Video: John McCain sidles up to Chuck Schumer on Gun Control

There is so much wrong with John McCain and much of it is on full display in this clip of his appearance on CBS's Face the Nation with Chuck Schumer. For starters, McCain obviously didn't learn anything from the backlash he received after calling Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, et. al. 'wacko birds' for Paul's filibuster.

Now, with several Republican Senators pledging to filibuster any gun control bill, McCain is apoplectic and does not 'understand' why they would filibuster. It also says something about McCain that he is more comfortable around someone like Schumer than he is around someone like Cruz.

At another point during this clip, McCain says something about everyone wanting to achieve the same objective. That is a completely incorrect statement. The Democrats want gun confiscation and conservatives want their second amendment rights protected.

McCain is clueless and should just become a Democrat. Period.

Also noteworthy - and instructive as to why McCain is such a sycophant with socialists - comes at the end of this clip. Host Bob Schieffer heaps praise on both Schumer and McCain for their civil discourse, which only serves to reinforce McCain's paradigm that he's "above the fray" and better than those 'wacko birds'.



As for McCain being wrong, this clip from October of 2008 says it all:



h/t Hot Air

That didn't take long: Schumer already changing his tune after photo-op with Rubio

On the morning of January 31st, I posted that Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Bob Menendez would lie about considering border security as a trigger for any immigration reform bill in exchange for being seen with Republican Senator Marco Rubio. By yesterday afternoon, after the optics had played out a couple of days earlier, Schumer made good on that lie.

The photo op with Rubio was only 48 hours old.

Remember, Rubio told Limbaugh that if securing the border is not a trigger to a path to citizenship, he's out. Here is what Rubio said on Limbaugh's radio show on January 29th:

"If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won't support it.  But the principles clearly call for that.  Now, obviously, we have to make sure the law does, too."

Take note at the 10:15 mark in the video below, as Harry Reid finishes speaking. Schumer starts out lying and doesn't stop.

"We want the border to be secure (yeah, right). It's more secure than it was several years ago but it has a way to go (whatever, Chuck)..."

Then pay attention to this quote from Schumer:

"We're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path to citizenship... not to use it (border security) as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship."

Rubio referred to border security as 'trigger' necessary for his willingness to support any legislation on immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens. Two days later, Schumer referred to the exact same thing as a 'barrier' to immigration reform (citizenship) for illegal aliens.

Had Schumer said this prior to the photo-op with Rubio, there wouldn't have been a photo-op with Rubio. Like I said, these Democrats placed intrinsic value in the optics of standing with a supposed conservative champion in the Senate. Once they had that under their belt, Rubio is left flapping in the wind, having to explain to conservative voters why he even tried. The hardest lesson for Republicans seems to be understanding that no good can come from attempting to work with liars and socialists whose agenda involve lying without any regard for ethics.

Frankly, I don't understand why it's so difficult to learn. The mask is off and Democrats have been wearing it on their sleeve for quite some time now.

h/t Hot Air:

Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:

So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?

Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:

You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.

That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

1993 Video: Killeen, TX woman testifies in front of Congress after losing her parents because of Gun Control

In 1991, Susan Gratia-Hupp went to a Luby's restaurant in Killeen, TX (not far from where Nidal Malik Hasan killed 14 and injured 32 in a gun-free zone eighteen years later) with her parents. Hupp left her gun in the car because Texas law prohibited her from taking it inside. Watch her tell the story of what happened next.

A couple of years ago, Hupp spoke at a Tea Party rally I attended and she has just as much fire and passion today as she expressed in that 1993 hearing.

While you're at it, watch Chuck Schumer's face and then ask yourself if his motives for gun control today are pure.

They are not.

Via Breitbart, which is calling for Piers Morgan to have Hupp on his show.

Chuck Schumer in 2013 Echoes Eric Holder in 1995

Only liberal logic can conclude that guns and cigarettes are synonymous. The latest case in point involves Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is comparing gun ownership to cigarette smoking. Believe it or not, this is nothing new. Eric Holder made this very same comparison back in 1995 during the same speech where he asserted that 'we need to brainwash people' about guns.

First up, Schumer...

Via CNS News:

:Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press” Sunday that not talking about “guns when it comes to gun violence” is like not talking about “smoking when it comes to lung cancer.”

“The president has talked about generally dealing with violence in our society. I agree with that, but to take guns off the table, you know to not talk about guns when it comes to gun violence is to not talk about smoking when it comes to lung cancer. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s part of the problem, and we have to deal with it,” Schumer said.

