Posted on 09/07/2003 1:16:41 PM PDT by nwrep
For months, I have struggled with a hypothetical question, a thought experiment if you will: If the enemies of the United States, such as Al Qaeda, had a political wing in the US Congress, how would their votes differ from those cast by the most liberal group in the House, namely, the Congressional Black Caucus, who are all members of the Democrat party?
After great reflection and research, I have reached a sobering conclusion: in matters of the military, there would not be any significant difference between the aggregate voting record of the CBC and that of the hypothetical political wing of Al Qaeda.
An objective analysis of the voting patterns, statements, policy positions, and arguments proffered by the CBC would leave one in no doubt as to the logical conclusion of their stance on American military power. Every action taken by the CBC in Congress has had the intention of suppressing, rolling back and reducing the strength of the American military.
Such attitudes continued, and gained strength, even in the face of the greatest catastrophe to strike this nation since the end of WWII.
Consider for example the votes of some key members of the CBC, such as John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Jesse Jackson, Jr., as well as recently deposed terrorist lover Cynthia McKinney:
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 All except Waters and Jackson-Lee voted no, Roll call: 382 Yea, 40 Nay
Bill to combat terrorism All voted no.
Bill to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world All except Rangel voted no.
One cannot help but be stunned by this extraordinary hostility to the US military and unwillingness to support the war on terrorism when the burning embers at the WTC have not yet died down, and when the rest of the nation is immersed in collective grief and anger over these acts.
If these people would not support their country as she fought back after these monstrous acts perpetrated against her, when would they?
Most of the members of the CBC have consistently voted against military appropriations, weapons systems, DoD authorizations, CIA funding, and have championed the cause of nuclear and conventional disarmament of America. If you are Al Qaeda, what better ally could you hope to have in the Congress of the United States? If you are a terrorist wishing to inflict harm on US possessions overseas, who better to champion your cause than those who would reduce funding for covert intelligence operations that might intercept and end your efforts?
In addition, as if such votes were not enough for the CBC to put themselves solidly in the corner of America's enemies, consider some other actions they have taken over the years:
* Cynthia McKinney blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks suggesting he had foreknowledge of the event.
* CBC members visiting Castro and applauding him for his rule, and receiving help from him in the form of Cuban medical training for inner city African-Americans.
* John Conyers and others prominently leading and speaking at major anti-war rallies, which were recently cited as a source for strength and applauded by none other than the man convicted in the Bali terrorist bombing.
* Charlie Rangel mourning the deaths of Saddam's sons and downplaying their importance in the war against Saddam Fedayeens in Iraq.
* All CBC members aligning themselves strongly with the communist inspired anti-war movement.
* Publicly contradicting President Bush on foreign policy and pursuing their own by backing Venzuelan communist dictator Hugo Chavez: Comandante Chavez's Friends
If these actions do not further the agenda of the enemies of America, what will?
If the CBC does not get political contributions from America's enemies, isn't it time for them to start getting a paycheck from the people they serve?
Conyers and Rangel, that's who. Damn it, these two would do everything Schumer and Kennedy would do, plus about a dozen other things that even Schumer and Kennedy would NOT do, such as associate with communist groups and praise Saddam's sons.
Shaking head in bewilderment.
Once you recover...
Be kind enough to point out exactly what "bewildered" you..
Rational observation of events and actions?
Semper Fi
As an American black, the whole thing.
The CBC doesn't speak for me.
2. The racist positions taken by the NAACP?
The NAACP is anathema to me.
3. The racist and anti-America [sic] positions taken by highly visable black politicians and leaders of black militant "religious" organizations?
I've said numerous times in my 2+ years on FR that American blacks are in a Marxist laboratory.
4. I could go on, but you get the drift...
I got the drift a while ago.
When will you start thinking of yourself as an American, and not an American black?
As stated on my profile page, I am American in the first degree. I mentioned my being an American black to give you a frame of reference for my bewilderment of your post which I initially responded. You said, and I quote, "One could make the argument, that Americans should be just as suspect of the blacks that by their silence and votes support the CBC..." Well, that's a sweeping statement, seeing as how there are American blacks this statement would make suspect, even though we haven't done anything wrong.
But I guess that just doesn't matter.
Blacks and Muslims? I guess I know where I stand with you...
Proverty pimping and welfare leaching blacks being championed by their race baiting CBC - and radical Islamists....
And of course, based on your measured opinion, most blacks are on welfare, right?
Easy to paint when you have a big, fat, broad brush, ain't it?
That is an uncalled for and unsupported generalization. Granted most (90%) of the blacks are in the court of the CBC, but we need to make an exception for those conservatives who have shaken off the grip of the Marxist leadership.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
FALSE STATEMENT. The majority of AFDC recipients are NOT white
From US Dept of Health & Human Services (Table 10, breakdown by race), we have:
TABLE 10 AFDC FAMILIES BY RACE OF NATURAL OR ADOPTIVE PARENT OCTOBER 1995 - SEPTEMBER 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE OF PARENT! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NATIVE UN- STATE FAMILIES WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN AMERICAN KNOWN ---------------- --------- ----- ----- -------- ----- -------- ----- U.S. TOTAL 4,553,308 35.9% 36.9% 20.8% 3.0% 1.4% 2.0%There are more black families on welfare than Whites, and Blacks plus Hispanics make up 57% of the total
What the LIEberals do is they add the Hispanic totals to the white totals when it suits their purposes, like when the FBI counts Hispanics as white when they are the purpetrators of crime, but Hispanic when they are the victims
In numbers maybe; in percentages, I don't think so!
Okay, let me get this straight.
Here you say you have blacks in your family. Wonderful.
But let's go back to what you said previously:
One could make the argument, that Americans should be just as suspect of the blacks that by their silence and votes support the CBC, as we should be of Muslims who by their silence or inaction, support the militant Islamists amongst them.
Now I have a question. Are you just as distrustful of your black family members (since they are black after all) as you would be of a black person like mhking or myself who don't fit your distrustful description? Remember, just looking at us you would not know what our politics are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.