No. 2 Senate Democrat Turns on Schumer Over Dress Code Abolition: 'We Need to Have Standards'
For conservatives, it’s all about keeping the Judeo-Christian tradition alive. Radical progressives, on the other hand, despise tradition and seek to undercut it at every turn.
When the most powerful man in the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, decided to nix the Senate dress code, it wasn’t just to accommodate Sen. John Fetterman, a fellow Democrat from Pennsylvania, and his oafish dressing habits.
Schumer saw an opportunity to chip away at tradition and took it. Progressives are nothing if not opportunists.
But Schumer apparently forgot to clue in his Senate allies on the true reason for relaxing the dress code. The No. 2 Democrat, Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, said he is “concerned” about the move, according to The Hill.
“[Fetterman] is a personal friend, but I think we need to have standards when it comes to what we’re wearing on the floor of the Senate,” Durbin said in an interview. “We’re in the process of discussing that right now as to what those standards will be.”
“I can’t understand exactly what [Schumer] was thinking at that point,” Durbin said. “I want to give him the benefit of the doubt until I speak to him but I think the Senate needs to act on this.”
It doesn’t look like Durbin’s been keeping up with his assigned reading from the radical left. Attacking established values is the go-to tactic of leftist revolutionaries who want to destroy a country from the inside out.
A quick study of the French Revolution shows that those revolutionaries hated tradition, especially Christianity.
Enlightenment champion Voltaire summed it up nicely with, “Every sensible man, every honorable man must hold the Christian religion in horror.” French philosopher Denis Diderot wasn’t far behind with, “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
Durbin may not be as bold as Voltaire, but he received a 0 percent rating from the Christian Coalition on religious and family issues back in 2014. He’s at least as progressive as Schumer.
So why wouldn’t he want to relax the dress code on the Senate floor? Did he not get the memo?
Maybe Durbin, after all these years, is realizing the danger of the inversion of Judeo-Christian values, but I doubt it.
Schumer is a champion of the inversion of values.
In his infamous invective against Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, Schumer was surrounded by people carrying signs reading “Abortion is a moral choice” and “Protecting abortion access is a Catholic value,” an inversion of values on steroids.
Schumer later had to walk his comments back, according to Politico, and maybe he’s still a bit gun-shy about being too direct in his communications. He probably thought Durbin could read between the lines on this one.
According to The Hill, Durbin was responding to criticism of the dress code move from The Washington Post.
“One would have thought that, with public trust in government waning, the Senate might want to avoid looking even a tiny bit more like a high school cafeteria,” the Post’s editorial board wrote.
It looks like even the establishment media thinks Schumer has gone too far — again.
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said, “Sen. Schumer has done just about everything he can to destroy the traditions of the Senate, everything from eliminating the filibuster rule to now this. And for what? To accommodate one person who doesn’t like to put on a suit?”
No, senator, you’re missing the point. The purpose of destroying traditions is simply to destroy traditions. Progressives chip away at those traditions in the hope of undermining once and for all the Judeo-Christian value system.
Schumer will probably have to glue this particular chip back on for the time being, though. Eliminating the dress code just looks bad.
But Schumer, Durbin and crew will try to undercut tradition again. Progressives always do. Again and again and again.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
