Recently there has been some rumblings concerning Fox News and whether or not they are objective or biased. Seems the current administration's position is that they unlike all other news agencies are biased and simply a shill for the republications/conservatives, therefore should be ignored by we the people as well as other news agencies. Journalists have long taken the position they are neutral, or so they think. By not taking a side though you display a bias, intended or not, but no less biased. For example, we are a country governed by a constitution, and regardless of your interpretation of that document it is the law of the land. Over the course of many years we have been the leader of the free world and have fought wars over Communism, Socialism, Marxism and Fascism. In each case we stood against these ill-be-gotten systems because they are oppressive and not in keeping with our ideals. If an organization sprung up that was intended to circumvent/overthrow those ideals and that document would that be a story? Would that not be a huge story? We have such an organization trying to undermine our current system in place and thriving as we speak. Perhaps you have heard the MSM mention the "Progressive Party". Ever heard them equate these "progressives" to the Democratic Socialists of America? Doubt it. We currently have 70 members of our legislative body that are members of the DSA. They have their own version of the constitution which I can only assume they hold more allegiance to than the real constitution of this country since they want to implement their version over the current one. This should be a huge story, a government takeover from within, a coup in fact is what it is. We need to be told of these things. So when the current administration starts to appoint anti-capitalists, self-avowed Communists and Marxists and Socialists journalists who are "HONEST" will tell us. But they do not, because so many of them are on the same page with the DSA! And if they are not then they seem to be complacent to let the government be taken over. The MSM will never understand they are the reason no one trusts them anymore. We have ways to find out what they have been sweeping under the table for years. And it goes both ways. Do not provide cover for anyone that is breaking the law or trying to subvert our government.
This is a listing updated April 2009 for the 111th Congress. These people are all members of the DSA and should be immediately removed from office at the earliest election possible. On top of that there are 23 Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, 11 of them are members of DSA.
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
resource:http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
About Me
- Loren
- I am a little senile,a little old, a little bald, and did I mention I am a little senile!
7 comments:
The people on that list are NOT, NOT members of the DSA. The DSA is headquartered in NY and some union and some well-known members, but it is an outright lie to list these legislators as members.
I guess people can say what they want on blogs, lie, whatever, but it is outrageous.
It is particularly offensive when people who call themselves Christians are anything but. You want health care just for you, you want rights only for people who share your values, and you want to use slander and lies to perpetuate any unfairness as long as it benefits you. Not my idea of Christian!
I wish you personally to be well and thrive. But I hope you one day re-examine your Christianity and decide that truth matters.
I have been following this organization for many years. In years past they actually posted their membership online but I believe they took it off so as not to look suspicious once it became more public what they were doing. Sen Sanders used to run as a member of the Socialist party USA when he was in the House, but now that he is in the Senate I believe he may have been advised to drop that as he now runs as an Independent. I noticed you chose not to identify yourself which is fine, but says volumes about your comment IMO.
Which rights are you referring to? I bet the one to marry is on your agenda. Well, marriage is between one man and one woman and that is that. I have no problem with a union that has all the same rights but the fact is you cannot redefine marriage to suit you. You do not even like my Christianity and now you want me to let you redefine it? I will add this though, it is my belief that the federal government should not be involved in the business of marriage. That is a State's rights issue pure and simple. If the people of state X want gay marriage then they should have it, but if state Y says no, then it will not be. It is easy to blame the Christians for opposing this but in fact there are more than just Christians against it, just that blaming them doesn't have the same weight as blaming Christians. Even the most liberal state in the union, California, rejected this idea.
People like you have been trying to drive Christianity from the forefront. In some ways you have succeeded. But surely you did not think when we ran out of cheeks we would just surrender. Of course we are fighting back. Like you, we believe in what we are fighting for.
As for health care there are ways to fix this system without allowing the government to intrude into this aspect of our lives. It boggles the mind to think that it will cost over a trillion dollars to insure 1/10 of our population. What will it cost when it is half or all of our population? How many more illegals will come flocking looking for our free health care...oh that's right it won't be free for us, just them. Yes, I am Christian, but I am also an American Citizen and a constitutionalist.
Loren,
I guess you believe what you say. I did not give my name because many on the right target people for slander, or even violence.
I am actually afraid of your ilk, though I am sure you are a very nice person.
Your sources on the DSA are as apparently biased as the rest of your views. I have studied democratic socialism for years. I don't consider it an insult to be in favor of a fair society, but it is just wrong to misstate the facts, and those people are simply not DSA. Yes, Bernie Sanders and some others have been socialists.
I am a Christian, but as a constitutionalist, you should recognize the separation between church and state. American citizens are not all Christians and you shouldn't deny them rights for that reason. Your religion may deny marriage rights to gays and that's fine. It is not fine to make it the law of the land.
The main problem I have with your defintion of marriage is that you do not object to convicted murderers, child molestors, or anyone else getting married as long as they are not gay. I question the value structure there.
As for health care, you are worried about govt cost, but not about the trillions in cost that comes from private insurance companies, plus the denial of care for many bogus reasons. Health care should not be driven by profit, but by health outcomes.
Anyhow, I know you and people like you will never change, but it feels like a moral obligation to speak out. When anyone says "justice for all" you say "socialist". I guess you forgot its in the pledge of allegiance.
