Anti-patriotism 24 times greater among black Congress members

Last week, 11 House members voted “no” and 22 members voted “present” on a nonbinding resolution “expressing the support and appreciation of the nation for the president and the members of the armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” According to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, of those 33 Congressmen, 23 were black. There are 39 members of Black Congressional Caucus.

One arrives at an interesting index of race and patriotism. While 2.5 percent of non-black House members refused to endorse a simple expression of patriotism during time of war, the same was true of 59 percent of black House members. In other words, black representatives were 24 times more likely to refuse to support our armed forces than non-black representatives.

Oh the folly of those white colonists—the Wall Street Journal types of their time—who brought the African slaves here in the first place. Did they think they would remain slaves forever?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 23, 2003 12:28 AM | Send
    

Comments

Elsewhere on the cultural suicide front, an American soldier just killed one fellow servicemen and wounded 13 in a grenade attack in Kuwait. Fox News is reporting that the soldier is a Moslem on their televised broadcast; no link to that info on the web yet though.

Posted by: Matt on March 23, 2003 3:06 AM

Here is a link:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084723,00.html

Posted by: Paul Cella on March 23, 2003 3:30 AM

Mr. Auster’s resolution, specifically the part about expressing appreciation to the president, is a blast from the past. This kind of thing was real popular among Stalinist states during the cold war era. Expressing support for the troops is one thing, demanding unanimous appreciation for an elected politician and a reckless policy is another.

I will agree with Matt though, the attack within our army is indeed troubling.

Posted by: Mitchell Young on March 23, 2003 9:32 AM

Please do not take the above post as an endorsement of the Congressional Black Caucus’ position on anything. Also, I agree 100% with Mr. Auster’s last paragraph. But I would point out that a Mr. Auster in Britian or France might say, “Oh the folly of those imperialists. Did they think the colonials would stay out of the metropole forever?”

Posted by: Mitchell Young on March 23, 2003 9:43 AM

It’s been discussed and explicitly warned about before, such that any Western government with its head screwed-on frontwards would’ve acted by now:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001038.html#2601

“If war did break out between Iraq and a US-led coalition, one British Muslim in six is prepared to admit [according to a poll] that he or she would be cheering on the Iraqis - in other words, would want Britain and America to lose.” — from the Telegraph.co.uk article which is linked in the blog entry.

Who are the culprits who fight tooth-and-nail to keep sensible people from acting? Our WSJ friend, James Taranto, is right in the thick of that odious band of culprits and moral reprobates:

“The last time [www.Vdare.com editor and best-selling author of ‘Alien Nation,’ Peter] Brimelow, appeared on these pages, he was under fire from self-appointed thought-policeman James Taranto, who edits ‘The Wall Street Journal’s’ ‘Best of the Web’ blog at OpinionJournal.com. Taranto was then seeking to punish Brimelow for having the temerity to write a good review of a proscribed book — Michelle Malkin’s ‘Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and other Foreign Menaces To Our Shores.’ In accordance with Big Media tradition, Taranto hurled the obligatory, ritual charges of racism and bigotry at Brimelow. But he added a special post-9-11 twist, by publishing a link to Brimelow’s home address and phone number while at the same time accusing Brimelow of anti-Muslim bias — a pretty sure formula for inducing jihadist harassment or worse against Mr. Brimelow and his family, as any working journalist today who has published strong opinions on Muslim terror is painfully aware. Taranto later said he had linked to Brimelow’s address inadvertently. Fair enough. Yet he never did apologize for this supposed accident, which makes you wonder. For full details on this unseemly affair, go here and here.” — Richard Poe, writing in Poe’s Blog, here:

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog.php?theStartYear=2003&theStartMonth=2

See also Poe’s Blog here and here:

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=37

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=46

How, exactly, do brazen liars the likes of James Taranto proceed in their campaign to destroy America (other than by viciously seeking to personally harm editors and journalists for writing book reviews)? What, precisely, are (the rest of) their tactics? Here’s a damned good summary of their evil modus operandi, a summary we’re all too familiar with:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/000518.html




Posted by: Unadorned on March 23, 2003 10:59 AM

In my comment, above, the first link which I posted is wrong. It should be,

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001038.html

which is Jim Kalb’s VFR blog entry of Dec. 9th, entitled “Another Poll, This One of British Muslims.” To get the full impact of the blog entry, don’t stop with it, but click on the linked Telegraph.co.uk article, “Most UK Muslims Oppose War,” and read that eye-opening piece, a strong indictment of current UK (and all Western) immigration policy.

Posted by: Unadorned on March 23, 2003 11:10 AM

Sorry again! The first of the three Poe’s Blog links I gave was also wrong — it should have been this one:

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=111

(Haste makes waste — that’s what you get for rushing to post a comment while hurrying out the door to go somewhere! Sorry about that!)

Posted by: Unadorned on March 23, 2003 11:27 AM

Update on the treasonous attack on soldiers of the 101st Airborne last night: The killer was evidently an American black who coverted to Islam - whether it was the conventional “religion of peace” or the genocidal Nation of Islam cult is not clear at this time. I wonder if the Bush administration will have the courage to do what is needed here - namely, to court-martial the killer for treason and carry out the appropriate sentence of death in a timely fashion. With their limp-wristed record of dealing with traitors and terrorists so far (John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid) I am not very optimistic. In light of all this, Mr. Auster’s point about the dubious loyalty of a large segment of the native-born black population - along with the potential fifth-column threat posed by both the NOI and the large Muslim immigrant population - is brought into even greater relief.

Posted by: Carl on March 23, 2003 1:29 PM

Mr Auster writes:
“Oh the folly of those white colonists—the Wall Street Journal types of their time—who brought the African slaves here in the first place. Did they think they would remain slaves forever?”

Indeed, substitute “cheap foreign labor” for “African Slaves” and things really haven’t changed that much. In point of fact immigrant labor may be less expensive than a slave that one must house, feed, and otherwise support.

Posted by: Matt on March 23, 2003 3:34 PM

According to David Horowitz (usually a very reliable source), the traitor who carried out the grenade attack on his fellow soldiers of the 101st Airborne was a follower of the Ayatollah Farrakhan (e.g., the Nation of Islam). This fact is being covered up by the mainstream media entirely. Farrakhan visited Iraq last year and declared he would pray for Iraqi victory over US forces should they invade.

Posted by: Carl on March 25, 2003 2:06 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?





Email entry

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):