On the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, The Progressive Caucus is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which, in turn, is the American affiliate of the Socialist International. Congressional Caucus.

Socialists believe in sovereignty eroding entanglements abroad and big-state socialism at home. They support high taxes on working people with the money transferred to bureaucracies staffed by their friends. They support a welfare state that oppresses poor people, especially minorities, who then become their constituents. They support left-wing judges who are willing to subvert the democratic power of Congress by making laws from the bench. While they support mandatory public education, mandatory labor unions, mandatory racial quotas, land-grabbing environmental regulation, and thought control in the form of hate speech legislation, they turn around and become downright libertarian when it comes to pornography, abortion, sex, drugs, homosexuality, and other agendas that debauch the citizenry.

59 Socialists in Congress - 2002

Following is the Sept. 2002 membership list of the Progressive Caucus: Contact Congress - by Juan E. Cabanela

Neil Abercrombie ­ Hawaii
Tammy Baldwin ­ Wisconsin
Xavier Becerra ­ California
David Bonior ­ Michigan
Corrine Brown ­ Florida
Sherron Brown ­ Ohio
Michael Capuano ­ Mass.
Julia Carson ­ Indiana
William "Lacy" Clay ­ Missouri
John Conyers ­ Michigan
Danny Davis ­ Illinois
Peter DeFazio ­ Oregon
Rosa DeLauro ­ Conn.
Lane Evans ­ Illinois
Eni Faleomavaega ­ Am Samoa
Sam Farr ­ California
Chaka Fattah ­ Penn.
Bob Filner ­ California
Barney Frank ­ Mass.
Luis Gutierrez ­ Illinois
Earl Hilliard ­ Alabama
Maurice Hinchey ­ New York
Jesse Jackson Jr. ­ Illinois
Sheila Jackson-Lee ­ Texas
Stephanie Tubbs Jones ­ Ohio
Marcy Kaptur ­ Ohio
Dennis Kucinich ­ Ohio
Tom Lantos ­ California
Barbara Lee ­ California
John Lewis ­ Georgia
Jim McDermott ­ Washington
James P. McGovern ­ Mass.
Cynthia McKinney ­ Georgia (GONE - 58 TO GO!!!!)Thanks GeorgaCop
Carrie Meek ­ Florida
George Miller ­ California
Patsy Mink ­ Hawaii
Jerry Nadler ­ New York
Eleanor Holmes Norton ­ D.C.
John Olver ­ Mass.
Major Owens ­ New York
Ed Pastor ­ Arizona
Donald Payne ­ New Jersey
Nancy Pelosi ­ California
Bobby Rush ­ Illinois
Bernie Sanders ­ Vermont
Jan Schakowsky ­ Illinois
Jose Serrano ­ New York
Hilda Solis ­ California
Pete Stark ­ California
Bennie Thompson ­ Miss.
John Tierney ­ Mass.
Tom Udall ­ New Mexico
Nydia Velazquez ­ New York
Maxine Waters ­ California
Diane Watson ­ California
Mel Watt ­ North Carolina
Henry Waxman ­ California
Paul Wellstone ­ Minnesota
Lynn Woolsey - California

_____________________________

We have got to vote to get these people out of our government.
They are the ones that are destroying this country.

Read the entire article here:

[url]http://www.chuckmorse.com/59_socialists_in_congress.html[/url]

BTW: Notice that the states with the most draconian gun laws are those that are best represented by these cock roaches.

You can scratch Cynthia Mckinney off the list. She got her ass handed to her in the primary.[spank]  

Constitution of the United States
Article IV
Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government,

The Founding Fathers gave us the power of law, even a mandate, to defend against these scum.

However, finding a leader that will not imprison his followers, us, once the democRAT-Criminal-Socialists are in reeducation camps is a problem. Still, the need to act against these scum who would disarm and imprison us is extant and nigh. We need a leader to cause the Sh*t to Hit The Fan pointing in the direction of the democRAT-Criminal-Socialists.

That's why I voted for Bush. He's moving a little too slow for me though.

At least he's not taking any grief from the U.N. I think that has been his strong point in his Presidency so far.

President is doing a good job. He has not banned guns. He is fighting real enemies of the US. He is struggling with a Senate that was stolen from the control of the GOP. We are lucky to have President Bush. We need someone in the mold of President Reagan in 2008.

I agree. I think Regan was a better President than most people give him credit for.

Oh yeah, that 86 import ban was a real good thing huh?

I agree that we need to get rid of the roaches. We have already done that here in Ky. The rest of you guys need to get busy! [:)]

I have to admit I wasn't paying as close attention to gun issues at that time.