And I still maintain that Christianity is about compassion, honesty, and yes...that terribly socialist concept of a fair and just society.
Thanks for the list Loren... I agree with your beliefs. I do not think any of us believe that the health care system is not flawed. We do need some reform- but we also need the transparency we were promised. Having the Government, Republicans or Democrats in charge is frightening.
I can not think of anyone who seriously needed healthcare who was denied.
As a Christian, I want to help those who need a hand up. I am afraid the social experiment of the Great Society has harmed more than it has helped.
Keep up the good fight.
God Bless,
Thanks for your comments Randy. I am waiting for that promise of transparency as well. I have little or no faith in either major party providing it. I want the Republicans out just as bad as I want the Democrats out. Right now I have to settle for the least offensive. The Democrats are trying to ram legislation down our throats and they need to be stopped. They are not serving the people, they are serving their base the progressives (Socialists) only.
To Anon, Marriage is a religious ceremony, given to God's people for the purpose of family creation. You can argue that family has evolved over time and that even Christians have not respected their marriage vows. I cannot defend that for obvious reasons. What we are talking about is the redefining of what it is in order to accomodate a small percentage of the group that does not want to engage in that activity as defined. I am and I would guess many are against child molesters being in the presence of children, I am against murderers enjoying any rights of our constitution except humane treatment issues. While marriage does not fall under that pervue I do find it appalling that they are allowed to marry and have conjugal visits. But I do not make those laws so to blame me or my "ilk" is just ridiculous. However, marriage is not one of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. As I said before, it should be a state's rights issue. It is my opinion the state would be wrong to redefine marriage but if the people of a particular state want to do that, so be it.
In this country, Christians are the last of the legally bashed. We have hate crimes laws but which I think is also unconstitutional. Commentators lash out at them all the time calling them names, even the President spoke harshly and demeaningly of thgem. No one is ever ostracized or attacked for that at least in the MSM anyway. However, let a Christian/Conservative say something with regard to a minority/liberal/progressive and the MSM (and their helpers) will brand that person a racist and national organizations will not even let them participate in Capitalism because of it. An athelte recently commented about Rush Limbaugh spening his money to help purchase an NFL team. His statement was that he felt it was wrong for him to be a part owner because "Mr. Limbaugh does not understand our culture." I wonder what culture that is? Repeated domestic violence? How about multiple incident with firearms on the streets? Maybe Mr. Limbaugh should get some fighting dogs so he can truly understand the culture.
It makes me laugh that you say you are afraid of me and my ilk? We are the ones under attack and finally fighting back for a change.
Oh, one other thing about that made up separtion clause, it doesn't exist. Doesn't even matter how many liberal or conservative judges say it does. It simply say Congress shall make no law estab;lishing a national religion, it does not say Congress shall guard against any appearance that religion is part of the landscape. The appearance was always there.
Justice for all is not a problem, but you are using it as a means to implement Socialist activity and that is a problem. Why do you want to take my country? Leave it alone, there are lots of places you can go and get all the social government you want.
Are you a member (paid your dues) to the DSA? You seem to know who is a member and who is not? At one time there were over 100 members of congress that were members of the DSA and the progressive caucus. I see there are only 70 now, so not sure if that means they have denounced the DSA or some just got voted out. Used to find the names all over the website but not so much now. Sanders and Kucinich have been active in that organization for quite some time.
BTW, Anon as a guest to my blog I will give you the last word in our exchange. As you say, I am not changing and I suspect those exact sentiments are shared by you as well.
Loren,
Okay, I'll take the last word.
It boils down to who gets to legislate moral values - I try and live by my beliefs and I have no problem with you living by yours; however I may disagree or find tham harmful.
I also have no problem with Christianity in public places, provided it does not oppress others.
My objection is that you are SO SURE you are right, you want the government to interfere to prevent others from living by their own beliefs. Our country was based on the exact opposite of that by the founding fathers. You, your family, etc....absolutely should not marry gays, have abortions, whatever. I respect those are sins in your eyes. I just ask that you respect that they are not sins in others eyes and setting yourself up as having superior knowledge of morality and God's will is hubris.
I am pro-choice(surprise, surprise), but I know I may be wrong, and wound NEVER encourage another woman to have an abortion.
I am not, nor ever been in the DSA, socialist party or anything but a registered Democrate. I just don't understand your using the term "socialism" as a dirty word. The practice of Soviet countries was anything but socialism; and those in Canada, England, Swedend, Germany etc who have govt involved in health care are still capitalist societies. Not all attempts to make society fair are "socialist", nor are socialist principles about equality of opportunity evil as you make them out. The US certainly does not need to be a socialist country to provide a safety net for it's citizens in terms of material needs and stay out of our lives on our moral choices.
Maybe I offended you by writing on your blog, but I think when we only talk to those we agree with, we become insulated and narrow-minded. I have neighbors with views close to yours whom I cherish, and we are bothing making an effort to understand the other. They are far different than my normal circle. I am "alien" to them. Yet we are close, because we KNOW both come from good hearts. Our differencews may be unbridgeable. But maybe there is common ground somewhere, particularly if we all will stick to the truth and deal with it whether we like it or not.
I don't mind if you feel compelled to respond, or happy to let it rest, as I have said what I wanted to say, and I know, if I do not understand, your point of view.
Best, but still anon
Post a Comment