Liz Peek Wiki
Liz Peek is a Fox News contributor and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company.
Liz Peek Biography
A former columnist for the Fiscal Times, she writes for The Hill and contributes frequently to Fox News, the New York Sun and other publications.
Peek spent more than 20 years on Wall Street as a research analyst focused on the oil industry. She began working for Wertheim & Company in 1975 and in 1983, was one of the first women to become a partner at a Wall Street investment firm. She left Wall Street in 1990 to raise her children but remained active as a commentator and in philanthropy.
She has written for The Fiscal Times, Fox News, the New York Sun, The Wall Street Journal, Alternate Universe, the Motley Fool, and Women on the Web and has appeared on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto and Fox & Friends.
Liz Peek Wellesley
Peek graduated as a Durant scholar from Wellesley College with an Honors Degree
Wellesley College is a private women’s liberal arts college in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Founded in 1870 by Henry and Pauline Durant, it is a member of the original Seven Sisters Colleges.
Wellesley is home to 56 departmental and interdepartmental majors spanning the liberal arts, as well as over 150 student clubs and organizations.
The college also allows its students to cross-register at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brandeis University, Babson College and Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. Wellesley athletes compete in the NCAA Division III New England Women’s and Men’s Athletic Conference.
Liz Peek Age
She is a writer, commentator on the finance industry, and philanthropist. She was born on December 10. 1949.
Liz Peek Family
She was born and raised in the United States East Coast for most of her life, she mostly grew up in the community of Sharon, Connecticut. Peek is a graduate of Wellesley College where she received her degree with honors in Business and Managerial economics.
Liz was also a Durant Scholar. She has not disclosed her parents, brothers and sisters details. The information is under review and will be updated soon.
Liz Peek Husband
Peek is married to her husband Jeff Peek(former CEO of CIT Group). She was the first woman elected president of the National Association of Petroleum Investment Analysts and was also a member of Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts.
With her husband, they focus on their philanthropic efforts in educational and cultural issues. Liz founded the Couture Council, where she also serves as chairperson.
In August 2012, Liz became the chair of the Board of Trustees of the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), a community college of the State University of New York system. In February 2013, was awarded the statuette of a spool of thread award by FIT’s Couture Council.
Liz is also the executive vice president of the board of Women’s Committee of the Central Park Conservancy and served as a board and executive committee member of the School of American Ballet.
She is also the chairperson of the fundraising organization for The Museum at FIT and member of the board of the FIT Foundation. In May 2015, She participated in a fashion and charity event hosted by Yola Colón, a fashion and jewelry designer.
Liz Peek Children
The couple has three kids together.
Liz Peek Height
Information will be updated soon.
Liz Peek Salary
Liz’s estimated salary is between $10k to $50k per year.
Liz Peek Net Worth
Her net worth is estimated to be around $250k.
Liz Peek Contact
Email me at: email@example.com
Liz has made numerous appearances on Fox News’ “Strategy Room”.
She has made guest appearances on Fox and Friends, Larry Kudlow and various other Fox Business programs such as Varney & Company, After the Bell and Making Money with Charles Payne on the merit of her sharp business acumen and understanding of the markets. Peek has also been a guest on Wall Street Week and other financial programs.
Liz Peek Politics
Liz Peek: Democrats confront the unthinkable — Trump’s reelection
Democrats and their liberal media pals are in full panic mode as it dawns on them: Donald Trump could actually win reelection.
Despite fielding an unprecedented number of would-be candidates, Democrats have so far failed to find a standard-bearer likely to unify their party.
As the recent debates showed, the party has moved left, and further left still, leaving the majority of Americans behind as they try to placate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and other noisy progressives.
At the same time, the better-than-expected June jobs report confirms the economy remains strong, dampening ceaseless speculation (and left-wing hope) about a pending recession.
Meanwhile, relentless hounding of the president by his political foes has had zero impact on his popularity among Republicans. If anything, the unimaginable vitriol has further hardened his support.
Maybe the intelligentsia is not so intelligent after all.
The liberal media is working feverishly to undermine the president, critical of his every move. They tell us that his venturing into North Korea to shake hands with Kim Jong Un delivered a “propaganda win” to the Korean dictator.
To whom? To the oppressed citizens of that miserable country who have been told their noble leader’s father was so pure that he never needed to defecate? Or that he scored 11 holes-in-one in his first round of golf? We’re worried about feeding that absurd propaganda machine?