Things could be a lot worse fellas....that goofball nimrod Al Gore could be our President...COULD YOU IMAGINE THAT!!!!!

I think you are referring to Reagan closing the machine gun ATF book so that we civilians can never get a new machine gun.

I never even knew about that until last year. My guess is most gun owners don't know about it. The FBI was traumatized by the death of a couple of agents in the infamous Miami shootout. Reagan was put under duress, is my guess. Reagan was "one of us", and that order was an aberration and inconsistent with his years of public service.  

Reagan also campaigned saying he would abolish the Education Department. The ED Dept. was created just two years earlier by Carter. President Reagan was unable to abolish the Ed. Dept. Too much pressure, is my guess.

Wasn't the 86 ban snuck in at the last minute? [?]

OK, we have Ron Paul.  Anyone else?

It would be far better to have 100 socialists in congress than 1 of those election disrupting libertarian worshippers of the outdated Constitution. It should be a criminal offense in this democracy for people who do not agree with what the government tells us.

God you guys kill me...

The only Import Ban was in 89.

The ban on new machine guns in 86' was "part" of a Firearm Owners Rights Bill. Included in in was the "importation of surplus weapons" (previously banned in 68) and the direct mailing of ammunition which was ALSO banned in 68. So gun owners collectively made a CHOICE. They decided they'd rather have surplus SKS rifles and be able to mail order ammunition than be able to have NEW registered machine guns. They then basically voiced that opinion and Reagan REPRESENTED them in office.

Ronald Reagan did NOT have a line item veto. So he could either sign it or refuse it. Had he refused it you guys would be pissed about not being able to get a $100 SKS rifle.

Since when does American Samoa have representation in the congress?

Since it doesn't, it makes me question the entire article.

You're forgetting Clinton's 98 ban.

So if there's only 59 socialists in Congress, why all the socialist legislation?? (that gets signed by the president) Why do we have GWB praising Ted Kennedy over the education bill? Thank goodness we don't have AL Gore! He would have signed bills, even while saying they were Un-constitutional. Ooopsss, GWB did that!!!

True, but the Democrat ones are to be expected.

Back on topic, I spread the word to my local board. Please do the same for your local shooting boards.

[url]http://pub49.ezboard.com/ffloridashootersnetworkfrm1.showMessage?topicID=1866.topic[/url]

"Ed Pastor ­ Arizona"

On behalf of all of Arizona, I apologize profusely for this. (and for that nutcase McCain)[V]

Both of them owe their positions to the liberal wackjobs that congregate in Tucson, that lone liberal zit of a city on the otherwise marvelously conservative state of Arizona.

Not to stay offtopic, but have you ever read the text of the 98 ban?  The 89 ban is cited as one of the main reasons why BATF had the power to ban what they did.

I'm assuming you are referring to the ATF ability to decree certain weapons "unsuitable for sporting purposes."

Zak,

I'm sure that they meant that she was a member of the Socialist party, not necessarily a memeber of congress. (although she could be some sort of representative) The rest I assume are. I don't think the article loses any credibility???

It is something that I would imagine is public knowledge, or could be checked easily enough.

More or less, though that little gem was given to them by GCA68.  

What their 98 "finding" (or ruling, or whatever they wantto call it) stated was that the phrase "unsuitable for sporting purposes" was absolutely meaningless, and what congress REALLY meant when they said that was "any firearm at all."

They then went on to point at the 89 import ban as an example, then extrapolated that (referencing the crime bill) to include any weapon with a single "evil feature."

The title of the article was "59 Socialists in Congress."  Exactly how could they mean anything else?



Of course it does.  When you sensationalize something in order to enhance the point you're trying to make--and its proven to be taken out of context, or a flat out lie--you absolutely, positively impeach your argument as a whole.

That's one thing I've learned from arguing with EricThe(ShowMeYourFacts)Hun.

(edited for clarity)

O.K. I'll make the title less sensational.

58 Socialists in Congress - 2002

Is that better?

What is so hard to believe about the article?

I had a question about the Samoan rep too. I'll check it out for you if it will help my credibility any.

I hate to break it to you Zak, but there is a Congressional Representative from American Samoa.

Open Mouth.  Insert Foot.  Echo Internationally.

I hate being wrong, but admit when I am.  Apparently, American Samoa has a congressional delegate (which is a non-voting office, that differs from a member of congress.)

The following was obtained from [url]http://clerk.house.gov/members/memFAQ.php[/url]

BTW, Teltech, sorry about that.

No problem. I didn't know it either.

It's just not hard for me to believe that these people have infiltrated our government. It's easy enough to do, and they have the will to do it.