Tag Archives: Senator Chuck Schumer

Dealing With Circular Logic

Posted on by

On Friday, PJ Media posted an article about Senator Schumer’s remarks about requiring voter identification. The Senator has been consistently comparing voter id laws to Jim Crow laws. He seems to be in a panic that voter id will pass the Senate. Well, Vice-President J.D. Vance had the perfect answer to the Senator’s comments.

The article reports:

JD Vance just dismantled the Democrats’ absurd war on basic voter security, and he did it with such a simple argument that I have to call attention to it.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer caught heat after blasting the SAVE Act as “Jim Crow 2.0” earlier this week.

“I have said it before, and I’ll say it again, the SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow-type laws on the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Schumer said Monday. “The SAVE Act is reminiscent of Jim Crow era laws and would expand them to the whole of America.”

He then doubled down on this rhetoric during an appearance on MSNOW’s Morning Joe. He doubled down, insisting the bill poisons any spending deal in Congress.

He lit up Megyn Kelly’s show with a takedown that hit like a freight train. “We want the sovereignty to be with the people who cast the ballots, and that’s why we have to get the SAVE Act passed,” Vance said. He mocked the left’s favorite dodge. “You’ll hear people say all the time… ‘Well, if you look at this precinct, you know, only three illegal aliens voted in this election.’ Number one, that’s three illegal aliens too many, and number two, if it’s not a big problem, then why not just allow us to check ID and exercise some basic precautions to prevent illegal aliens from voting?”

The article notes the problem with Senator Schumer’s logic:

Vance nailed the contradiction. Democrats scream fraud never happens. Then they fight tooth and nail to stop fixes. “I never quite understand the person who says, ‘On the one hand, this never happens, and on the other hand, your effort to prevent it from happening is a threat to American democracy,’ which is fundamentally the Democrats’ argument.”

…Schumer’s meltdown proves Vance’s point. Democrats fear clean elections. Americans want ID checks. Vance exposed the game. Democrats have relied on lax rules for too long. Republicans must hold the line and pass the SAVE Act.

It’s time for Congress to listen to the American people who overwhelmingly support voter id laws.

Why?

Posted on by

Only American citizens are supposed to vote in federal elections. Why are the Democrats so reluctant to see this law enforced? Could it have something to do with the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants they let into the country during the Biden administration?

On Thursday, Legal Insurrection posted an article the Senate Democrats’ demands to pass a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The article reports:

Democrats are always telling on themselves, no matter what the issue is, and that’s certainly been the case with their militant opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations, which have taken place in problem blue cities and states across the country over the past year.

One “tell” in particular that helps make the GOP’s points in favor of passing the SAVE Act has come from a number of Democrats in recent months. Among them was California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who in August said that the ICE agents who showed up outside of an event he held were a “preview” of what was to come at polling places and “in front of voting booths,” that ICE would be sent there by President Trump to “intimidate people.”

American citizens (the people who should be going to the polls) are not intimidated by ICE agents–the only people who would be intimidated by ICE agents are illegal aliens who have no business being near the polling places!

The article notes:

But in perhaps the most glaring example of saying the “quiet part out loud,” the list of demands for DHS reform released by Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), which was sent to Republican House and Senate leadership Wednesday, includes a call for no funding to go towards immigration enforcement operations near polling places:

Democratic leaders laid out their demands for reform at the Department of Homeland Security in a letter to Republican leadership on Wednesday, as lawmakers race to reach a compromise before the agency’s funding runs out in less than 10 days.

…Democrats also want agents to identify themselves, use body-worn cameras, and stop wearing masks or face coverings while conducting enforcement operations, among other restrictions.

Democrats are also insisting that DHS funds not be used to conduct enforcement near “sensitive locations,” such as schools, medical facilities, places of worship, and polling places.

Are they admitting that they plan to cheat?

When Common Sense Takes A Vacation

Posted on by

How stupid does Chuck Schumer think we are?

On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article quoting some of Senator Schumer’s recent comments on the Save Act.

The article notes:

Schumer said, “It’s Jim Crow 2.0, and I called it Jim Crow 2.0, and the right wing went nuts all over the Internet. That’s because they know it’s true. What they’re trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting. For instance, if you change — you’re a woman who got married and changed your last name, you won’t be able to show ID and you’ll be discriminated against. If you can’t find a birth certificate, or a proper ID, you’ll be discriminated against. This is vicious and nasty. And I said to our Republican colleagues, it will not pass the Senate. You will not get a single Democratic vote in the Senate. We’re not reviving Jim Crow all over the country. And when the American people hear what exactly it is doing and what its intent is doing, they’re going to be against it as well.”

Since the majority of women who support the Democrat party are single, what’s the problem? Does Senator Schumer really believe that American women are so stupid that they can’t get a new driver’s license or social security card when they get married? I had no problem getting a real id as a married woman. I simply brought my birth certificate, my current driver’s license, etc., and promptly got my id. I think American women should be totally insulted that a U.S. Senator thinks that they are that stupid.

Why Would A Political Party Fight Election Integrity?

Posted on by

The Democrats are getting ready to shut down the government again in about two weeks. At first it was because of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) funding, but now it is because of the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act enforces the law that limits voting in federal elections to citizens. That should be a no-brainer, but to the Democrats that eliminates a lot of their voting base. In case you haven’t noticed, because Americans are leaving the Democrat party because it has gone too far left, the Democrats need new voters. That is the reason they are fighting so hard to keep illegal aliens here. They need voter fraud and illegal aliens to keep winning. Keep an eye on Fulton County for more information on voter fraud. Also, if they can shut down the government, they may be able to slow down the positive momentum of the Trump administration.

On Tuesday, American Greatness posted an article about the coming government shutdown.

