The Audacity of Ignorance: The Political Roast of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

Tweeted photograph of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz drunk, like all Democrats believing everything they say. (IJ Review)

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz — a nickle-and-dime politician, cheaper than Sandra Fluke’s grand-a-month taxpayer supply of condoms, Plan B and douche bags. Among the most absurd of all intellectual dunces American politics ever produced. Her countenance reeks of inebriation each time she breathes staring at a camera. As the tweet earlier suggests, she truly has a fondness for the sauce. It is difficult to discern her from tipsy Teddy of Chappaquiddick, who ensured all Americans will have “a blonde in every pond”. Wasserman-Schultz, as with progressive Republican President Herbert Hoover, would pledge all will own a house with a two car garage.

How many left hooks has she flailed at conservatives while ranting “racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, bigoted and sexist”, her words of course, slurred by drink and calumny? This month, she engaged in a war of words with Sen. Rand Paul over her support for abortions of fully-developed infants. The reaction by feminists was another zeitgeist of summer blockbuster proportions viewable at the theater of the absurd, proving in their inimitable capacity the hyperbole of promoted promiscuity successfully achieved through their submission and domination rape culture. Sandra Fluke, once the rising star of the radical feminist movement when she as a millionaire declared she could not afford $1,000 per month for birth control, only reiterated that she, Schultz and all of like mind truly are the hors d’oeuvres served at every soiree.

But far be it Fluke wants to be gang raped by Muslims — or shall I say, those “Nigerian girls” she racially-profiled! Given her rhetoric, she would get her wish. Not one Republican man would consume her as a party favor for fear of contracting a yeast infection — or worse. Like all Democrats, she supports human trafficking, slavery or child prostitution given she serves herself on a silver platter for a grand of your taxed wages monthly — Fluke practically admitted so. And after all, Fluke admitted that she as a “Nigerian girl” would be willing to take it high and hard since to be raped is to be considered a laughing matter, like actual Nigerian school girls in the video below. After all, the American people are raped each time a Democrat is elected, enslaving the masses, expanding the party’s plantation.


Fluke would likely prefer the fictional slave Mandingo to be her own personal concubine. She has to have someone on whom to spend that $1,000 per month for contraceptives based off her party’s long time friend Jim Crow’s antebellum polity.

Wasserman-Schultz, like every Democrat, is a not-so-closet racist given the heritage of the modern feminist. She advocates through her policies the Democratic legacies of slavery and worst of all, eugenics, in her support for more funding for abortion clinics that target urban blacks for extermination under Jonathan Gruber’s terms. To Democrats, the black community’s offspring are mere “marginal children” eradicated “for the social good”.

Pelosi said the same exact thing as the most powerful woman in the history of U.S. politics.

“Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself a frequently-inebriated public figure as she slept off her consumption during this year’s State of the Union Address, concurs.

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Worst of all, Obama science czar and author of Ecoscience (1976) John Holdren, alongside Paul Ehrlich, corroborated Gruber’s mission of depopulation.

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier than trying to sterilize men. This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries…The development of a long term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable with official permission for a limited number of births.”

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is emblematic of all that leftists consider humanitarian through totalitarian egalitarianism. New York’s State Assembly passed live-birth abortions at the House level April 31, 2015, only for the Senate to nix it days later. The GOP Senate caved to Democrats on a bill for human trafficking while still granting its word to confirm Loretta Lynch as the new Obama Attorney General. Race rioting is now funded by the contemporary Jacobin Club of ultra-liberal Democrats. Blacks keep business good for Planned Parenthood, the grim statistics painting the blackest abyss of all for the community trapped in the ghettos of Democrat urban plantations. Blacks continue picking Obama’s cotton in exchange for contemporary concentration camps — around every street corner of public housing projects. While Obama hates white people, he would despise learning he behaves as the ultimate political “Simon Legree”.

This line of thinking has left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities… nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups.

Wasserman-Schultz asked of Sen. Paul if women’s health care matters to him. Had Sen. Paul been me, my answer would be simply all women’s and in general, human lives, very much matter. Feminists demanding to be called “womyn” are subhuman, cheaper than the money they demand charged to taxpayers to cover selling their bodies for public exposure. “Womyn” like Wasserman-Schultz, are not “human”, should be permitted to die under her policies that prevent any regulation of abortion clinics or procedures. Those who proclaim to be “womyn” due to their desire to topple what they perceive to be a “patriarchy” should be declared socially-inconsequential as a literal consequence of their own request. This must include when more random Kermit Gosnells are located with no legal mandate to acknowledge establishment licenses to perform abortions, much less malpractice cases. If supporting killing babies post birth or opposing eugenics as a policy angers Wasserman-Schultz and Democrats, their lives mean nothing at all unlike the sweet cherubs they demand aborted.

Op-Ed by Margo Kaplan, law professor at Rutgers University, on pedophilia not being a crime

Op-Ed by Margo Kaplan, law professor at Rutgers University, on pedophilia not being a crime

“Womyn” are what Sanger declared the disabled to be — “human weeds”, inhibitors of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Real Americans do not vote with their vaginas. Real Americans have souls, a conscience as their guides and measurable moral compasses, yielding usually an appreciation for the sanctity of life. So far as I am concerned, Wasserman-Schultz is a mere prop for a militant political movement to topple a perceived “patriarchy”. Her life is worth far less than the actual humans she demands killed post-birth.

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner