Tirelessly, ceaselessly, intrepidly your elected officials in the House of Representatives work to secure your vital interests.
One way in which they're scheduled to decide on a few of the terms this Wednesday is in voting on an appropriations bill that includes language...
...aimed at ending the president's prohibition on tax dollars going to groups that fund or promote abortion overseas."
"Another provision in the bill would change the way AIDS money is spent.
The State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill contains language that would kill the Mexico City policy – named after the location where President Reagan announced it."
The obvious question is: How is this working in our interests? Why in the world would anyone wish to open the door for committing American Tax dollars to "funding abortions overseas?"
While the President warns he will veto the bill should it get through Congress, one wonders whether that question under close inspection might prompt in the electorate some sense of personal responsibility for the actions that its latest choice in Representatives to that body is initiating on the heels of its victory in November?
But that's not all:
The National Right to Life Committee has said that the provision as proposed would allow even the most aggressively pro-abortion groups to be eligible for U.S. assistance. In this case I'm assuming we're speaking of the 'most aggressive pro-abortion groups' overseas.
Here again our illustrious leaders in Congress feel it necessary, and obligatory upon themselves to commit American tax dollars to foreign interest groups to what vital national purpose?... so that we may finally do our part in the global social engineering and population control effort?
Yet another example of legislation from your very own 'house of horrors' with a 'moral' objective. No; that piece of legislation doesn't represent my morals, and it probably doesn't represent your's, but it represents someone's morals you can be sure.
Why am I seeing a philosophical connection between this story and that of the Senate's backdoor deal on the immigration issue?