The First Openly Godless Member of Congress

[beameup 0]

In about 1965 the Democrat Party took a decidedly LEFT turn. Much of this was the theory that "we can outdo the Soviets in giving a better life to our people" - "Trying to out-Socialize the Russian-Soviet style Socialists" .

Franklin Roosevelt was definitely anti-Communist and anti-Socialist. Wartime powers of the Central Government were to be rolled-back in favor of States-Rights - the "Socialist" programs started by FDR because of the Great Depression were simply intended as a temporary "calming influence" on the U.S. population who were increasingly looking toward Communism as the solution.

There remains absolutely no excuse for the "Great (welfare) Society" programs which doled out billions to illegal aliens from South-of-the-border. Not to mention the changes in the Immigration Laws in '65 which created "anchor babies" - a practice which continues even today - granting "instant Citizenship" to babies of vacationing Aliens.

Welfare workers and hospital personnel being forbidden by law to even ask the legal status of anyone needing "assistance". These examples and much more can be directly traced back to the mid-'60s Democrat Party with evident effects even to the present.

The old proverb is: If you give a man a fish he will come back again and again to you for another "free" fish.

If you teach a man how to catch fish, he will become self-sufficient and catch his own fish.

Just different philosophies of the role of Government - the "Left" and the "Right".

But it is easier for the Democrats to "buy votes" by "giving away something for free". In the Philippines they are more direct - politicians just hand out small amounts of money to poor people to "vote for me".

Under the Soviet System "Creator" was replaced with "State" and the Supreme State gave "rights" to its citizens as seen fit. Perhaps this is the system that this particular politician seems to prefer - being a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

Under the ever increasing power of the "State", the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Dude, I know. All this deficit spending committing us and our children to decades of taxation for debt repayment, plus the warrentless wiretapping, mass appropriation of private telecommunications records - not to mention the "Supreme State" suddenly deciding there's a whole class of people who can access our prisons but not our courts. Whatever happened to these rights endowed by the creator? It's the State in charge now, and they can do what they want to their "detainees."

40 years is too long for these Democrats. It's time to give Republicans a chance.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gee, I thought a lot of them:

• Jack Murtha (D-PA) VIDEOTAPED negotiating bribe in 1980 (see Abscam)
  
• Dan Burton (R-IN) who accepted quite a few gifts from Jagjit Chauhan, JS Bhullar and other miscreants
  
• Edolphus Towns (D-NY)--as Burton
  
• Major Owens (D-NY)--as with Burton
  
• Wally Herger (R-CA)--as Burton
  

were openly godless (since corruption is certainly considered sin by all religions)

History has shown that a politician's religious affiliation or lack of, has no bearing on whether they are corrupt or not.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[mawilson 2,133]

the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Even more so over the last 7 years of "Republican Party power."

Let's see....

• Patriot Act
  
• Real ID Act
  
• Surveillance and searches without warrants or court orders
  
• War on women's reproductive rights
  
• ...
  

[beameup 0]

Well "undoing" fourty-fifty years of irresponsibility in regard to the MAJOR responsibility of the FEDERAL government - the PROTECTION of its borders and the security of its citizens. We are at war. A lot of extremely restrictive measures were taken against the "Japs" on American soil. After the war was over, these measures were rescinded.

"War on womens reproductive rights?" - sounds kinda of wacko to me.

But then, Liberals are experts at Name-Calling Propaganda techniques, but then so was Hitler.

the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Even more so over the last 7 years of "Republican Party power."

Let's see....

• Patriot Act
  
• Real ID Act
  
• Surveillance and searches without warrants or court orders
  
• War on women's reproductive rights
  
• ...
  

[Fuzzness 2]

let me see... abolishing slavery, women's right to vote, the black vote, an end to segregation, minimum wage, public schools.... hmmm, those are all liberal ideas (remember, conservative means to keep things as they are).

[almaty 19]

the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Even more so over the last 7 years of "Republican Party power."

Let's see....

• Patriot Act
  
• Real ID Act
  
• Surveillance and searches without warrants or court orders
  
• War on women's reproductive rights
  
• ...
  

touche..good points

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Gee, I thought a lot of them:

• Jack Murtha (D-PA) VIDEOTAPED negotiating bribe in 1980 (see Abscam)
  
• Dan Burton (R-IN) who accepted quite a few gifts from Jagjit Chauhan, JS Bhullar and other miscreants
  
• Edolphus Towns (D-NY)--as Burton
  
• Major Owens (D-NY)--as with Burton
  
• Wally Herger (R-CA)--as Burton
  

were openly godless (since corruption is certainly considered sin by all religions)

History has shown that a politician's religious affiliation or lack of, has no bearing on whether they are corrupt or not.

Not entirely true: those who are ACTUALLY devout to their religions (such as Mujib, Laldenga, Fidel Ramos, Arthur Balfour, ...) tend to be less inclined to do acts on which religious tenets frown.