The article reports:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is warning that a bipartisan appropriations package will be “dead on arrival” in the Senate, if it contains the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

Schumer announced yesterday that he’s willing to risk another government shutdown in order to block GOP attempts to add voter ID and citizenship eligibility requirements to the funding bill.

According to Schumer, “The SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow style restrictions on voting. It will be dead on arrival in the Senate.”

The reluctance of Democrats to limit voting in federal elections to U.S. citizens alone, raises deeper questions about why millions of illegal aliens were allowed to flood into the U.S. under the Biden administration.

The article concludes with a very interesting possible solution:

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) explained to reporters yesterday that standing filibuster may be the best pathway forward to allow a way to break the stalemate and to maneuver around senators who are seeking to block voter ID and citizenship requirements.

Some of our Senators are so old they probably couldn’t stand up long enough to filibuster! Stay tuned.

Some Serious Irony

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Townhall posted an article about Senator Schumer’s response to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The Senator is complaining that Congress was not notified beforehand about the attack plan. Considering the leaking record of Congress, that is probably why the plan succeeded!

The article includes the following X Post:

I think that pretty much sums it up!

NOTE: In case you are wondering SCIF stands for sensitive compartmented information facility.

Continuing The Shutdown

Posted on by

On Friday, Fox News posted an article about a recent vote in the Senate. Obviously, the Democrat filibuster is preventing the Republicans from opening the government, but the Democrats won’t even vote to help the people being hurt by the shutdown.

The article reports:

Senate Democrats again blocked a plan by Republicans to ensure that federal workers and the military would receive a paycheck as the shutdown back and forth revs into high gear.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., again tried to advance a modified version of his “Shutdown Fairness Act” bill that would see federal workers and the military paid now and during subsequent government shutdowns. However, the bill failed 53-43 with 3 Democrats defecting to support the bill. Georgia Sens. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico voted for the bill.

Last month, it was blocked over concerns from Senate Democrats that it did not include furloughed workers.

The article concludes:

The GOP’s attempt to pay federal workers amid the ongoing, 38-day shutdown came as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus announced their counter-offer to Senate Republicans’ plan to reopen the government.

Schumer’s offer included attaching a one-year extension onto expiring Obamacare subsidies — the main sticking point of the shutdown — in exchange for the Democratic votes to reopen the government.

But the offer, which a source told Fox News Digital had been made in private to Senate Republicans last week and was summarily rejected, was again not going over well with Republicans.

The Senate is expected to return on Saturday to vote on the House-passed plan for a 15th time. Whether Schumer and his caucus block it once more remains to be seen.

Schumer’s offer was essentially “You give us what we want and we will allow you to open the government.” That’s pretty much your basic hostage statement. I particularly like Senator Kennedy’s suggestion for a law that says if federal workers are not paid, Congress should not be paid.

Not All Democrats Support The Government Shutdown

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about one union that is not supporting the current Schumer Shutdown.

The article reports:

Senate Democrats were dealt a severe blow on Monday morning when the country’s largest federal workers union called for a swift end to the government shutdown.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a union representing more than 800,000 government workers, released an open letter calling on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his caucus to vote for a House-passed bipartisan spending bill to reopen the government. Schumer and a majority of Democrats have voted against a clean funding measure to reopen the government a dozen times — and will vote on a spending bill to end the shutdown for a 13th time as soon as Tuesday.

“It’s time to pass a clean continuing resolution and end this shutdown today,” AFGE national president Everett Kelley said in a statement. “No half measures, and no gamesmanship. Put every single federal worker back on the job with full back pay — today.”

The article notes:

Monday marks Day 27 of the government shutdown that continues to stretch on despite mounting financial distress for Americans who receive federal paychecks or depend on federal food aid programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Congress has passed 36 continuing resolutions to fund the government rather than following the regular budget process since January 2009. During the Biden administration Congress passed 13 continuing resolutions. Trump derangement syndrome is about to cost people their food stamps and government checks.

The article concludes:

Senate Democrats, however, show few signs of relenting from their hardball tactics that have kept the government shuttered for one of the longest durations in American history. Schumer continues to demand an extension of expiring Obamacare subsidies — in addition to a bevy of costly left-wing priorities — in exchange for reopening the government.

Just three Democratic caucus members have crossed party lines to vote for the bipartisan spending measure. Republicans must get buy-in from an additional five Democrats in order to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for government funding bills and end the shutdown.

Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has consistently voted against the bipartisan funding measure, arguing the bill does not do enough to cut spending.

A spokesperson for Schumer did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Extortion Or Negotiation?

Posted on by

On Friday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the ongoing budget negotiations in Congress. The House of Representatives has passed a Continuing Resolution (CR) which represents a ‘clean bill’ which generally continues things as they are rather than adding additional items. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is demanding some major Democrat additions to the CR that represent Democrat priorities in order to pass the CR (which needs 60 votes in the Senate). If the CR does not pass, the government shuts down.

The Daily Caller reports:

House Speaker Mike Johnson rejected Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York’s demand that Congress allocate $500 million for certain media outlets Friday, saying, “We’re not doing that.”

The House of Representatives passed both a short-term funding measure and a resolution honoring assassinated Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk on Friday. Democrats have demanded that the stopgap funding measure add over $1 trillion in funding for various priorities, including reversing the rescission of funds for public broadcasting.

…“He (Senator Schumer) also wants to make sure, he wants to reinstate health care to be provided free by American taxpayers for illegal aliens. We’re not going to do that either,” Johnson continued. “He also wants to add $500 million to prop up left-leaning media organizations. We’re not doing that either.”

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has identified $206 billion in savings since President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, despite drawing fire from Democrats over various cuts it identified, including the closure of the United States Agency for International Development.

