#charles schumer

Byron Donalds says Schumer didn’t just lie about the SAVE Act—he exposed just how desperate Democrats are to keep illegals voting.

Chuck Schumer is calling the SAVE Act “voter suppression.”

But Rep. Byron Donalds says that’s a flat-out lie—and he’s calling him out, hard.

“My response is Chuck Schumer is lying again when it comes to actual voting policy to protect the franchise for the American people.”

Donalds pointed to a basic fact: Every state already uses Real ID—which helps women who change their names. So Schumer’s talking point? Pure fiction.

“So Chuck Schumer is lying and he’s gaslighting.”

And this isn’t the first time they’ve done it.

Back in 2022, Donalds reminded us how Schumer, Biden, Harris, and Pelosi tried to smear Georgia’s new election laws as “Jim Crow 2.0.”

But the truth?

“More Black people in Georgia voted in the midterm elections than in the history of the state of Georgia.”

They lied then. They’re lying now.

“Once again the Democrats are gaslighting, they are lying. They should be joining us to protect the franchise of voting in the United States of America.”

Donalds said the real threat isn’t voter suppression—it’s illegal voting.

And with 30 million illegals that crossed into the U.S., he says it’s not a conspiracy. It’s happening.

“We’ve already seen through the work of DOGE that they have had access to registering to all kinds of programs.”

The fix?

“All we’re saying is proof of citizenship to make sure you’re voting in American elections. This is common sense stuff.”

Donalds dunked on the Dems in his final line:

Jesse Duquette, The Daily Don

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 14, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 15, 2025

Today the Senate passed a stopgap measure from the House of Representatives to fund the government for six months through September 30. The measure is necessary because the Republican-dominated House has been unable to pass the appropriations bills necessary to fund the government in 2025. Congress has kept the government open by agreeing to pass a series of continuing resolutions, or CRs, that fund the government at the levels of the previous budget. The most recent continuing resolution to keep the government funded expires at midnight tonight. The Republicans in the House passed a new measure to replace it on Tuesday and then left town, forcing the Senate either to pass it or to kill it and leave the government unfunded.

The new measure is not a so-called clean CR that simply extends previous funding. Instead, the Republican majority passed it without input from Democrats and with a number of poison pills added. The measure increases defense spending by about $6 billion from the previous year, cuts about $13 billion from nondefense spending, and cuts $20 billion in funding for the Internal Revenue Service. It forces Washington, D.C., to cut $1 billion from its budget, protects President Donald Trump’s ability to raise or lower tariffs as he wishes, and gives him considerable leeway in deciding where money goes.

House Democrats stood virtually united against the measure—only Jared Golden of Maine voted yes—and initially, Republican defectors on the far right who oppose levels of funding that add to the deficit appeared likely to kill it. But Trump signed on to the bill and urged Republicans to support it. In the end, on the Republican side, only Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) voted against it.

Like the House, the Senate is dominated by Republicans, who hold 53 seats, but the institution of the filibuster, which requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate to end it, gave Democrats room to stop the measure from coming to a vote. Whether they should do so or not became a heated fight over the past three days. To vote on the measure itself, Republicans needed 60 votes to end the potential for a filibuster. To get to 60 votes, Republicans would need some Democrats to agree to move on to a vote that would require a simple majority.

The struggle within the Democratic Party over how to proceed says a lot about the larger political struggle in the United States.

House Democrats took a strong stand against enabling the Trump Republicans, calling for Democratic senators to maintain the filibuster and try to force the Republicans to negotiate for a one-month continuing resolution that would give Congress time to negotiate a bipartisan bill to fund the government.

But Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he would support advancing the spending bill. He argued that permitting the Republicans to shut down the government would not only hurt people. It would also give Trump and his sidekick billionaire Elon Musk full control over government spending, he said, because under a shutdown, the administration gets to determine which functions of the government are essential and which are not.

