The Senate voted to table discussion on the amnesty bill

EDITOR: On June 11, the Senate voted to table discussion on S. 744, Sen. Schumer's amnesty bill, and proceed to a full Senate vote. What's shocking about that vote is that most senators have not read the bill yet. Why are we tabling discussion on a bill that most senators have not yet read?

Like Obamacare, the Senate amnesty bill is weighty and complex. When Obamacare was being debated in Congress, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill "to find out what's in it." Now, it seems, Congress is going to do that again. But considering the stakes of S.744 and the implications for our national security and fiscal health, wouldn't it be nice if the senators actually read this bill?

When the Senate bill sponsors known as the "Gang of Eight" have been asked about the content of the bill, they have made several incorrect statements. When asked if the bill strengthens border security, the Gang of Eight has assured us that the bill is a "border security first" bill. But, in reality, the bill is an "amnesty first" bill. There are zero firm border security requirements in the bill. Sen. Rubio, whose name is often mentioned as a presidential candidate for 2016, seems to be the most confused about the bill's content. Either Sen. Rubio and his colleagues have not read the bill, or they are wilfully misleading American voters about this bill.

As taxpayers, we pay the salaries for each of the Gang of Eight senators. We expect them to read this bill and to understand the full implications of it before voting on it.

Join your fellow Pennsylvanians to let your senator and congressman now that you oppose Senate Bill 744.

John Morningstar

Coordinator

Bradford County Tea Party

Going to the source

EDITOR: In the June 1 edition of The Daily Review was the article "Rallying for the Second Amendment." I have nothing against the article other than it supports a false idea.

The second amendment does not say "We the People." The first half of the amendment defines who has the right to keep and bear arms. I have no idea how to determine who will defend America if it is invaded. This letter is reminding the people that the Second Amendment does not give everyone the right to keep and bear arms. Also by using circumstantial evidence the Constitution defines an arm and collateral evidence gives a class of arms the people can bear only at a certain time.

The Constitution of the United States of American also limits Congress' power to spend and borrow.

These are my opinions so I strongly urge the reader to study the whole Constitution to form their own opinions.

Roger Hawkins

Canton