A CR is not really the answer to America’s financial problem. We need to get back to the legal budget process. The Congressional Budget Process is supposed to involve individual budget requests for each area of the government. Those requests are to be passed individually. We have not correctly followed that procedure since 2008. It is time to get back to the way the law is written.

Breaking Up The Logjam

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Daily Caller reported that the Senate is planning to break up the logjam holding back President Trump’s appointments.

The article reports:

Senate Republicans are on the verge of breaking Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s stranglehold over the confirmation process, ending seven months of unprecedented obstruction that has sought to prevent President Donald Trump from staffing his administration.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune is expected to invoke the rarely-used “nuclear option” to reform Senate rules allowing for the simultaneous confirmation of lower-level executive branch nominees as early as Monday, a senior Republican aide told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The historic rules change could grant the more than 100 civilian nominees who have been blocked from their postings due to Democrats’ persistent delay tactics a swift confirmation vote before the Senate is scheduled to go on recess on Sept. 19.

…Thune organized a working group in August after negotiations with Democrats to clear the backlog of executive branch nominees collapsed. The cohort included Republican Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Ted Budd of North Carolina.

The Senate is there to advise and consent–not to obstruct.

The article notes:

Senate Republicans’ imminent rules change comes after former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” during former President Barack Obama’s second term to lower the threshold required to confirm executive branch and judicial nominees. Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also invoked the “nuclear option” to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees and cut debate time on most presidential nominees.

Though the proposed rules change is likely to benefit Democrats the next time they control the Senate and the White House, Senate Republicans have argued that Democrats’ nomination blockade is not sustainable. Despite Thune holding more votes than any Senate in 35 years, the Trump administration is on track to confirm the fewest nominees in recent memory.

“By the end of the 119th Congress (1/2/2027), the Senate is on track to confirm just 426 nominees, the fewest in history, and less than half of what other Presidents have averaged since 2000,” Britt, a member of the working group, wrote on X on Wednesday.

This is not the kind of history we need to be making.

The article concludes:

“We have never seen a time where the opposition party has literally blocked and forced the president and his team and us here as the majority in the Senate to go through all the machinations of trying to get a nominee across the finish line,” Thune said during a Senate GOP leadership press conference on Wednesday. 

“So this is of the Democrats’ making,” Thune continued. “There isn’t anything right now that they want to vote for that he has his fingerprints on, and getting his team in place is absolutely essential. It’s part of governing this country, and we’re going to move forward.”

The War On Common Sense Has A Lot To Do With Money And Power

Posted on by

Not too long ago, no one would have questioned flying a criminal who was in America illegally out of America. No one would have cared that he was being deported or where he was going. Yet now some people in power want to keep criminal illegal aliens in America. These are people who entered the country illegally, breaking our laws, and then went on to commit horrendous crimes. Why should we want to keep them here? What is going on?

A partial answer to that question can be found in a statement made by Senator Chuck Schumer in an interview on the Public Broadcasting Network last week. The Senator said “…we did put 235 judges—progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time.” What about judges who uphold the rule of law? Did you put any of them on the bench>

One of the benchmarks of a healthy republic (we are not a democracy) is the peaceful transfer of power. It seems to me that the Democrat party is using these judges to prevent that transfer.

There is a financial aspect to this resistance. Many of these judges have family members that are working in NGO’s that receive money from USAID or other government programs. The salaries and other benefits paid to people in some of these organizations are astounding. There is also some question as to how a lot of the money given to NGO’s is spent.

From 2020-2024, the United Nations and NGO’s spent $6 Billion financing the mass migration of people entering America illegally. How much of this money went to drug cartels? The plan was for the United Nations and the NGO’s to spend $1.4 Billion on the migration trail in 2025 and $1.2 Billion more in 2026. Has there ever been an audit of this money?

The caravans who arrived in America under President Biden had new-looking sneakers, clothes that did not look worn out, many had cell phones, and everyone looked well-fed. Someone was financing this, and the cartels were receiving more income than they had seen for a long time. It is also likely that a large percentage of the money given to the NGO’s went to overhead—benefits and salaries to the people running the NGO’s. I am grateful that someone is trying to stop the funding for this.

The Flak Is Always Thickest Over The Target

Posted on by

The first two weeks of the Trump administration have been a whirlwind. That is probably because the President realizes that he needs to act quickly to prevent a major crash of the American economy. The best way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and that is happening at breakneck speed. Not everyone is happy.

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about the hill the Democrats are prepared to die on.

The article reports:

Of all the things Donald Trump is doing to upend the old order in Washington, it turns out that closing USAID, even temporarily, is the one thing that all Democrats can agree is egregious enough to go to war over.

Here are a few X screenshots from the article:

The article concludes:

Democrats are making it clear that they will fight like cornered rats to keep control of USAID and its massive funding stream.

We all know why, which is why Trump needs to win this battle one way or another.

This is a major step toward cutting government spending and lowering taxes for the American people.

This Was Definitely Part Of The Problem

Posted on by

We have had two serious plane crashes in the past several days. In recent years, we have seen very few plane crashes. What changed?

On Friday, PJ Media posted an article that cites something that might be part of the problem.

The article reports:

On Thursday, while addressing Thursday’s plane crash near Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump blasted both the Obama and Biden administrations for prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation.

“I put safety first. Obama, Biden, and the Democrats put policy first, and they put politics at a level that nobody’s ever seen,” Trump told reporters in the White House briefing room.

Democrats and the mainstream media were outraged.

“It’s one thing for internet pundits to spew up conspiracy theories,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “It’s another for the president of the United States of America to throw out idle speculation even as victims are still being recovered and families are still being notified. It turns your stomach.”

But Trump was not wrong.