On the other hand, those who only PRETEND to be devout (House of Saud, except for dead-30-years King Faisal; Zia ul-Haq; Brian Mulroney;...) and those who DON't EVEN PRETEND (Yahya Khan, Trudeau, Nehru, ...) tend to be extremely corrupt.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

let me see... abolishing slavery, women's right to vote, the black vote, an end to segregation, minimum wage, public schools.... hmmm, those are all liberal ideas (remember, conservative means to keep things as they are).

None of those are liberal ideas. They are moral ideas. Individual liberals have been all over the board when it comes to each. Al Gore's father, a liberal, voted against the Civil Rights Act. Nixon, a conservative, opened the door to China, was a big internationalist, and began the movement in government to grant sovereignty to Native Americans.

All moral ideas, can't be claimed on any other grounds.

[GaryC 7]

the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Even more so over the last 7 years of "Republican Party power."

Let's see....

• 
  
• Patriot Act
  
• Real ID Act
  
• Surveillance and searches without warrants or court orders
  
• War on women's reproductive rights
  
• ...
  

Your not scoring any points with me on that. I think all of those are needed to counter terrorism. It would be wrong to oppose any of that.

Abortion is immoral in any form. It needs to be illegal again. But that is my view of things anyway.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well "undoing" fourty-fifty years of irresponsibility in regard to the MAJOR responsibility of the FEDERAL government - the PROTECTION of its borders and the security of its citizens.

The borders are just as porous as they were before. People are living under the illusion

of security -- the equivalent of protecting your home with a "beware of dog" sign instead

of an actual dog. The security measures put in place are not designed to make us safer --

they are designed to make us *feel* safer. It’s a very easy trap for people to fall into.

We are at war. A lot of extremely restrictive measures were taken against the "Japs" on American soil. After the war was over, these measures were rescinded.

How convenient then that the "war on terror" will never be over. Just like any other

"war on <insert your noun here>".

[almaty 19]

the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Even more so over the last 7 years of "Republican Party power."

Let's see....

• 
  
• Patriot Act
  
• Real ID Act
  
• Surveillance and searches without warrants or court orders
  
• War on women's reproductive rights
  
• ...
  

Your not scoring any points with me on that. I think all of those are needed to counter terrorism. It would be wrong to oppose any of that.

Abortion is immoral in any form. It needs to be illegal again. But that is my view of things anyway.

yeah right...curb people's freedom in the name of the state security..worked in the soviet union and for germany and italy in the 30s..

[GaryC 7]

the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Even more so over the last 7 years of "Republican Party power."

Let's see....

• 
  
• Patriot Act
  
• Real ID Act
  
• Surveillance and searches without warrants or court orders
  
• War on women's reproductive rights
  
• ...
  

Your not scoring any points with me on that. I think all of those are needed to counter terrorism. It would be wrong to oppose any of that.

Abortion is immoral in any form. It needs to be illegal again. But that is my view of things anyway.

yeah right...curb people's freedom in the name of the state security..worked in the soviet union and for germany and italy in the 30s..

It isn't curbing anyones freedoms except for the terrorists. Why do you want to defend their rights?

[mawilson 2,133]

It isn't curbing anyones freedoms except for the terrorists. Why do you want to defend their rights?

I will defend the terrorists' rights as much as I will defend your rights, Gary.

As long as a *suspected* terrorist (note the word "suspected") is not convicted in

a court of law, he has the same rights as you and I. It's a slippery slope otherwise.

The Patriot Act allows the authorities to collect all sorts of information about anyone

who is only "suspected" of being a "terrorist." It permits entry into homes and offices

without warrants, probable cause, notice, and without you having to be there.

It authorizes the freezing of your bank accounts and the total demise of financial

privacy.

Yet the biggest problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it violates due process

guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Due process requires that a person be charged

with a crime and tried quickly. Any relinquishment of habeas corpus violates due

process. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is part of the same process.

This issue also comes into play when a person is designated "enemy combatant"

as a step in removing their constitutional rights. One cannot remove protections

of the law in an extra-judicial process; this in itself is illegal and unconstitutional.

[Fuzzness 2]

let me see... abolishing slavery, women's right to vote, the black vote, an end to segregation, minimum wage, public schools.... hmmm, those are all liberal ideas (remember, conservative means to keep things as they are).

None of those are liberal ideas. They are moral ideas. Individual liberals have been all over the board when it comes to each. Al Gore's father, a liberal, voted against the Civil Rights Act. Nixon, a conservative, opened the door to China, was a big internationalist, and began the movement in government to grant sovereignty to Native Americans.

All moral ideas, can't be claimed on any other grounds.

riiiight.... so liberties have nothing to do with morals.... hmmm, ok. I understand now.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, I think the suggestion is that it's co incidental that these ideas are promoted by liberals, that they have nothing to do with the notion of liberalism and that any suggestion that these ideas are the 'property' of liberal thinkiers is false...or some such thing.