American Conservative Daily Your daily dose of conservative offsets to combat annoying liberal global whining.

• • Home
  • About ACD
  • Interactive Polls
  • Join/Post
  • Media Relations
  • Quick Start
  • T-shirt Straw Poll
  • Terms Of Use
    • Book Reviews (General):
    • Communication/Email
    • Copyright:
    • Email Use Policy:
    • Moderators
    • Posting Comments
    • Responsibility of Authors:
    • Submission of Material:
    • Syndication:
    • Trolling Defined
• Conservative Shop
• RSS

What Part of “No” Didn’t They Understand?

J.J. Jackson* | June 10, 2007 

Ok, serious question. What part of “NO” was so difficult for you yummy brains in Washington to understand?

Washington - Supporters of immigration reform launched new talks to save their tattered bill Friday, with the chief architects of the bipartisan compromise confident they would resurrect it - even as recriminations flew over its stunning collapse.The rescue mission was dispatched moments after the final vote was tallied Thursday night. Although 60 votes were needed to continue debate, just 45 senators voted yes. Republican and Democratic negotiators believe they can reach agreement by early next week on the official sticking point: which conservative amendments would be considered before final passage.

But a second act will come only if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, allows immigration to return to the floor. And exactly where Reid stands on the bill is one of the many mysteries after Thursday’s defeat.

This is saddly typical of our elected representatives. But it fits right in with how they view anything declared definatively as not wanted.

Just look at how they treat our rights.

The first amenemdment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” yet they pass Campaign Finance Reform. The second amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” but yet they pass all sorts of gun reglatiuons that clearly infringe on that right. The fifth amendment says “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” yet they regularly take land for PRIVATE even though that power is not granted.

So apparently they don’t know the meaning of the word “no”.

Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com




*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.