…Last year, 11 Republican attorneys general voiced their concerns in a letter to FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker, questioning the agency’s commitment to safety in light of its emphasis on diversity over expertise. They expressed disappointment that the FAA appeared to prioritize “virtue-signaling” over securing the nation’s airways.

The article includes a quote from an editorial that appeared in The Washington Times on February 1, 2024:

There hasn’t been a fatal airline crash in the United States since 2009, but it’s only a matter of time before the streak ends. The FAA recorded two serious, near-miss runway incursions at Reagan National and Baltimore-Washington International last year [2023].

Vigilance is waning because the nation’s air traffic control towers are woefully understaffed. The people responsible for keeping planes from smashing into one another are tired after working long, mandatory overtime shifts to make up for the lack of controllers.

Contributing to the shortage, the FAA temporarily put the brakes on hiring in 2012 so it could replace race-blind hiring rules with a “Biographical Assessment” stratagem designed to hire more minorities.

This quiz served as further screening of applicants who had already graduated from a 200-hour training program and achieved high scores on AT-SAT, a grueling, eight-hour cognitive test that measures each of the specific skills needed to do the job properly.

[…]

More than 3,000 top-performing, motivated applicants lost out because they weren’t members of this ethnic club. After Congress forced the FAA to drop the quiz in 2018, many former applicants reapplied and have since become controllers. Their careers were set back several years for no good reason.

You can’t solve a problem if you are unwilling to identify it. Hopefully, the Trump administration can restaff our control towers quickly and make the skies safe again.

What A Difference A Few Days Make

Posted on by

On Friday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the pre-election plans of Senator Chuck Schumer. Senator Schumer was looking forward to a Democrat White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Thankfully, he was overly optimistic.

The article reports:

Schumer’s top priority in the new Harris administration would have been to eliminate the legislative filibuster that has long protected minority rights in the Senate. That way, even if the Senate were tied between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, those 50 Democrats, with the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Tim Walz, could enact far-reaching legislation without any input at all from Republicans. Washington would have true one-party rule, and the minority party would have no say in things whatsoever.

…Schumer believed 2024 would be the year Democrats could finally erase any Republican power in the Senate. Manchin and Sinema were both leaving the Senate, Schumer explained at his talk in Chicago. Manchin’s seat would be won by a Republican, so it still would be unavailable for Democrats. But Sinema’s seat would be won by Democrat Ruben Gallego, Schumer said, and Gallego would go along with the party on the filibuster. That would give Democrats the 50 votes they needed, provided there was a Vice President Walz to break the tie.

Well, things didn’t go exactly as planned.

This is what hjappened last week:

So this week, Schumer went to the well of the Senate and addressed some remarks to his Republican colleagues. “Another closely contested election now comes to an end,” he said. “To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith: Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power. So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation.”

The short version of that is: Please don’t do to us what we were going to do to you. Schumer is obviously concerned that Republicans might embrace a scheme to eliminate the filibuster and pass all sorts of consequential legislation with no Democratic input at all. That wouldn’t be bipartisan! Fortunately for Schumer, Republicans have been more principled than Democrats when it comes to the legislative filibuster, and to the filibuster in general. Republicans realize that even though they will have the majority for the next two years, they might be back in the minority at any time after that. So Schumer will not get it good and hard the way he planned to give it to Republicans.

It is amazing how quickly Senator Schumer changed his tune. However, if the Republicans are smart, they will quickly confirm ALL of President Trump’s nominees for Cabinet positions and department heads.

Speaking Out Of Turn

Posted on by

On Thursday, Red State posted an article about some recent comments by New York Senator Chuck Schumer.

The article reports:

As RedState reported on Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer decided to engage in a bit of foreign election interference by going to the Senate floor and proclaiming that Israel must hold new elections. 

That comes as the American ally gears up to finish Hamas off in Gaza once and for all. In the face of that, Democrats have faced significant pushback from their radical, pro-terrorist base. 

As Jennifer Van Laar shared in her initial report, Schumer’s behavior is insanely inappropriate and telling. 

Schumer’s speech is stunning for a few reasons. First, we usually keep our attempts at regime change a little less public. Second, it reveals Schumer’s evil focus on keeping Netanyahu from quickly and decisively winning this war and obliterating the rapists and child murderers of Hamas. Third, it shows that despite all evidence that a two-state solution will never work, Schumer is still invested in using the United States government to make that happen…

…As I was listening to Schumer’s public statements, knowing that so much more about our government’s interference in foreign elections goes unsaid, the thought hit me once again: If he’s this blatant about his desire to ensure regime change in a sovereign nation, what won’t he and his allies do in this country to ensure that the person they want elected president wins?

The article concludes:

So if Israelis are largely united, with the vast majority opposing a “two-state solution,” what’s this really about? As mentioned above, this is about American domestic politics. Schumer is such a coward that he’s willing to bend the knee to literal terrorist supporters in his party for what he sees as short-term political gain. It’s not going to work, though. Israel isn’t going to heed his call, and the pro-Hamas wing of the Democratic Party will continue to lose its mind. 

It is unfortunate that we have members of a major political party that support a terrorist organization that has engaged in the activities that Hamas engaged in on October 7th and still holds hostages.

Only Some People Get Arrested For Doing Illegal Things

Posted on by

In July 22, there were weekly protests in front of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh’s house, despite the fact that under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending. The protests continued.

One of the protesters was arrested at one point for being armed and threatening to kill the Judge. He was arrested, but the protests were allowed to continue despite the law.

On Saturday, The U.K. Daily Mail reported:

Up to 100 protesters have been arrested at a Pro-Palestine demonstration outside the Brooklyn home of Jewish Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer.  

