Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Did I Just Hear What I Think I Heard? (Part 2)

Back in April I posted Part 1 under this title. Tonight I am again astounded by the hypocrisy of what I heard coming from the lips of a leftist member of Congress. It's none other than Debbie Whats-her-face Schultz, the flaky DNC chair from Florida. (The fact that Obama appointed her to this position is a clear indication of the desperation the Dems are experiencing and the dearth of leadership in their party.)

So what is Debbie up to now? For days she has been tweeting about Mitt Romney -- honestly I think she is crushing on him. Why else would she be trying so hard to get his attention the way she is. It reminds me of mean girls who want attention from boys they know they cannot have, so they say snarky things over and over like a broken record until the guy backhands them. Then they cry loudly and sic their mommies on the mean boys who are so mean to them for no reason. Bwahhhhhhhhh!

What caught my attention tonight from Debbie Whineyface Schultz is her mumble-mouthed assertion that "It Would Be Nice If We Had A Candidate for President Who Was Committed To America". First of all, it would be nice if we had a PRESIDENT who was committed to America, never mind a candidate. But that has not been the case for the last 3 1/2 years, so we cannot expect it to happen before January 20, 2013.

For a week or more, Debbie Wussywoman Schultz has been kvetching on Mitt Romney about his wealth and his taxes and yada yada yada. What's more, she is feeding her talking points to the media and they are running with it. Well, today a little truth came out about Debbie Shmendrick Schultz. To paraphrase Phoebe Buffay from a "Friends" rerun I saw a couple of nights ago, "Hello Kettle. This is Debbie. You're black." What Debbie Whypocrite Schultz failed to reveal is that she herself has invested in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies,and the State Bank of India. Can Debbie Meshugeneh Schultz say, "Oy vey, dreck!"

Moreover, Debbie Kibitzer Schultz has dared to mention Mitt Romney’s father George in her attacks on Mitt Romney over his decision to release his financial information at a time of his choosing. (Never mind that Obama has spent millions to keep his past from coming to light in nearly every facet. Debbie never mentions that.) I wonder if Debbie Yenta-Yutz Schultz called upon her own mother to disclose her financial fraud. Yes, Debbie's mother was a Councilwoman in Florida, and her husband went to jail last year because he and Mama Wasserman-Rubin engaged in fraudulent activity as she abused her office and padded her hubby's (and her own) pockets. The fruit doesn't fall far from the mishpocha.

Makes me want to potch the pisher!


  1. I'm not sure I understand again. Is having $1000 invested in an international mutual fund as part of a 401K that holds less than $15000 is equal to - or even equivalent to - placing millions of dollars directly in a swiss bank account and shell companies in the cayman islands and bermuda? I'm not a financial expert, but it doesn't seem so on the surface.

    As far as the use of Yiddish to denegrate the Jewish congresswoman, the members of the Council of Nicea (325) would probably call it proper Catholic rehetoric. However, while the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews (1985) would recognize it as a Christian feature, but it seems they might not approve: "Mutual knowledge must be encouraged at every level. There is evident in particular a painful ignorance of the history and traditions of Judaism, of which only negative aspects and often caricature seem to form part of the stock ideas of many Christians." This use of language seems to be more related to 'negative aspects and..caricature' than it is born from 'mutual knowledge'.

  2. If Bill Maher can get away with it, why not me? After all, I am an aspiring comedienne. There is nothing denigrating about using words that are spot on in describing something. For you to say that using Yiddish is denigrating is in itself denigrating to the Jewish dialect.
    As for the investment part, you are completing missing the point, as most liberals do. I did not say Wasserman-Schultz did anything wrong. Neither did Romney do anything wrong. Obama and Schultz are simply trying to pit rich against poor, in accord with their Saul Alinsky tactic of divide and conquer. (Wasserman Schultz is herself rich. Why doesn't she put her money where her mouth is?) Wall Street versus the poor. Black versus white. Female versus male. Pro-abortion versus pro-life. Old versus young. Christian against Jew, Jew against Muslim. You name it, and they will drive a wedge in. It's their only chance to succeed since they cannot tout anything they have done to strengthen the economy or encourage private sector job growth or build up the Nation that has revolutionized the world over the last 200 years. Saddest of all is that people fall for the divisive, partisan tactics. It makes us all worse people.

  3. You can probably get away with it here in your blog. Although it's a step away from calling a chinese restaurant and ordering 'flied lice" because Don Rickles made a joke. Seriously though, this blog represents itself as informed and Catholic. This mocking use of a culturally Jewish feature is caricature; and, even without the clear statements from the Vatican encouraging otherwise, the use is neither informed nor properly catholic.

    I can't see where i wrote that you accused the congresswoman did anything wrong. I also never said what Romney did was wrong. I wrote that your analysis was wrong. You equated certain of the congresswoman's investments with certain of Romney's accounts. Given that the two are nothing alike, your analysis and therefore the conclusion are wrong.