In an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday, Schumer noted that Musk has said he was looking forward to a government shutdown. Jake Lahut, Leah Feiger, and Vittoria Elliott reported in Wired on Tuesday that Musk wanted a government shutdown because it would make it easier to get rid of hundreds of thousands of government workers. During a shutdown, the executive branch determines which workers are essential and which are not, and as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo highlights, Trump has issued an executive order calling for the government to stabilize at the skeleton crew that a government shutdown would call essential. Yesterday was the government-imposed deadline for agencies to submit plans to slash their budgets with a second wave of mass layoffs, so at least part of a plan is already in place.

Schumer said that Trump and the Republicans were forcing Democrats into a choice between a bad bill and a shutdown that would hand even more power to Trump. “[T]he Republican bill is a terrible option,” he wrote. “It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address this country’s needs. But…Trump and Elon Musk want a shutdown. We should not give them one. The risk of allowing the president to take even more power via a government shutdown is a much worse path.”

There appeared to be evidence this morning that Trump and Musk wanted a shutdown when before the vote had taken place, Trump publicly congratulated Schumer for voting to fund the government, seemingly goading him into voting against it. “[R]eally good and smart move by Senator Schumer,” he posted.

But as Schumer and a few of his colleagues contemplated allowing the Republicans to pass their funding measure, a number of Democrats called on them to resist the Trump administration and its congressional enablers. House Democrats urged their Senate colleagues to take a stand against the destruction Trump and Musk are wreaking and to maintain a filibuster. At the forefront, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mobilized her large following to stop Schumer and those like him from deciding to “completely roll over and give up on protecting the Constitution.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the former speaker of the House, backed Ocasio-Cortez, issuing a statement calling the choice between a shutdown and the proposed bill a “false choice.” She called instead for fighting the Republican bill and praised the House Democrats who had voted against the measure. “Democratic senators should listen to the women,” she wrote, who have called for a short-term extension and a negotiated bipartisan agreement. “America has experienced a Trump shutdown before—but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse. Democrats must not buy into this false choice. We must fight back for a better way. Listen to the women, For The People.”

In the end, Schumer voted to move the measure forward. Joining him were Democratic senators John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Gary Peters of Michigan, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Independent Angus King of Maine. One Republican—Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky—voted against moving the measure forward.

Once freed from the filibuster, Senate Republicans passed the bill by a vote of 54 to 46, with New Hampshire’s Shaheen and Maine’s King joining the Republican majority and Republican Rand Paul voting against.

And so, the government will not shut down tonight. But today’s struggle within the Democratic Party shows a split between those who lead an opposition party devoted to keeping the government functioning, and a number of Democrats who are stepping into the position of leading the resistance to MAGA as it tries to destroy the American government. Praise for those resisters shows the popular demand for leaders who will stand up to Trump and Musk.

In a similar moment in 1856, newly elected representative from Massachusetts Anson Burlingame catapulted to popularity by standing up to the elite southern enslavers who had dominated the government for years. Blustering, threatening, and manipulating the mechanics of the government, southern lawmakers had come to expect their northern political opponents, who valued civil discourse and compromise, to cave. Southern leaders threw their weight around to gather more and more power over the country into their hands. Finally, in 1854, they overreached, forcing through Congress the Kansas-Nebraska Act that permitted them to spread human enslavement into the American West. In the following elections, northerners sent to Congress a very different breed of representatives.

On May 22, 1856, pro-slavery representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina came up behind Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner and beat him nearly to death on the floor of the Senate after Sumner had given an antislavery speech Brooks found objectionable. But rather than pleading for calm and compromise in the wake of the attack, Burlingame had had enough. On June 21 he rose and gave a speech about his colleague and his state, calling it “Defence of Massachusetts.”

Burlingame stood up for his state, refuting the insults southerners had thrown at Massachusetts in recent speeches and insulting southerners in return. And Burlingame did something far more important. He called out the behavior of the southern leaders as they worked to attack the principles that supported “the very existence of the Government itself.”

“[T]he sons of Massachusetts are educated at the knees of their mothers, in the doctrines of peace and good will, and God knows, they desire to cultivate those feelings—feelings of social kindness, and public kindness,” Burlingame said. But he warned his southern colleagues that northerners were excellent soldiers and that “if we are pushed too long and too far,” northerners would fight to defend their lives, their principles, and their country.