The protesters called for an end to US aid for Israel on a day of mass protest in New York and around the world after the leader of Hamas called for a global ‘day of outrage.’ 

Hundreds of people, organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, gathered at the Grand Army Plaza before marching a short distance to the senator’s Park Slope residence and blocking the street.

Protesters were arrested in the street, after blocking the flow of traffic, and placed on two MTA buses. 

The demonstration comes as Schumer prepares to depart for Israel this weekend, where he will lead a delegation of senators to show support for the country’s government, a spokesperson announced on Friday. 

It isn’t illegal to protest in front of a Senator’s house, yet these protestors were arrested. Our justice system has become totally politicized. Currently you are only protected if you believe the right things.

 

Sinking To The Lowest Common Denominator

Posted on by

Back in the age of dinosaurs, I graduated from a secretarial school that had a strict dress code–dresses or skirts, high heels, hats, gloves, etc. It seems trivial, but because of the professional image of that school, its graduates generally found good jobs and advanced in the corporate world. It used to be understood that people in important jobs dressed appropriately. We have all heard the expression, “Dress for the job you want, not the job you have.” Well, the United States Senate seems to have adopted the motto, “Dress for where you would really rather be.” It appears that the future C-SPAN pictures will include Senators dressed as if they recently visited the clearance section of Wal-Mart.

On Sunday, Fox News reported:

The U.S. Senate will no longer enforce a dress code for members of the upper house elected by those they serve.

“However, others entering the chamber must comply with the dress code. Coats/ties for men. Business attire for women,” tweeted Chad Pergram, Fox News senior congressional correspondent.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., quietly sent the directive to the Senate’s sergeant at arms, news website Axios reported.

So the new dress code only applies to Senators–not staff or visitors.

The article notes:

The change allows Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., to continue to wear his trademark hooded sweatshirts and gym shorts while working for Americans.

Fetterman was previously praised for “turning heads” and “redefining fashion in the stuffy Senate” during his recovery after a six-week stay at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he was treated for “clinical depression” and “fitted for hearing aids for hearing loss that had made it harder for him to communicate,” according to an AP story from May.

The senator even found a workaround to the legislative body’s dress code rules by voting from the doorway of the Democrat cloakroom or the side entrance, making sure his vote is recorded before ducking out, per the AP report.

Don’t run for Senator unless you are willing to uphold the dignity of the office. I realize that dignity is often in question, but I believe appearances matter.

Things You Might Have Missed In The News Last Week

Posted on by

On Saturday, PJ Media posted the following headline:

Clown Alert! Four Things the Leftists Hope You Missed This Week

This is the first thing:

1. Jason Aldean’s “Racist” Courthouse

The ridiculous charge that the use of the courthouse in Jason Aldean’s music video promoted lynching was quickly debunked by the fact that Miley Cyrus, as Hannah Montana, shot a scene in front of the same building in her 2009 film, “The Movie.” So either Miley was promoting lynching or Jason was not. You can’t have it both ways.

This is the second thing:

2. Old Enough to Know Better?

Congress actually had a discussion where it was stated that because the brain in not fully developed until age 25, children shouldn’t be held responsible for their crimes but should be able to decide to change their sex at any age.

Next:

3. Rapper Lizard-Boi in da HOUSE!

In one of the saddest attempts to remain relevant since former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northum tried to moonwalk his way out of a blackface allegation, Sen. Chuck Schumer (Derp-N.Y.) sharpened his butt-kissing skills last week by hitching his wagon to the 50th anniversary of hip hop.

And finally:

4. Disorder in the Court

…U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika was not pleased after a lawyer who works for the same law firm that represents Hunter Biden called the court clerk in Delaware and, pretending to work for the prosecutor, asked for some evidence to be kept confidential. Attorney Jessica Bengals allegedly misrepresented who she works for when contacting the court — and it could cost her.

“Hi Ted, Following up on our recent telephone conversation, the woman who called was a Jessica Bengels,” court official Samantha Grimes confirmed in an email to Theodore Kittila of the prosecutor’s office. “She said she worked with Theodore Kittila and it was important the document was removed immediately or they could file a motion to seal. I do deeply apologize for all the confusion on our part.”

Don’t be surprised if your liberal friends are totally unaware of any or all of these stories.

Why The Release Of The January 6th Tapes Matters

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Red State posted an article illustrating why the release of the January 6th surveillance tapes is so important. The Democrats and the mainstream media have created a narrative about the events of that day that is fictional. The tapes illustrate that fact. That is why the Washington elites are making so much noise about the release of these tapes. Much of what the media has reported about January 6th for the past two years is fiction. Now the American people have a chance to see for themselves what actually happened. It should be noted that the January 6th Committee hired a television producer to help them with their propaganda efforts (article here). There was never any intention of the committee to get to the truth–the intention was for the Democrats to win the mid-term elections and destroy President Trump.

The article notes:

Nothing says “saving democracy” by trying to stop the speech of your political opponents.

Schumer out and out lied on the Senate floor — claiming that Carlson said Jan. 6 was not violent. Carlson said no such thing. He said that while there was violence, there were other protesters inside the Capitol who were not violent. Schumer is the one lying because he doesn’t want that basic truth to be told.

This isn’t the first time that Schumer has gone after Fox and tried to suppress speech. I wrote just last week about how Chuck Schumer had threatened Fox, saying he not only had a “right to tell Rupert Murdoch and Fox what to do but an obligation.” He said “democracy was at greater risk than it’s ever been,” that Fox must admit they told “lies” or he will take other “steps.”

I don’t disagree with him that “democracy” and our freedoms are at risk — from Schumer threatening them himself.

