Douglas Olson’s Washington Report

A Medal for Negritude

Ninety-year-old Edward Brooke (R-MA) was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal on October 28, supposedly for being the first Negro elected by popular vote to the United States Senate. In truth, he was recognized for obtaining preferential treatment for his own people and laying the foundation for the sub-prime housing crash.

The bill making the award was authored by non-voting House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and passed by white renegades of both parties. A release from Norton’s office gushed that D.C.-born Brooke, “Although he served as Senator of Massachusetts, worked vigilantly for his hometown throughout his service. He called his Republican and Democrat friends in the Senate seeking support for full representation for his native town” — meaning, of course, supporting his race. Negroes who throw in their lot with the GOP today are derided by so-called “civil rights leaders” and the media alike as plain traitors to their race, but dusky infiltrators and seditionists of the 1960s are honored for their accomplishments.

As Massachusetts Attorney General, he supported enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the latter mandating today’s obscenely gerrymandered congressional districts and forbidding the reduction of minority voting strength. After election to the Senate in 1966, Brooke conspired with the execrable Walter Mondale (D-MN) and convinced other GOP members to abridge Americans’ property rights with the Orwellian-titled “Fair Housing” Act of 1968. He introduced and passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act — an essential tool used by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to create the sub-prime mortgage industry and a direct cause of the housing debacle of the past few years.

Plenty of white politicians are equally to blame for these anti-white disasters, but no one honors a traitor, least of all those who benefit from his treason. Only because of his negritude and his longevity was Brooke singled out from the congressional rat-pack for this extremely dubious distinction.

Justice — For the Moment

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a group of American Indians suing to invalidate the Washington Redskins football team’s trademark on its name, on the grounds that the term is “offensive” to them. The case began in 1992. The Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark in 1999, but was reversed by a federal court in 2003 because the plaintiffs waited too long to sue. (The trademark was issued in 1967.) That lawsuit is now over.

Another group of six young Indians filed a similar suit two years ago, which has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of this case. Their argument is that they should have standing to sue because they were not born in 1967, and all being between 18 and 24 now, this is their first chance to challenge the trademark.

If the courts accept this laughable contention, there are plenty of white 18-year-olds who should step forward to file suit over the Fourteenth Amendment, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Roe v. Wade, affirmative action and other longstanding anti-white outrages. They will certainly have more real damages to cite than the Indians’ mere hurt feelings.

. . . But They Can’t Take It

On the lighter side, a letter to the editor in D.C.’s Dupont Current neighborhood newspaper (November 18) declared the writer “outraged” about an earlier missive (unseen) from a Jim McGrath, who dared to criticize one Morton Bender’s proposal to use a local property he owns as a hotel.

McGrath’s “remarks about the applicant’s zoning proposal containing ‘a gallon of schmaltz’ and ‘a generous coating of chutzpah’ are tasteless and offensive,” declared the writer, who will remain nameless here, but who is obviously a Member of the Tribe. “Furthermore, Mr. McGrath’s metaphor of Mr. Bender as King Solomon (originally put forth by the chair of the neighborhood commission) is equally distasteful. References to Mr. Bender’s Jewish background have no place in public criticism of his business activities.”

Of course, calling a critic everything but an anti-Semite and a racist apparently is relevant to the public discussion. If it weren’t for double standards, these people would have no standards at all.