Compare that to then U.S. Attorney Eric Holder who attempted a very similar comparison in 1995. This video has made the rounds but again, take note of the comparison he makes. Liberals see the stigma attached to cigarettes as an opportunity to exploit with guns (in the liberal mind, fire can be found at one end of each).

The strategy is very simple. The Democrats want to make guns taboo. They way they're going to attempt to do that is by demonizing gun owners in general and the NRA in particular - though the NRA is not the least bit extreme. In fact, it's an organization that is at times a little too politically correct.

When you take the words of Schumer today and compare them to the words of Holder in 1995 (at the :30 mark), it's very simple to see what the agenda is here.

ARIZONA GOVERNOR TELLS SCHUMER TO SHOO

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) reached out to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in an attempt to convince her to hold off implementation of that state's tough new immigration law, SB 1070 until the Senate is given yet another chance to act. Brewer responded with one word. That word was "no".

Via the AP:

The request by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York was a long shot for getting a stalled Senate immigration initiative moving again. Even the White House thinks the Senate proposal is nearly dead. "There's not enough support to move forward," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday.

Still, among Democrats, there's plenty of support for trying — at least in public — to advance immigration reform during this year of midterm elections. The party's control of Congress depends in part on Hispanics, a key constituency, voting Democratic.

Obviously, Schumer has a problem with Arizona enforcing its law because he's part of the Democratic caucus that wants immigration reform. Translation? Amnesty.

Funny how Schumer has a problem with citizens in his own country securing its border and preserving their sovereignty but when it comes to Israel shutting down its border with Gaza as well as Gaza's border with Egypt, he's all for it.

In an April 22nd radio interview with Nachum Segal, Schumer said the following:

Hamas in Gaza is being squeezed and people there are doing very badly. Not only because Israel has blocked off the border and not let anything into Gaza, and I support Israel in doing that, and it may be tough on the Palestinian people, but when they vote for Hamas they are going to have to suffer the consequences.

The only possible reason Schumer could have for this glaring inconsistency is votes - votes he won't get from Palestinians that would be allowed entry into Israel vs. votes his party WOULD get from Mexicans allowed entry into the Untied States.

Click here to listen to Schumer's interview with Segal.

More on Schumer's interview with Nachum Segal here.

JEWISH COMMUNITY WAKING UP TO OBAMA?

Last week, New York Senator Chuck Schumer (D) raised eyebrows when he appeared on a conservative Jewish radio show and publicly chastised both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their treatment of Israel. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch echoed similar sentiments in a recorded statement leading up to a pro-Jewish protest in front of NYC's Israeli Consulate.

Click here to view Koch's statement. More on Schumer's interview here. Schumer is a far left liberal who agrees with practically all of Obama's agenda. However, if Obama loses Schumer over his Israeli policy, it could be politically disastrous for the president.

Here is the audio from Schumer's radio interview with Nachum Segal.



h/t to Gateway Pundit

CHUCK SCHUMER STANDING UP TO OBAMA ON ISRAEL?

Whether this is just a blip or foreshadows a growing fissure between Barack Obama and Democrats who support Israel, seeing far left Senator Chuck Schumer come out publicly this strongly with respect to Obama's policy on Israel is raising a few eyebrows.

Via POLITICO:

New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration's attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama's policies in such blunt terms.

Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration's very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.

It didn't stop there with Schumer, who appeared on a Jewish radio show and actually took things up a notch. While appearing on the Nachum Segal show, Schumer let some indignation show when talking about the tension between the Obama administration and Netanyahu:

"This has to stop," he said of the administration's policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.

"I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk," Schumer told Segal.

Schumer went on to publicly chastise Hillary and her State Department spokesman, PJ Crowley for statements made about what the administration expects from Israel.

"...the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it public through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations."

Schumer was referring to State Department spokesman PJ Crowley's description of Clinton's conversation with Netanyahu, in which he said that Clinton "made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

"That is terrible," Schumer said today. "That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew--would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this,'" Schumer said.

While Schumer apparently has a problem with Hillary's public statements toward Israel, maybe he should also take a look at who she allowed into the United States. Tariq Ramadan had been banned from entering the United States when his ties to terrorism became known six years ago. Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was found to have contributed to the Holy Land Foundation before it was convicted on 108 counts relative to funding Islamic terrorists.

h/t to Hot Air for the link to the Schumer story.