They are truly panicking that the narrative is becoming unhinged when it comes to Jan. 6, that people are seeing that there are other takes, apart from the cherry-picked narrative of the Jan. 6 Committee and the Democrats which was all about using the riot to attack former President Donald Trump and affect the midterms. Among the people the show reached was Twitter head Elon Musk, he saw the points being made.

But while Schumer and Kinzinger were certainly deplorable with their remarks on the day, it may be Attorney General Merrick Garland who had the worst lie. He was asked by a reporter during a press briefing what he thought about Carlson’s coverage. Listen, as even now, Garland lies. He talks about officers assaulted on “that day” and then says, “Five officers died.” (click link to article to see video)

The article concludes:

But this is just an example of why Tucker Carlson’s Jan. 6 coverage was so important. Dems and media have been lying about this specific point since the beginning, as Carlson noted, to make the riot worse, to add “deadly” to it. That’s why this lie is so disgusting, yet even now, it’s continuing, proving Tucker’s point. The Democrats don’t care about honesty or the facts, just that narrative.

Just a note–we are not a democracy–we are a representative republic.

 

Lessons Learned In Life That Apply In Politics

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article describing what you can learn about an employee by the way he spends his last few days before leaving your employ.

The article notes:

If you work in the business world long enough, you will notice that an employee reveals the most about his own personal work ethic, not when he starts out, not when he’s angling for a bonus or promotion, but at the end, when he gets a new job and gives his two weeks’ notice, or when he starts training his successor as he reaches retirement.

How hard does he work those final weeks? Does he still put the company first, or does he just phone it in? Or does he stuff his briefcase with office supplies, raid the petty cash drawer, and pilfer the prototype cabinet every evening before he goes home?

If he really gives it all he’s got, right up to the last day, then there’s a role model to remember with love.

The same goes for political leadership when it has had its walking papers served on Election Day, or even when that eventuality becomes evident, months in advance.

The polls now are in agreement: barring some earth-shaking shock this autumn, the Democrat party will be out of leadership in the United States House of Representatives and in some state legislatures as well, following the November elections.

Despite what I just quoted, my advice to Republicans is not to count their chickens just yet. There are three plus months for Democrats to pull every dirty trick they can to make sure they hang on to power. Expect anything.

However, the article makes some very good points about the actions of the past Democrat political leadership versus some recent Republican leadership:

As author Barbara Olson revealed in her shocking book, “The Final Days,” much of the Clinton team was so certain they would be carried forward in a Gore administration, many engaged in petty (and some not so petty) acts of sabotage across the executive branch, especially at the White House, between Election Day 2000 and Inauguration Day 2001. That crew spent their final months doing damage.

By contrast, think back on the end of Donald Trump’s first term, as the clock ticked off the final months in 2020-2021.

President Trump’s medical response team had been working on fast-tracking the development and approval of vaccines and treatment arrays for Covid-19 throughout 2020; they didn’t let up, they accelerated their work, right up to the final day, turning over a complete, impressive vaccine and treatment program to the incoming Biden regime.

The article concludes with the actions of the current Congressional leadership:

The Pelosi/Schumer team sees the end of their own gravy train approaching, and they’re gathering every last handful of perks, doling out every last favor to their friends, distributing the largesse that you and I fund to the non-profits and NGOs from whom they will likely seek lucrative jobs the very morning after the voters toss them out on their ungrateful ears in November.

And worst of all, even though this future is all but written in stone, we have to watch it unfold, predictably but unalterably, for another six long, painful months.

There are good reasons why, in the private sector, once you realize you have employees like this in your organization, you have them pack up their desks, and you direct Security to march them out immediately, without postponing the inevitable another day.

Hang on to your hats–unfortunately it’s not over yet.

The Plot That Was Ignored

Posted on by

On Monday, The Independent Journal Review posted an article about the media silence about the attempted murder of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The article reports:

It has not even been a week since an armed man was arrested after allegedly aborting an attempt to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and yet the story appears to have largely disappeared from the headlines.

Kevin Tober of the conservative Media Research Center’s NewsBusters tracked the amount of time major news outlets’ Sunday shows spent on the incident.

According to Tober, ABC News spent zero minutes on the Kavanaugh story and 19 minutes and eleven seconds on the Jan. 6 committee hearings.

It may well be that the mainstream media is reluctant to report on the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh because too many Americans will remember the following statement by Senator Schumer (source of quote here):

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Schumer shouted. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!”

There was a time when that statement would have at least resulted in censure by the Senate, but in the current political paradigm, the statement was barely noted. Senator Schumer did not cause the planned attack on Justice Kavanaugh, but he certainly set the political climate for the attack.

This Sounds Good, But It Is A Mistake

Posted on by

If a camel’s nose gets under the tent, the rest of the camel will soon follow. That is actually a good warning. It’s a shame our Republican legislators in Washington have either not heard it or choose to ignore it. They are also choosing to ignore the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

On Sunday, NewsMax reported the following:

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators, including enough Republicans to overcome the chamber’s “filibuster” rule, on Sunday announced an agreement on a framework for potential gun safety legislation.

The bill included support for state “red flag” laws, tougher background checks for firearms buyers under 21 and a crackdown on a practice called “straw purchases” but not other limits Democrats and President Joe Biden had advocated such as raising the age for buying semiautomatic rifles to 21 or new limits on assault-style rifles.

Ten Republicans signaled their support for the preliminary deal, indicating the measure potentially could advance to a vote on passage and overcome roadblocks by other Republicans who oppose most gun control measures.

The talks that led to the framework followed a series of high-profile mass shootings in the United States, including one at a school in Uvalde, Texas, last month that killed 19 young children and one also in May in a Buffalo, New York, supermarket that killed 10 Black victims.

