Tag Archives: Senator Chuck Schumer

Something To Watch Very Closely

Posted on by

Politico posted an article today about the election reform bill now making its way through the Senate.

The article reports:

Senate Republicans are set to block Democrats’ sweeping elections and ethics reform bill on Tuesday. Just hours before the vote, Sen. Joe Manchin, the last Democratic holdout, announced he would approve advancing the legislation.

The Senate will vote Tuesday afternoon on whether to consider the legislation, a top priority for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. With the bill guaranteed to fail, the path forward is murky at best on an issue that Democrats say they need to resolve before the 2022 midterms. While Manchin’s vote won’t save the bill, the unified Democratic vote will both help the party’s political messaging that the GOP is stonewalling them and likely intensify progressives’ push to end the filibuster.

As I have said before, Joe Manchin only votes against the Democrat agenda when his vote doesn’t count (article here). It is a mistake to rely on him to protect the filibuster or to protect states’ rights in the voting process.

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today stating:

Progressive leftists will want Chuck Schumer to get rid of the filibuster and use a simple majority vote in the Senate to pass the “Take Away The Right to Vote” legislation.  However, if the Democrats fail in cheating on a massive scale in 2022, they could lose the Senate and House, and SB1 could be reversed and leave Biden to stand alone vetoing the bill to undo the election takeover.

It’s a calculating game of political scheme and fraud, where the DC elites (both parties) are trying to determine their odds of pulling off the plan while simultaneously keeping the American electorate from seeing what they are doing.   Pelosi has the military defenses around the Capitol prepared to keep back any revolting peasants; but that security only works if the politicians don’t leave DC.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid famously sequestered the Senate in December of 2009 to block any senator from returning to his/her state where they would face the fury of their electorate and likely recant support for Obamacare.  Unfortunately, Senate Majority Chuck Schumer doesn’t have the benefit of the calendar to jail the senators from leaving DC, and simultaneously tensions at home in every state are unseasonably hot.

There will be a lot of behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the Senate this week. If the Democrats get what they want, the voters lose. I wouldn’t count on Joe Manchin to save the country,

 

The Media Spin On Voter Fraud

Posted on by

If you really listen closely to what the media is saying about the changes in voting laws some states are making to prevent fraud, you would think that any measure that disenfranchises fraudulent voters is anti-democratic.

CNS News posted an article today about the changes some states are making to their voting laws and the Democrat party’s reaction to those changes.

The article reports:

“We’re moving ahead on two very important issues, voting rights and Build Back Better,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told a news conference on Tuesday.

“Before the end of the month, the Senate will vote on crucial voting rights legislation. Republican state legislatures across the country are passing the most draconian voting restrictions since the beginning of Jim Crow, potentially disenfranchising tens of millions of Americans,” Schumer claimed:

So lets take a closer look at this disenfranchising idea. The article includes a list of some of these ‘draconian measures’ included in the Texas reform bill:

— Death certificates would be filed monthly with the voter registrar and secretary of state so fraudsters can’t vote in a dead person’s name.

— The bill protects poll watchers who must be close enough to “observe the conduct of an election and call to the attention of an election officer any observed or suspected irregularity or violation of law in the conduct of the election.”

— A voter may deliver a marked ballot in person to the early voting clerk’s office only while the polls are open on Election Day. A voter who delivers a marked ballot in person must present an acceptable form of identification. (In-person voting in Texas already requires ID, such as a Texas driver’s license, a government-issued identification card, a Texas handgun license, an election identification certificate, a U.S. military ID card, a U.S. citizenship certificate, or a U.S. passport.)

— A person, other than an election officer, who assists a voter at the polls — or who helps with mail-in ballots — must prove who they say they are, why they are helping, and their relationship to the voter. In-person assistants must take an oath, swearing that “I will not suggest, by word, sign, or gesture, how the voter should vote…” People who assist with mail-in ballots must say whether they received or accepted any form of compensation from a candidate, campaign, or political committee in exchange for providing assistance, which would be illegal.

— The bill makes it an offense to vote or attempt to vote in an election in which the person is ineligible to vote; knowingly votes or attempts to vote twice; votes a ballot belonging to another person or impersonates another person; votes or attempts to vote in Texas after voting for the same federal nominee in another state;

— The bill makes it an offense to alter ballots cast by someone else; cast a ballot under false pretenses; fail to count valid votes; count invalid votes; and mislead an election official.

