Override the veto?
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
Congress passed and sent to the White House a bill which among other things established a time line for withdrawal of American troops. Many of these bills can be dozens of pages long. Consequently, I have not read the bill sent to the President.
This is in part what World magazine (May 5, 2006, page 6) said about the bill, “The final conference report—a $124 billion appropriation—gives the Pentagon more money than the administration requested for combat operations in Iraq, at the same time that it calls for withdrawal beginning Oct. 1 with an end to all U.S. combat operations by March 2008. (This is the first time that I know of where the Congress has established a time table for removal of troops from combat. It is fortunate that the Continental Congress did not establish time lines for General George Washington. It is fortunate that Congress did not establish time lines during the Civil War. It is fortunate that Congress did not establish time lines for World War II. I wonder. How many wars have been fought by time lines?—my addition I wonder. When did Congress become the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States?—my addition) It passed the House 218-208 on April 25 and the Senate 51-46 on April 26. Bush promised a swift veto. In the House 13 Democrats sided with Republicans in opposing the measure, while only two Republicans voted with the majority. It is unlikely that Democrats have the votes to override the veto.”
In a related story later in the magazine (page 28) the following was also stated: “When the House attached withdrawal deadlines to supplemental Iraq War funding in late March, Democrats touted the bill as a victory in the foreign policy feud between Congress and the president. But to garner the votes in the narrow 218-212 tally, the bill also included $24 billion in extra spending on agriculture and unrelated projects…. A House-Senate conference later took out some of the most egregious pork… (the House approved the conference report April 25, 218-208).
The original $24 billion included: $25 million for payments to spinach producers, $120 million to the shrimp industry, $74 million for peanut storage, and $5 million for shell fish, oyster, and clam producers.” (Were these domestic spending programs included in a military procurement bill to help induce reluctant Democrats to vote for the withdrawal of our troops?—my addition. Was the leadership buying votes?—my addition.)
As promised, President Bush quickly vetoed the bill. The Peoria Journal Star published the following information on the attempted override of that veto on May, 3, 2007, page A2. “Congress failed to override President Bush’s veto of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Wednesday, a defeat for anti-war Democrats that triggered immediate talks on a new measure to fund the conflict.
The House vote was 222-203, 62 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. With few exceptions, Republicans stood fast with Bush in the wartime clash.”
“’Make no mistake, Democrats are committed to ending this war,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, said.”
Of note is that all the House Democrats in Illinois voted to override the veto while all of the House Republicans voted to sustain the veto. As I’ve written before, it is ludicrous to tell the enemy your time line to retreat. Even if retreat is a goal which it obviously is for the Democrats, you don’t tell it to the enemy. Do the Democrats realize we are at war?
As I’ve also written before, the only method that the Congress Constitutionally can use to end a war is to cut off funding for that war. If the Democrats are as committed to ending the war as House Speaker Pelosi is quoted as being, they will vote to end all funding for the war. Do you think they will?
The Democratic Party’s attempt to abandon the Iraqi people failed this time. The Democratic Party’s attempt to retreat failed this time. The Democratic Party’s attempt to placate terrorists failed this time. Next time, maybe they should just surrender?
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
Congress passed and sent to the White House a bill which among other things established a time line for withdrawal of American troops. Many of these bills can be dozens of pages long. Consequently, I have not read the bill sent to the President.
This is in part what World magazine (May 5, 2006, page 6) said about the bill, “The final conference report—a $124 billion appropriation—gives the Pentagon more money than the administration requested for combat operations in Iraq, at the same time that it calls for withdrawal beginning Oct. 1 with an end to all U.S. combat operations by March 2008. (This is the first time that I know of where the Congress has established a time table for removal of troops from combat. It is fortunate that the Continental Congress did not establish time lines for General George Washington. It is fortunate that Congress did not establish time lines during the Civil War. It is fortunate that Congress did not establish time lines for World War II. I wonder. How many wars have been fought by time lines?—my addition I wonder. When did Congress become the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States?—my addition) It passed the House 218-208 on April 25 and the Senate 51-46 on April 26. Bush promised a swift veto. In the House 13 Democrats sided with Republicans in opposing the measure, while only two Republicans voted with the majority. It is unlikely that Democrats have the votes to override the veto.”
In a related story later in the magazine (page 28) the following was also stated: “When the House attached withdrawal deadlines to supplemental Iraq War funding in late March, Democrats touted the bill as a victory in the foreign policy feud between Congress and the president. But to garner the votes in the narrow 218-212 tally, the bill also included $24 billion in extra spending on agriculture and unrelated projects…. A House-Senate conference later took out some of the most egregious pork… (the House approved the conference report April 25, 218-208).
The original $24 billion included: $25 million for payments to spinach producers, $120 million to the shrimp industry, $74 million for peanut storage, and $5 million for shell fish, oyster, and clam producers.” (Were these domestic spending programs included in a military procurement bill to help induce reluctant Democrats to vote for the withdrawal of our troops?—my addition. Was the leadership buying votes?—my addition.)
As promised, President Bush quickly vetoed the bill. The Peoria Journal Star published the following information on the attempted override of that veto on May, 3, 2007, page A2. “Congress failed to override President Bush’s veto of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Wednesday, a defeat for anti-war Democrats that triggered immediate talks on a new measure to fund the conflict.
The House vote was 222-203, 62 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. With few exceptions, Republicans stood fast with Bush in the wartime clash.”
“’Make no mistake, Democrats are committed to ending this war,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, said.”
Of note is that all the House Democrats in Illinois voted to override the veto while all of the House Republicans voted to sustain the veto. As I’ve written before, it is ludicrous to tell the enemy your time line to retreat. Even if retreat is a goal which it obviously is for the Democrats, you don’t tell it to the enemy. Do the Democrats realize we are at war?
As I’ve also written before, the only method that the Congress Constitutionally can use to end a war is to cut off funding for that war. If the Democrats are as committed to ending the war as House Speaker Pelosi is quoted as being, they will vote to end all funding for the war. Do you think they will?
The Democratic Party’s attempt to abandon the Iraqi people failed this time. The Democratic Party’s attempt to retreat failed this time. The Democratic Party’s attempt to placate terrorists failed this time. Next time, maybe they should just surrender?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 9:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home