It's not hard to figure out the Democrat Party. It's actually pretty easy. Everything Democrats support or oppose — and I mean everything — can be connected to the ballot box with no more than two dots.

Perfect example: Proof of citizenship to vote.

Even more perfect: Weaselly Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his refusal to say why he opposes a House bill that would include a requirement of proof of citizenship to register to vote, which is bipartisan.

During an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, Schumer (D-NY) said that the only way to keep the government funded is through a bipartisan bill, which is correct. But House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is expected to propose a stopgap funding measure to fund the government until spring that would include new rules requiring proof of citizenship to vote — a no-go for Chucky.

Host Kayna Whitworth asked:

Let’s talk about Speaker Johnson, expected to propose a stopgap funding measure in the House to fund the government until spring, but attaching to it new rules requiring proof of citizenship when voting. 

And we know a handful of House Democrats say they will support this. If this voter ID legislation is attached to the government funding bill, would you put it up for a vote or are we looking at a government shutdown here?

Simple enough, right? Not for Chuck, who rambled on (lied) about "poison pills" in his answer. 

Look, Speaker Johnson should learn from the past, you can only keep the government fund[ed] in a bipartisan way. You can’t have a group of Republicans, particularly led by right-wing, hard-nosed Republicans who don’t even represent the whole Republican Party, put together a proposal with all kinds of poison pill legislation in it and then say, this is what has to pass. That bill may not even pass the House. I think there are some Republicans who might vote against it. 

Um, Chuck? The House passed a nationwide proof of citizenship bill — the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act — with a 221-198 vote on July 10, with 216 Republicans and five Democrats voting for its passage. 

The bill is unlikely to even be considered for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Schumer told ABC that a stop-gap spending bill including rules requiring proof of citizenship would meet the same fate.

It certainly has no chance in the Senate or no chance of being signed by the president. So, Speaker Johnson, look at what’s going on, you can’t pass a bill unless we come together on a bipartisan agreement, that’s what each — has happened each time in the past. You’ve tried to appease your right wing, it’s failed, and you’ve had to come to us and negotiate. We’re ready to negotiate a bipartisan deal.

Whitworth continued to push: “Some Democrats do support it, though. And what about it would not pass through the Senate?”

Again, Chuck refused to answer, further twisting himself into a an illogical pretzel, circling back to the "poison pills" excuse.

There’s so much in their bill. They have poison pills on abortion. They have poison pills on so many issues. They slash spending for programs that the vast majority of Americans support. That bill is a nonstarter. And the idea of this thing about voting, that is law now. If you’re not a citizen, you can’t vote, period. You can’t do that at the federal level.

To Whitworth's credit, she took one more shot: "Well, so, then why not support voter ID?"

But Chuck refused to admit the obvious.

Well, the bill, as I said, is filled with poison pills of all kinds that Democrats would not suggest. And the reason it is is because, again, Speaker Johnson, when he starts out, he’s afraid of his right wing, he’s afraid of his majority. So, he says, what can I put in the bill that you will like? It never passes, and then they have to come negotiate with us. That’s what will happen.

Weaselly until the end.

OK, Chuck, It's Logic Time

Let's start with an easy-to-answer question. If Schumer and the Democrats thought that a majority of illegal aliens — "undocumented immigrants," whatever — would vote Republican if they were allowed to vote, would Chuck and the Democrats be strongly in favor of requiring proof of citizenship? Hell to the yes, they would.

The same logic applies to border security. Schumer, Pelosi, and the entire Democrat Party would lock arms along the southern border, forming a human chain from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico in a desperate effort to keep illegals the hell out of the country.

Also Read:

There's No Excuse to Not Pass the SAVE Act

No ID Necessary: Biden Admin Opposes Bill Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote

ID for Thee, Not for Me: Harris Campaign Requires ID to Enter Rally in AZ, but Not to Vote

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. Neither does its dishonesty.