are so outside the realm of normal theological boundaries that I think it will be a real issue if he got the nomination.” . . .
Bill Keller, a Florida-based internet evangelist who sends his devotional out each morning to some 2.4 million subscribers . . .
“If it’s Romney and Obama, as far as I’m concerned, Satan’s flipping a two-headed coin and his head’s on both sides,” Keller says. There’s no such thing as lesser of two evils. “I hear that from Christians all the time: Well you know we’ll just take the lesser of two evils and hold our nose and vote for the Mormon. And I just try to remind people: The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

Lots more where that came from, including this kick in the head:

And according to Gallup,  liberals are actually more likely to hold Romney’s faith against him — a  full 27 percent say they would never vote for an LDS member.

See what I mean? By using evangelicals as the “hook” to talk about Mitt’s Mormonism, the media cleverly raise an issue that hurts Romney more among secular liberals than it does among religious conservatives. (Dude, if you think Santorum’s Catholicism offends feminists, wait until the media start doing their Serious Journalism coverage of what Mormon doctrine teaches about women.) There are all kinds of angles from which to fit the “Mormon Mitt” meme into the media narrative, and yet some Republicans are so stupid they can’t imagine how the liberal MSM will manage to turn this stuff into legitimate news.

The possible story angles are numerous, the basic materials are plentiful, and how far the media might go with this meme is purely a function of whether they view Romney as a serious threat to Obama in November.

UPDATE: Bill Quick expresses his contempt all religions, without explaining why he supported Newt Gingrich, a professed Catholic. Perhaps Bill believed Newt was never sincere about his Catholicism, but why would anyone doubt Newt’s sincerity?