Most Americans likely saw Trump’s move as characteristically gutsy and unconventional, but also a gesture that might someday bear fruit. Moreover, many saw it as a refreshing departure from the uber-cautious foreign policy of the Obama years.
Democrats and their media pals were also churlish about the president’s Fourth of July celebration in Washington.
The New York Times described it as a “made-for-television production starring America’s military weaponry” and Democrats said parading tanks in the nation’s capital was the hallmark of a tyrant. Please don’t tell President Emmanuel Macron; it was the Bastille Day parade in democratic France, complete with military hardware, that inspired Trump’s celebration.
It says something that the press was rhapsodic about the Pride Parade in New York but could not find anything good to say about a parade celebrating our nation’s military.
Here’s the bitter truth for Democrats: the unending slamming of the president is not working. It was announced last week that President Trump and the Republican National Committee have raised $105 million for his reelection bid, far surpassing the amounts raised by any predecessor or by any Democrat hoping to unseat him.
Not only was Trump’s overall fundraising impressive, but he also received 725,000 individual contributions which averaged $48.
That kind of online small-donor haul is unprecedented for a Republican politician. The RNC attracted “a larger share of donations under $200 than the Democratic National Committee,” reported the New York Times. As the Times noted, Trump will have far more money to boost his run than he did in 2016.
Gallup tells us that only 32 percent of the country is satisfied with “the way things are going in the United States at this time.” That hardly causes for celebration, but at the same point during President Obama’s tenure, only 16 percent of the nation thought we were on the right track.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s personal polling has gradually improved. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll put the president’s approval rating at 47 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. Among registered voters, that survey showed the president beating a Democrat candidate identified as a socialist 49 percent to 43 percent.
Notably, 66 percent of respondents in that poll self-identified as Democrats or Independents. Trust me, any Democrat now running will be branded a socialist by Mr. Trump.
And why not? The Democrat candidates showed their “free-for-all” stripes during the first round of debates. Every single candidate on the stage for the second night’s forum raised their hand in support of giving free health care to people in the country illegally, a slap in the face to millions of Americans struggling to pay for their own health care.
That show of hands should not have surprised anyone. Democrats eager to bludgeon the Trump White House over its treatment of people detained at the border (and hopeful of winning Hispanic voters) have adopted ever more idiotic positions on immigration.
Though only a few years ago Democrats favored controlled borders but lenient immigration guidelines, now Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren, and others want to repeal Section 1325 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the law that outlaws entering the country illegally.
They want that action to no longer is a federal crime, but rather a civil offense, like parking in front of a fire hydrant. That is not where American voters are.
Several candidates said in the debates they wanted to abolish private health insurance, a shocker to those 140 million people who have such insurance.
The private health insurance industry earns revenues of hundreds of billions of dollars and employs 600,000 Americans; Medicare-for-all amounts to a federal takeover of the means of production, which meets the definition of socialism.
Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress will soon continue their investigations into every aspect of President Trump’s finances, pushing to get hold of his tax returns in order to find…what exactly? That he has done something wrong that the IRS has failed to uncover? No, simply to embarrass him. The hints of impeachment and a theatrical do-over of the Mueller probe will continue.
Liz Peek The Hill
Dems Confront the Unthinkable: Donald Trump’s Reelection
realclearpolitics.com — Here’s the bitter truth for Democrats: the unending slamming of the president is not working.
Fox News Radio: The Todd Starnes Show – Liz Peek
lizpeek.com — Thanks for getting this out there- I ran out of time!
Fox Bulls & Bears: 2020 Democrats Slam Trump’s Economy In Their First Debate – Liz Peek
lizpeek.com — Thanks for getting this out there- I ran out of time!
Liz Peek Judge
Liz Peek: Kavanaugh confirmation – We’re finding out what plenty of Americans think about all the chaos
As we await the vote which will determine whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh will serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, one thing is certain: Americans are disgusted by the Democrats’ efforts to derail his confirmation.
According to a recent Harvard-Harris poll, “a majority of voters believe that Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was politicized and mishandled, with 69 percent calling it a “national disgrace,” according to the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University, which reported on the survey.
That poll showed voters blaming both parties for the heinous process, but from the very first day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s raucous hearings, sentiment began to shift in favor of Republicans.
KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION CHAOS — LIBERALS, ESPECIALLY LIBERAL WOMEN, SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY WISH FOR
On September 4, when the Committee first met, Democrats, held a 9.5 point advantage in the so-called “generic ballot”, in which people say whether they would prefer to vote for a Democrat or a Republican for Congress.
That number had been climbing, up more than 2 points since the beginning of August – momentum that encouraged Democrats’ dreams of a “Blue Wave” in the midterm elections. Today, the Democrats’ generic edge has retreated to 7.2 points.
On that first day of the hearings, 70 protestors were arrested by Capitol Police, and the proceedings in the Hart Senate Office Building were repeatedly interrupted by people screaming hateful disapproval of the judge.
Democrat senators were equally disrespectful, with New Jersey’s Cory “Spartacus” Booker, Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and California’s Kamala Harris among those rudely disrupting Chairman Chuck Grassley’s attempts to move the hearings along.
They complained they lacked the documents they needed to assess the judge’s qualifications, even though they had been given hundreds of thousands of pages of material covering every aspect of Kavanaugh’s career – more than the five prior nominees combined.
It didn’t matter; Democrats wanted to convince the public that Kavanaugh, who had been vetted by the FBI on six different occasions and had been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the D.C. Appeals Court 12 years earlier, was a stealth candidate.
After the first week of hearings, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats, saying they had, “repeatedly interrupted Chairman Grassley, behaved rudely toward the nominee and hauled out one dishonest partisan attack after another to try to distort his record and smear Judge Kavanaugh.”
Little did he know, they were just getting started. The second act of the effort to obstruct Kavanaugh’s confirmation commenced with the revelation that Christine Blasey Ford had accused him of sexually assaulting her 36 years earlier.
This unproven charge, which lacked any evidence or witnesses, threw the hearings into chaos and diminished public approval of the judge.
But even as most Americans appeared to believe Ford, who was championed by women’s rights groups and by the liberal media, they were not pleased with the way the accusations had been handled.
That Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sat on the information for two months, seemingly orchestrating a “gotcha” moment, and that she had spent an hour interviewing Kavanaugh in her chambers without asking him about the accusations, bolstered Republicans’ charges that the allegations were a political hit job.
According to the Harvard poll, “75 percent of voters believe that Senator Dianne Feinstein should have immediately turned over the letter from Christine Ford to the Senate judiciary committee in July when she received it.” Americans believe in fair play; Feinstein’s actions were dishonest.
After the dramatic but inconclusive “she said, he said” testimony of both Ford and Kavanaugh, sentiment changed, with more Americans questioning whether uncorroborated accusations were sufficient to sink a brilliant man who had, from all accounts, conducted himself with dignity and decency for nearly three decades, and, who was, in particular, a champion of women.
Against nearly universal accolades and testimony from hundreds of friends, colleagues, and students, the public was asked to believe that Kavanaugh was, in reality, a lout who routinely attacked women when drunk, and a man who had successfully hidden these violent proclivities for decades.
It was simply not credible. Such a verdict was rendered even less credible as more charges surfaced, with each new challenge looking ever more preposterous.
When attorney Michael Avenatti entered the mix, presenting a woman whose accusations that Kavanaugh was present at gang rapes collapsed almost immediately in an embarrassing TV interview, the nation had had enough.
During this sorry process, other surveys indicated the battle was beginning to hurt Democrats. The so-called “enthusiasm” advantage held by Democrats shrank; a new NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll shows the gap down to two points from 10 in July. Republicans are more fired up to vote; if Kavanaugh is confirmed that excitement will likely grow.
In addition, several key Senate races have shifted in favor of Republicans over the past two weeks. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report just recently moved three Senate races in favor of the GOP candidates, including contests in Montana, Nebraska, and New Jersey.
It is heartening that Americans are offended by the vicious attacks on Judge Kavanaugh. It shows our country dedicated to the principle of due process, believing in “innocent until proven guilty” and demanding fair play.
Voters know that the attacks on the judge are political, stemming from an angry mob that still cannot accept the outcome of the 2016 election, and they reject mob rule.
As President Obama once so eloquently said, “Elections have consequences.” One of the most important of those consequences is the ability to nominate excellent candidates to serve on the Supreme Court.