What the Senators do not seem to realize is that people who are intent on breaking the law (murder is, after all, against the law), do not follow gun laws. All that will happen as a result of this bill (assuming it will be passed) is that it will be more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get guns. That is the scenario the Second Amendment was passed to prevent. Red flag laws are unconstitutional because they do not allow for due process. They are also very easily abused. This is a bad bill.

The article continues:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, issued a statement calling the plan “a good first step” and one that would “limit the ability of potential mass shooters to quickly obtain assault rifles by establishing an enhanced background check process for gun purchasers under age 21.”

Schumer said that he wanted to move a bill quickly to a Senate vote once legislative details are worked out.

The United States has the highest rate of firearms deaths among the world’s wealthy nations. But it is a country where many cherish gun rights and its Constitution’s Second Amendment protects the right to “keep and bear arms.”

According to a Politifact post of March 20, 2018:

The main study of intentional homicides is performed by the United Nations’ Office of Drug Control. The UN warns against cross-national comparisons because of the differences in legal definitions of intentional homicides and recording practices.

Our count of the UN’s data placed the United States ninth in intentional homicides. We used the most up-to-date count for each country and territory, which included data anywhere from 2007 to 2015.

As the country with the third-highest population size, however, experts told us the number of people killed is not a very useful metric.

Controlling for population size, most criminologists use the per 100,000 metric. By that standard, we found the United States ranked 94th.

When we counted only the countries for which the UN had 2015 data, the United States ranked 73rd. That’s still far from the top ten.

Lied to again.

 

Not Everyone Wants Roe v. Wade To Stay In Place

Posted on by

One of the things that seems to be getting lost in the debate over Roe v. Wade is what the consequences of overturning the law would be. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal in America. Overturning Roe v. Wade will allow every state to set its own abortion guidelines. It may be that abortion may be illegal in some states, but American women will still have access to abortion. It may not be as convenient, and possibly that will cause women to rethink their options. Also, overturning Roe v. Wade will have a negative impact on the campaign coffers of most Democrats. That may be the reason this fight has gotten so nasty. Some of the Democrats in Congress want abortion up until birth to be legal in every state. Attempting to get a law passed to codify that did not go well.

On Wednesday, Townhall reported the following:

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has repeatedly shown his ineptitude when it comes to leading Democrats in the upper chamber, and he did so again in spectacular fashion on Wednesday afternoon. In what he seems to think was a grand gesture to prove his party’s commitment to a woman’s (birthing person’s?) right to kill her unborn child only put Democrats on the record supporting a bill that’s more radical than Roe ever was.

After the unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion signaling that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, Schumer jumped into action and called for the passage of a bill to supposedly “codify” Roe in federal law. But he once again failed to do the math among his own caucus or the Senate as a whole before holding what became nothing but a failed show vote to prove Democrats support radical abortion rights that go beyond what even most pro-abortion Americans support.

The vote to break a Republican filibuster and move to the final vote on the “Women’s Health Protection Act” came down 51-49, with every Democrat but one voting to move ahead — Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia joined all the Republicans to block the legislation from moving forward.

The article details the Senate bill:

In summary, the Democratic bill would make elective abortions legal across the entire country for all nine months of pregnancy (with “mental health” loopholes eliminating any real limitations), eliminating virtually all existing state-level restrictions (including lopsidedly popular ones), gutting conscience protections for healthcare workers who don’t want to participate in abortions, allowing non-doctors to facilitate the abortions, and likely forcing taxpayers to finance all of it.  Short of endorsing post-birth infanticide or instituting CCP-style compulsory abortions, it’s hard to imagine a more extreme piece of legislation on this issue.  Dressing this up as “codifying Roe” is astoundingly dishonest, yet it’s mindlessly — or perhaps not so mindlessly — repeated by journalists, ad nauseam.

I suspect Senator Schumer knew that the bill would fail. What the bill probably did was energize that small fringe of the Democrat party that supports unlimited abortion. I will admit that I have a hard time understanding why some people are fighting so hard for the right to kill a baby.

I Really Love This Idea

Posted on by

On Thursday, The New York Sun posted an editorial by Larry Kudlow about the Federal Reserve.

The editorial states:

Can we please get a Federal Reserve with a backbone? Here are a couple thoughts on today’s wussy Fed announcement that it is going to move faster on tapering bond purchases and there might be three little bitty rate hikes next year. And, oh yeah, Jay Powell told the press conference he was confident inflation would drop to two percent by the end of next year.

Wanna bet? On that bet, I’m taking the under. Know who the best inflation forecaster in the country is? Senator Manchin. Numero uno. I don’t even know if he talks to economists, but since last winter when the $2 trillion Democrat so-called relief package was implemented, Joe Manchin has been warning about inflation.

That’s why he has argued consistently all year that President Biden’s big government socialist bill should be paused until inflation is clearly falling. Which it is not. CPI up 7 percent, PPI up 10 percent, and today we got another whopper, with an 11.7 percent rise in import prices. How about that?

Joe Manchin, by the way, in his original memo to Senator Schumer, called last summer for the end of quantitative easing.

Mr. Manchin makes me feel proud to be a former Democrat, as were both of my presidential bosses — Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.

The editorial continues:

Finally, I have another idea for a new Fed chairman if Joe Manchin won’t take the job. How about Elon Musk? Time Magazine’s man of the year. How can I say such an outrageous thing? Several reasons. I worked with him several times in the White house and he’s very smart and savvy.

The mere fact that socialist Senator Warren is attacking him for not paying his “fair share” of taxes is by itself a fabulous endorsement of Mr. Musk’s philosophy, business prowess.

Am I saying anybody Mrs. Warren opposes gets my stamp of approval? Yes. I’m tired of her left-wing progressive woke whining. And her desires to tax and regulate anything that moves in business and the economy.