LINDSEY GRAHAM AND CHUCK SCHUMER PAIR UP ON IMMIGRATION

It should be obvious that unlike John McCain, Lindsey Graham is not up for re-election until 2014. He's pairing up with New York corruptocrat Chuck Schumer to re-visit the issue of Immigration Reform. Three years ago, the American people stood up against the proposed bill because it didn't secure the borders first.

Now this:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. are set to appear Thursday at the White House for a meeting with President Obama in which they are expected to seek his guidance on charting a path forward.

The reform effort blew up in 2007 after more than a year of work when Republican critics branded the effort as "amnesty" and the tide of public opinion turned strongly against the bill.

Graham, in fact, was booed at a Republican gathering in his state in 2006 for his work on comprehensive reform with Ted Kennedy and John McCain. Sen. McCain is conspicuously absent from the current talks; Graham remains at the table as the lone Republican supporter.

What I find particularly interesting is that Schumer and Graham very much want to get another Republican on-board with the effort. The most likely candidate would normally be John McCain. However, unlike Lindsey Grahamnesty, McCain is not only up for re-election in 2010 but he's in the middle of a very hotly contested primary against a candidate in J.D. Hayworth. Immigration enforcement is what the latter is running on as evidenced by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's endorsement.

The fact that McCain is silent on the issue tells you everything you need to know. If he truly believed Grahamnesty's latest foray into immigration reform was the will of his constituents, he'd be right there with his buddy Lindsey, pushing for it as well.

If this effort for Immigration reform was about border enforcement, it would be an entirely different debate. Instead, Lindsey "RINO" Grahamnesty is letting the people know that he is more interested in ramming a three year-old bill down their throats than he is in doing what they want. In the twisted minds of politicians, avoiding impasses at all costs by compromising principles is better than standing on principle and getting nothing done. Lindsey has said as much in the past.

Frankly, I'd love it if congress just shut down and went home.

h/t to Free Republic

CHUCK SCHUMER PULLS TEA-BAGGER CARD

Chuck Schumer was present at the ACORN birthday party a few months back, he called a flight attendant a "bi***" when she asked him to turn off his taxpayer-funded blackberry, and now he is calling the Republican senatorial candidate in the Massachusetts senate race a "Tea-bagger".

FOX News reports:

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who famously hammered then-Sen. Alfonse D'Amato for calling him a "putz-head" in their hot 1998 campaign, was accused Thursday of stepping into the gutter himself after he sent out a fundraising e-mail in which he called Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown a "far-right tea-bagger."

The two-term Democrat, in accusing Brown of being aligned with the conservative "tea party" movement, used a term that every tea party critic knows refers to a sexual act.

"Chuck has a way of saying things that I don't think he really understands or means, and it's unfortunate," Brown told Fox News Thursday when asked about the e-mail. "I'm not into name-calling. ... so shame on Chuck."

Here is the money quote from Schumer's email:

"Martha Coakley is running to fill the rest of Ted Kennedy's term, and her opponent is a far-right tea-bagger Republican."

Wouldn't you like to know why the homosexual community isn't offended by Schumer's comments?

VIDEO: CHUCK SCHUMER A LIAR

Quite the juxtaposition here. In 2001, New York Senator Chuck Schumer couldn't have been more adamantly opposed to trying Islamic jihadists who killed American civilians in civilian courts. In fact, the 2001 Chuck Schumer and the 2009 are polar opposites. It never ceases to amaze me how these dirtbags live with themselves. They know they're liars and they never seem to come clean.

Check out this quote from the WASHINGTON TIMES from an article printed yesterday that quotes the 2001 Schumer from a transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

First, the Government must have the power to use even the most sensitive classified evidence against these suspects without compromising national security in any way, shape, or form. In addition, those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.

Yes, that was Chuck Schumer in 2001.

Fast forward to November 18th, 2009. After opening his facial orifice in front of a microphone that captured his dreck and amplified it, Schumer was approached and questioned about his support of KSM being tried in NYC in a civilian court. His response was to walk away and attempt to avoid the obvious and glaring contradiction. The fact that real journalists don't seem to be interested in engaging in such tactics aside, check out the guy who comes to Schumer's rescue at the end. He reminded me of Danny Noonan in Caddyshack after Ted Knight threw the golf club. Chucky probably will repay him somehow.



h/t to HA