— The bill bars compensation or any other benefit for vote harvesting and it bars solicitation and distribution of applications to vote by mail. Eligible voters wishing to vote by mail must request their own ballot applications.

That doesn’t sound like draconian voting restrictions to me–it sounds like common-sense measures to prevent voter fraud.

Not Surprising

Posted on by

On Saturday Newsmax posted an article about the ‘For The People Act,’ House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 1. The bill is not for the people–it’s for the Democrats to insure victories in upcoming elections. The bill federalizes and politicizes elections in favor of the Democrats who now essentially control Congress and the White House.

The article reports:

The Senate will vote on a bill that would dramatically change how elections are run next month.

According to a memo sent out by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the bill known as the “For the People Act,” or  H.R. 1 or S. 1, will be voted on in June.

Democrats view the sweeping reform bill as anti-corruption legislation that will combat “restrictive” voting bills from their Republican colleagues. The act would federalize parts of the election system, eliminating qualifications such as photo identification and allowing same-day registration on any day that voting is permitted.

“In my state in Oklahoma, we have great voting engagement. We want to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. S1 takes away a state’s ability to hold people accountable for cheating,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said, according to The Epoch Times.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., described the bill as a massive federal “takeover of elections.”

Democrats, however, largely support the legislation.

I have previously reported on H.R. 1 (article here). It truly is a nightmare for those who want honest elections in America. Among other things it forbids the use of voter id to insure that voters are who they say they are. It also changes the non-partisan Federal Election Commission into a partisan body by creating an uneven number of Commissioners.

The article at Newsmax concludes:

At a caucus lunch on Capitol Hill, Schumer told reporters, “it was made clear how important S1 is to the country, to our Democratic majority, and to individual senators, and those discussions are going and I have a lot of faith in them.”

The Senate is currently divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. Passing the bill would require at least 60 votes.

Schumer plans to bring other pieces of legislation up for a vote in June, including the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold the Department of Labor to study pay disparities between men and women while making their results public. He also said he might force another vote on the riot that occurred on Jan. 6 at the Capitol.

If these bills do not pass (which I hope is the case), we can expect to see the Democrats move to end the legislative filibuster. That will be the end of our country as we know it. It will give the Democrats free reign and not require any sort of negotiations or compromises with the Republicans. That is not good for our Republic.

A Portent Of Things To Come?

Posted on by

Sometimes people say really stupid things. Most of the time, those comments can be easily dismissed. However sometimes even when a comment seems totally insane, it needs to be paid attention to because it may be a clue to future events.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about a recent comment made by Representative Adam Schiff.

The article reports:

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Deadline” that we could not ignore the so-called predominant domestic threat was the white national threat and “some of the folks are part of the Trump base.”

Wallace (Nicole Wallace) said, “I want to ask you about the work on the intelligence committee. Is it different now that the intel chiefs testified to the tragic new reality that the gravest threats to the country are domestic violent extremists? Currently, under the threat warning, we know about radicalized by the big lie still being repeated by Donald Trump. I believe six times since last week and some COVID restrictions where he was also a leading and rater with tweets of liberate Michigan and liberate Virginia?”

…Schiff said, “We ought to be able to find common ground that the predominant terrorism threat facing the country right now is a domestic threat. The predominant part of that domestic threat is white national threat. That has international, transnational links as well. We can’t ignore that because of a political sensitivity that some of the folks are part of the Trump base. So I hope we can find common ground. We need to make sure we protect the country.”

I firmly believe that this is the prelude to the talking points that will be utilized if the audit of the Arizona presidential vote shows systematic fraud. Rather than face the issue and admit there is a problem, people saying that there was systematic fraud will be charged with undermining the election and labeled as domestic terrorists.

In another Breitbart article that was posted yesterday, Senator Schumer had the following comment:

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The ReidOut,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that if Democrats can’t come to a bipartisan agreement on voting rights legislation “everything will be on the table to get it done.” And that one of the pieces of leverage he has for Democratic senators is that if Democrats don’t block some state election laws, “the chances of our caucus retaining the majority and people who are up for re-election like Kelly and Warnock winning is greatly diminished.”

Essentially what he is saying is that if the Democrats don’t tilt the playing field, they can’t win. Federalizing elections (which is against the Constitution) and calling anyone who opposes what you are doing domestic terrorists is one way to tilt the playing field.

Lying When Convenient

Posted on by

Politicians are not known for telling the truth, but sometimes the lies are simply outrageous. It seems that lying to attack political opponents has become a way of life for some of our politicians.