Meanwhile, Mr. Musk, who’s the biggest E-V car seller in the country, has said publicly he does not want E-V auto or battery subsidies from the federal government. Indeed, he has come out against the entire reckless tax, spend, and regulate Biden policies.

Unlike GM and the unionist car-makers, Mr. Musk is non-union and will not put his nose into the public trough.

My kind of guy. I doubt if he ever talks to economists. That’s probably why he’s such a good conservative, libertarian thinker.

And incidentally, Mr. Musk has been selling about $3 billion worth of stock at the prevailing capitalist gains tax rate of 23.8%. The Musk stock sale would generate $714 million of revenues to the federal government.

Mr. Kudlow also notes that the Federal Reserve is continuing Quantitative Easing, the practice of buying up the debt and pumping up the money supply, at a time when inflation is rapidly increasing. We need someone at the Federal Reserve that will put the brakes on that practice so that we can being to rein in inflation.

Hopefully This Won’t Work

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about President Biden’s plans to get his legislative agenda passed.

The article reports:

Joe Biden is telling Democratic leaders in the House and Senate that he will lean on moderate Democrats in order to force passage of change to the Senate’s filibuster. He will also lobby hard to pass the voting rights bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says he wants to vote on this week.

Biden and the Democrats want a “carve-out” for the electoral power grab known as the “For the People Act.” It would allegedly be a one-time exception to the filibuster and allow for a straight up-or-down vote on the bill, which Democrats mischaracterize as a “voting rights” bill.

Both Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have publicly come out against altering the filibuster and both have expressed doubts about the voter bill without substantial changes. But Biden apparently believes his powers of persuasion will work on them and other centrist Democrats.

Manchin will be a tough nut for Biden to crack. The West Virginia senator has been adamant about opposing any “tweaks” to the filibuster.

Make no mistake–this is a serious threat to our Republic. The U.S. Constitution specifically states that election policies are left to the states–they are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Unfortunately at this time, we have no guarantee that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution.

Rolling Stone recently reported:

Winning over the two Democrats who’ve declared their opposition to filibuster reform, Sens. Manchin and Sinema, won’t be easy. In April, Manchin wrote in an op-ed that he would not support tweaking or abolishing the filibuster, which he described as a “critical tool” to protect the interests of small and rural states like his. Sinema, for her part, likes to point out how often Democrats used the filibuster when they were in the minority during Donald Trump’s presidency. The filibuster, she wrote in June, “compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.”

Yet Sinema has broadly endorsed the need for voting-rights reforms, and Manchin says “inaction is not an option.” Congressional aides and anti-corruption activists who support the For the People Act say Schumer’s strategy has been to give Republicans every opportunity to work with Democrats on a compromise bill, and to allow Manchin the space to lead those negotiations, if only to show that Republicans won’t support any version of pro-democracy reform that Democrats come up with. “We continue to see that the Republicans are not willing to negotiate in good faith on these fundamental issues to protect our democracy,” says Tiffany Muller of End Citizens United.

First of all, we are not a democracy–we are a constitutional republic. If you really want to get to the root of our current political problems, you might want to take a look at the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This opened the door for the corruption we currently see–the illegal campaign money, the earmarks, the runaway spending, the power grabs, etc. The election reforms the Democrats want will make it even easier to cheat.

 

Why Were They Trying To Pass This In The Dead Of Night?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about a vote in the Senate Wednesday night.

The article reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) blocked an attempt by Senate Democrats to push through a federal election overhaul bill early Wednesday morning.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) brought the For The People Act, a bill critics say amounts to a federal takeover of elections, to the floor around 3:30 a.m. after the Senate had concluded 15 hours of amendment votes on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution. In the dead of night, Schumer sought to pass the federal overhaul of elections by unanimous consent, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only one objection by a senator was required to stop the process. In a roughly 15-minute back-and-forth, Cruz tanked Schumer’s attempt to force the election bill through the Senate. Cruz blasted the bill in remarks on the Senate floor:

This bill would constitute a federal government takeover of elections. It would constitute a massive power grab by Democrats. It would disenfranchise millions of Americans and it would do precisely the opposite of its nominal title, ‘For The People.’ It is, instead, for the politicians because it entrenches politicians and ensures that the people cannot vote them out of office. It would strike down virtually every reasonable voter integrity law in the country, including voter I.D. laws supported by the overwhelming majority of this country, including prohibitions on ballot harvesting, again widely supported by people in this country. It would mandate that felons be allowed to vote, and it would automatically register millions of illegal aliens to vote. It would profoundly undermine democracy in this country, and for that reason I object.

The article notes:

Schumer’s failure to force the For The People Act through the Senate so far amounts to a failure for Texas Democrats who spent weeks pushing for the legislation, as well. On returning to Texas this week, state Rep. James Talarico touted his work in D.C. and said he is “confident” that the Texas Democrats’ lobbying would force Congress to pass the federal election bill.

“I’m home! Our quorum break shined a national spotlight on the TX voter suppression bill and pushed Congress closer to passing a federal voting rights act to override it. I’m confident they will,” Talarico said on Twitter.

Just for the record, our Founding Fathers purposely put election law in the hands of the individual states. The federalization of our elections is unconstitutional. Unfortunately the Democrats seem to have no problem shredding the Constitution. When President Biden extended the eviction moratorium, he admitted that it was probably unconstitutional for him to do that, but he figured it would take a while for the courts to sort that out. If the Democrats can pass the For The People Act, the damage may be done before anyone rules that it is unconstitutional. There is a reason it was brought up at 3:30 in the morning–the Democrats thought they could sneak it through before anyone noticed.

It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. What happened Wednesday night is an example of that. Thank God for Ted Cruz.