Tag Archives: Senator Chuck Schumer

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.

 

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.