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?
5 comments:
DW,
I'm guessing - and I have no facts to back this up with, it's just a guess - that we probably spend in excess of $50 billion a year in non-defense related foreign aid.
That's not your money, man. That belongs to the US Senate, for crying out loud, to do with as they please! You're one of those loud people who listens to talk radio, aren't you?
-MT
P.S. How many times have I said it? Men among boys (no offense, Mom, you know what I mean).
P.P.S. How about this blog? Things are looking good here, I'm digging the "changes."
I listen to talk radio on occasion. And I'm not a loud person, really I'm not. But the Trentons of this world, and the Websters of this world...we're gonna have our day.
50B+, eh. Sounds about right. Now if all Americans connected to the internet network would agree (and I can't see why they wouldn't) and not go to work for just one day...
But I think I know what you mean about my having nothing to say in how Congress' money is spent.
If it weren't for the illustrious elites in Congress; had they not been willing to sacrifice themselves and to devote their talents and energies -tirelessly, ceaselessly, intrepidly- to secure to us little people the freedoms we take so for granted, ummm, well, we wouldn't have none.
What noble statesmen they are, and champions for the plight of the little people!
Then all of a sudden comes along this talk-radio, blogger bunch seeking to destroy the very engines which rescued them from plunging into the abysmal depths of utter contemptuousness. Having been handed liberty on a platter, we display the greedy gall to suggest that others might appreciate it more were they required to earn it.
Do we not remember from whence it was we came? Have we no souls? It seems we've shown ourselves living examples of the very opposite. And our elected leaders in their wisdom have shown the discernment to recognize it and the courage to stand in the face of it, ever the champions of liberty for all.
What an ungrateful and a shameless bunch we must be having the temerity to question the malevolent malfeasance of our noble and artful public servants. fershame!
Henceforth I shall devote myself to the cause of the wayward immigrant -the tired, the poor, the huddled masses; the real Americans- to feed them, to clothe them, to shelter them, to aid them over here and over there, and above all to welcome them into the family once my political arm is finally fully extended as it long since should have been to carry them over under free passage.
Now I think I'll go wash myself if you'll please excuse me.
Gee, Wally, is China overseas? I also wonder if it makes any difference how those “overseas” folks differentiate between abortion and infanticide … and euthanasia … and capital punishment?
We can always look on the bright side, none of that windfall will end up in Cuba, thanks to the permanent sanctions our glorious leaders placed on that regime. Fidel’s serfs will have to continue performing their abortions the old-fashioned way, starvation.
DW, man you crack me up.
But seriously, does it seem like it's getting worse? That they are more contemptuous than ever before, if that's even possible?
-MT
Well, you know me brother, I've been known to defend our noble 'leaders' on more than one occasion. Even the ones calling themselves 'democrats.' And that party (the one we affectionately refer to as the "jackass" party), as you well know, is eat plumb up with a severe case of the dumb*ss. Nonetheless when ya boil it all down I know who's responsible for giving them the majority.
But to answer your question, yes; I think they're getting worse. I think the Republicrats got a shot of religion with that defeat in November. But as is generally the case with insincere overnight conversions like that; that is 'conversions' of the head not of the heart, they generally don't last long, they're usually counter-effective tending to create (or expose) more problems in the people or entities experiencing them. And so the degenerative process continues.
Personally I don't care for the 'let's replace 'em with dems, er repubs' kind of approach because I think it's a wrong-headed approach, not to mention that it exposes a character deficiency in the electorate itself. Like I said, emotionally charged religious experiences aren't very effective of themselves, at least not in the sense that they serve to identify the root cause of a problem. That happens over long periods generally speaking.
But my sense is that we're past the point of saving either of these parties; that it's only a matter of time before they both (and watch 'em unite under a single banner when this happens) experience a real life-changing...episode.
Post a Comment