Burlingame provoked Brooks, and he, temperamentally unable to resist any slight, challenged Burlingame to a duel. Brooks assumed all Yankees were cowards and figured that Burlingame would decline in embarrassment. But Burlingame accepted with enthusiasm, choosing rifles as the dueling weapons. Burlingame was an expert marksman.

Burlingame also chose to duel in Canada, giving Brooks the opportunity to back out on the grounds that he felt unsafe traveling through the North after his beating of Sumner made him a hated man. The negotiations for the duel went on for months, and the duel never took place. Burlingame had turned Brooks, known as “Bully” Brooks, into a figure of ridicule, revealing that when he faced an equal opponent, his bravado was bluster.

Forgotten now, Burlingame’s speech was once widely considered one of the most important speeches in American history. It marked the moment when northerners shocked southerners by standing up to them and vowing that the North would fight for democracy. Northerners rallied to Burlingame’s call and, in so doing, reshaped politics.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

by Daniel Greenfield

This spring, Schumer agreed to become the public face of the Biden administration’s campaign to bring down the Israeli government, save Hamas and end the war. In a high-profile Senate speech, the lifelong politician who had spent his career pretending to be pro-Israel, equated the Israeli government with Hamas, forbade Israel to go into Rafah to pursue the terror group, claimed that “the Israeli war campaign has killed so many innocent Palestinians” and warned that the Biden administration would use its “leverage” to create a terrorist state inside Israel.

While many pro-Israel figures excoriated Schumer, he trotted out his ‘rabbi’, Rachel Timoner, a radical leftist anti-Israel activist who had taken part in anti-Israel rallies, to defend his betrayal.

According to Timoner, Schumer said “what most of us think” and “what the overwhelming majority of American Jews are saying to each other”. However what Timoner was saying, according to T’ruah, one of the anti-Israel groups she was allied with, could be summed up as, “American Jews must tell our govt we oppose this war and want an end to the occupation.”

Was Schumer saying what most American Jews were really thinking?

Schumer’s latest Siena poll numbers in New York are in. And while his total unfavorable rating in the state is only up a few percent, his numbers among Jewish New Yorkers are catastrophic. With a 48% approval rating among New York Jews, his is only 3% higher than Trump’s at 45%. And his disapproval rating is higher than that of any other statewide figure in the poll. He now has a higher disapproval rating among Jews than among blacks, Latinos or protestants.

Those are stunning numbers and they show a sharp reversal of political fortune. They also help explain why the same poll shows that 46% of New York Jews would now vote for Trump.

A Siena poll that covered the pro-Hamas campus riots found that 87% of New York Jews believed that they had crossed the line into antisemitism and 80% supported calling in the cops.

This is completely at odds with the messaging that has come from Timoner and the infrastructure of allied anti-Israel astroturf groups like J Street, T’ruah, Bend the Arc, New York Jewish Agenda, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice which receive nonstop coverage from a media that pretends these extremists represent Jews.

by Dennis Prager

Schumer knows Hamas "seeks to eradicate the Jewish people." Few non-Jews have a clue how much the Holocaust has affected Jews -- including those born after the Holocaust and those Jews who lost no relatives in the greatest genocide in modern history. Most Jews suffer from a form of collective PTSD. 

It could not be otherwise. The most culturally advanced country in the world, the most militarily powerful country in Europe, sought to murder every Jew in Europe -- including babies and the elderly. And it nearly succeeded: Two of every three European Jews were murdered. Equally significantly, "the nations" watched. So, just for the record, the Jews in Europe during World War II were also a pariah among the nations. With a few noble exceptions, the world was divided between nations that helped exterminate the Jews and nations that refused to do anything for them -- neither allowing into their countries the few who managed to escape the Nazis nor bombing any of the death camps or even just the railway tracks leading into those camps.

For 3,000 years, the fate of the Jews has nearly always been to be a pariah among the nations. This was foretold in the Hebrew Bible itself, which cites Balaam, a pagan "prophet," as saying that Israel is "a nation that shall dwell alone, not be reckoned among the nations" (Numbers 23:9). When Jews are defenseless, they are a pariah. And when Jews defend themselves, they are, according to Mr. Schumer and the elites of the world, also a pariah.