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about a recent whopper told by Senator Chuck Schumer. The lie by Senator Schumer was told during a hearing for Thomas Farr, a North Carolina lawyer who is President Trump’s pick to be a district court judge in New York.

The article reports:

Schumer said on the Senate floor that Farr “stands for the disenfranchisement of voters,” then raised the 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v Holder. That case ended in a Roberts opinion that said a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is outdated and needs to be modernized.

Schumer said that opinion showed that Roberts believes voting discrimination no longer exists.

“Justice Roberts will go down in history as one of those who worked to take away voting rights when he authored the Shelby decision and stated that he didn’t believe that … more or less, he stated that he didn’t believe that discrimination existed any longer, so we wouldn’t need Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” Schumer said.

But Roberts never wrote that voting discrimination no longer exists and, in fact, said explicitly that it does still exist.

“At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that,” Roberts wrote at the time.

Either Senator Schumer is misinformed or he decided that the best was to prevent the appointment of Thomas Farr was to play the race card. That card is getting very old, and the number of Americans falling for it is rapidly dwindling. The card is played frequently against President Trump despite the awards he won before running for President for promoting racial harmony and for his removal of race and religion restrictions when he opened Mar-a-Lago.

Racism Goes Both Ways

Posted on by

Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That is a dream all of us should have. People seeking jobs should be judged not according to their sex or whatever minority they may belong to, but by their qualifications. Unfortunately that is a lesson that some Americans have not yet learned.

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about the nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The article reports:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, said Thursday he would vote against the confirmation of one of President Trump’s judicial nominees because the candidate is white.

This is not a loose paraphrase of what he said. It is nearly verbatim his explanation for his “no” vote on the nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The only thing missing is the senator stating specifically that he couldn’t support a white nominee because two African-American nominees had failed to pass a Senate vote.

The article points out:

First, it is morally wrong to deny a person a job because of his skin color. You can argue that Republican senators did the same to the President Barack Obama-appointed African-American nominees, but that relies on suspicion and theory — they were probably rejected for reasons of political partisanship. The senator from New York, on the other hand, is saying outright that he will not vote for Quattlebaum’s nomination because he is white.

Secondly, please. This isn’t about diversity. This is politics.

Lastly, Schumer’s speech is humorous considering he is the minority leader of a governing body that is overwhelmingly white and male. There are currently only 22 female senators, 17 Democratic and five Republican. We started this year with only 21, but Sen. Al Franken’s exit opened the door for Minnesota’s former lieutenant governor, Tina Smith, to take his seat.

There are also only three black senators out of 100, according to the Senate webpage.

It’s extremely unlikely Schumer, himself a white male, will step aside anytime soon to balance out the mix.

Refusing to vote for a judicial nominee because he is white is no different than refusing to vote for a judicial nominee because he is black. Both actions are racist. It would be wonderful if those claiming everyone else is racist would stop doing racist things themselves.

This Is One Example Of Why Congress Never Gets Anything Done

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted a story today about Congress and the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Republicans want to pass a bill in the House and the Senate approving the Pipeline and essentially daring President Obama to veto it. The Pipeline is supported by the majority of the American people, most Republicans, and some Democrats. Under normal circumstances, the bill should pass easily and Congress could possibly override a Presidential veto. Enter New York Senator Chuck Schumer. Senator Schumer plans to add amendments to any Keystone XL Pipeline bill that will prevent it from passing in the Senate.

The article reports:

The measures are unlikely to garner enough support in the GOP-held Senate, much as they’ve failed on Keystone XL bills in previous years in the Republican House. But Schumer said that the amendments his caucus plans to offer will make the legislation “more of a jobs bill,” as he downplayed the 35 permanent jobs the State Department said that TransCanada Corp.‘s project would create.

“We’re going to introduce an amendment to say that the steel used in the pipeline should be made in America, creating American jobs. We’re going to introduce an amendment that says that the oil that is used in the pipeline should be used in America,” the New York Democrat said on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” adding that the caucus will also “introduce an amendment to add clean energy jobs.”

President Obama has been successfully stalling the Keystone XL Pipeline for years. There are a variety of reasons for this–to approve the pipeline would put an end to Democrat campaign contributions from radical environmental groups, and there is also the matter of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the railroad that is currently carrying the oil because the pipeline does not exist. Oddly enough, that railroad is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate controlled by Obama supporter and Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett. I understand that that is simply an incredible coincidence, but somehow I think that this fact also plays into President Obama’s refusal to allow the Keystone XL to move forward.