Friday, June 22, 2007

Amendments Passed in the HoH

I mentioned in Tuesday's "House of Horrors" post that the ghouls in the lower house were scheduled to vote the following day on certain amendments attached to the State Foreign-Operations Appropriations Bill . And as you'll recall my focus was on the amendments concerning providing funding to overseas abortion groups.

Update from the House of Horrors:

The AP is reporting that the measure passed Thursday in a vote I'll take the liberty of describing as a day late and a few liberals long by a margin of 223-201. That margin of victory for the liberals is significant given that so many 'conservative' democrats won seats over 'liberal' republicans in the Nov., '06 elections. At least that's the way it was reported to us, right?

As I recall the demos netted a gain of somewhere around 31 or 32 seats (feel free to correct me on that) in the lower house with that clear message the voters sent Republicans on Nov. 3rd. But it seems like Republicans weren't the only ones that got themselves a garbled message that day. Is it just me or was that message either poorly transmitted by those sending it, poorly received by those decoding it, or do we just need an upgrade to our transmission/receiving devices?

Democrats claim that current U.S. Policy initiated by President Reagan at the 1984 'population conference,' in Mexico City is "failing badly." Their intent in raising the issue was, according to the AP, to "crack open debate" on that badly failing policy.

Well, I guess they've succeeded, and I guess we have our answer. The question as you'll recall was this: how is providing U.S. taxpayer assistance to overseas abortion groups working in our interests; to what vital national purpose are democrats seeking to reverse this policy? And like the conscientious public servants they are, they've provided us with the answer: This is working in our interests because in cracking open the debate they'll be able to expose the erroneous thinking behind President Reagan's ill-conceived policy initiated in Mexico City. Once they've successfully accomplished that task, then they can overturn that fateful policy carried on by President Bush. Then and only then can the United States honor its committment to global population control because in the twisted thinking of liberals you and I have just been fed a bill of goods that won't stand up to reason. And it's high time that the truth came out.

Personally, though I'm disgusted with the nature of the debate itself, I'm pretty excited that the liberals successfully cracked it open. Few things in this world give me more pleasure than to expose the weaknesses in liberal positions.

So, as we debate the issue, ladies and gentlemen, let's keep in mind that we're experiencing a transmitter/receiver problem; that the messages we're sending our illustrious leaders aren't coming through very well due to one or more reasons. And let us consider that perhaps it is time that we do some upgrade and maintenance work on the elements comprising the system itself. You know what they say: the three minimal requirements of intelligent conversation are as follows:

1. A mind capable of transmitting a thought,

2. A mind capable of receiving a thought, and

3. A mode of conversation common to them both -a common language for instance.

One or more of these seems to be in a real state of disrepair.


Samuel Adams said...

Now hold on just a second. I thought that the left didn’t like it when Americans foisted their jaundiced culture, mores, and values on the rest of the world. What gives?

Daniel Webster said...

Of course you know the answer to that question, Samuel...

Americans are only foisting those things upon the rest of the world when they do not square with the liberal-socialist philosophy and agenda. Elsewise, they ask and they receive it of us, they seek it of American taxpayers and they find in the HoH; they knock and the door is opened wide to them.

Liberals are so Christ-like, aren't they.

Samuel Adams said...

(the sound of Samuel's head exploding at the sound of "liberals are so Christ-like")

Michael Tams said...

Your comment got me thinking... don't laugh... but what would Jesus do if he were in the House of Representatives?

First thing that popped into my head: You think his reaction to the money-changers was something to behold? You think **that** was God, enraged?