"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible, and they are stupid."

- Dwight D Eisenhower 8 November 1954

CFR:
-William Bundy credited the CFR's study groups with helping to lay the framework of thinking that led to the Marshall Plan and NATO.

-The Council served as a "breeding ground" for important American policies such as mutual deterrence, arms control, and nuclear non-proliferation.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower chaired a CFR study group while he served as President of Columbia University.


and

-The John Birch Society believes that the CFR plans a one-world government.



So you've got Alex Jones, Ron Paul and a bunch of Birchers, all pissing and moaning because of 1)The Marshall Plan & NATO 2) Nuclear Non-proliferation 3)The guy who warned us all against the "military industrial complex".


Puke.

You guys should go back to your "WTC7 was a timed demolition!!"

I suggest you read the studies you cite before you propose that conservatism is a form of 'mental illness', the study itself was carried out to link a hypotheses to the idea that conservatism shares common treads as a whole or independently with regards to rigidity, inequality and unwillingness to be open to new ideas.

"Our first assumption, too, is that conservative ideologies – like virtually all other belief systems – are adopted in part because they satisfy some psychological needs. This does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

Never does it claim conservatism is a form of mental illness, the study states itself that it is not judgmental with regards to political spectrums. Was Theodore Roosevelt mentally ill? Margaret Thatcher? Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Furthermore different political stands are psychologically more comfortable depending on the situation, post 9-11 it was psychologically more comfortable to become politically conservative due to the psychological motivators of fear and threat kicking in becoming more rigid and reactionary against threats that appeared and an effort to return to the 'good old days'. Claiming Bush is a conservative is laughable, since he is not a conservative, he is a religious right wing authoritarian.

I think saying one political sphere is better then another is rather silly, each persons political stance is highly nuanced beyond simply labels such as democrat, republican, liberal or conservative. Andrew Sullivan can be called a religious conservative, but he is pro-gay rights, and is supportive of Barack Obama. Where is his mental illness then?

^ thx! and, regarding the label?
in this case, they'd also have to slap that label, on none other than WW2's General Of Everything, and the last Republican president i liked, Dwight David Eisenhower.

so, in this case, it'd be a label i'll happily wear. "Hello. My name is Fuckyou Warpigs."

ps.
Ike also boinked his secretary, while president, everyone!
i didn't give a shit about it in his, or Clinton's, case.
not really pertinent, i know. but i so rarely get a reason to discuss Eisenhower.
and i like to use the word 'boink'.

since i was just looking for this again, for dft's attempt to sift it up?

regarding dag's mention (above) of what this phenomenon has already been known as, for a long time - the military industrial complex.

for anyone who may just be too young, perhaps, and didn't know it already?
that term was coined by none other than the guy in charge of the machine, at the time.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, on his very last day in office. Jan 17, 1961.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhower-warns-of-the-military-industrial-complex
http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhowers-Farewell-Address-to-the-American-People

ps. those aren't copies of eachother. they both use the original eisenhower address, as well as other footage.

Wikipedia:
Just before filming began on the show, Lucy became pregnant with her and Desi's first child, Lucie Arnaz. They actually filmed the original pilot while Lucy was "showing", but did not include this in the episode.

Later during the second season, Lucy was pregnant again, with second child Desi Arnaz, Jr. This time, they incorporated her pregnancy into the storyline. Despite popular belief, Lucy's pregnancy was not TV's first on-screen pregnancy. That distinction belongs to Mary Kay on the late 1940s sitcom Mary Kay and Johnny.

In this era, saying the words "pregnant" or "pregnancy" on the air was prohibited, so they always described Lucy as "expecting" (or "'spectin'" in Ricky's case). When Lucy finds out she is pregnant, she announces to Ethel: "I am going to have a baby!" The episode "Lucy Is Enceinte" aired on December 8, 1952 ("enceinte" being French for "expecting" or "pregnant"). The episode "Lucy Goes To The Hospital" first aired on January 19, 1953, the same day Lucille Ball gave birth to Desi, Jr., and was watched by more people than any other TV program at that time--a considerable feat, given that Dwight D. Eisenhower was inaugurated President of the United States the very same day. 68% of all American television sets were tuned in to I Love Lucy to watch Lucy when the time arrived for her to give birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy

Whenever I see someone advocating war, I can't wait to see them personally experience it.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

- Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), "Non-Violence in Peace and War"

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

- Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953

An epic and incredible documentary - possibly the best political/historical one I've seen:

Is American foreign policy dominated by the idea of military supremacy? Has the military become too important in American life? Jarecki's shrewd and intelligent polemic would seem to give an affirmative answer to each of these questions

The American Documentary Grand Jury Prize was given to WHY WE FIGHT, written and directed by Eugene Jarecki. http://festival.sundance.org/2005/docs/05Awards.pdf

What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism? This award-winning film provides an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine.

He may have been the ultimate icon of 1950s conformity and postwar complacency, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was an iconoclast, visionary, and the Cassandra of the New World Order. Upon departing his presidency, Eisenhower issued a stern, cogent warning about the burgeoning "military industrial complex," foretelling with ominous clarity the state of the world in 2004 with its incestuous entanglement of political, corporate, and Defense Department interests.

Deploying the general's farewell address as his strategic ground zero, Eugene Jarecki launches a full-frontal autopsy of how the will of a people has become an accessory to the Pentagon. Surveying the scorched landscape of a half-century's military misadventures and misguided missions, Jarecki asks how--and tells why--a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war.

Jarecki, whose previous film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, took such an unblinking look at our ex-secretary of state, might have delivered his film in time for the last presidential election, but its timing is also its point: It does not matter who is in charge as long as the system remains immune from the checks and balances of a peace-seeking electorate. Brisk, intelligent, and often very, very human, Why We Fight is one of the more powerful films in this year's Festival, and certainly among the most shattering.— Diane Weyermann

ok i found wat Dwight D. Eisenhower said " History does not long entrust the care of the weak or the timid." i jst felt like this was a right thing to say to a nation in chaos with that disaster..Iraq..and Isreal..its all rapping up..its coming very close..anytime now..anytime...