Sharpton and Jackson have crossed the line

Sharpton and Jackson have crossed the line

To the Editor:

The brazenness of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson is amazing. Radio talk-show host Don Imus has been suspended for two weeks for his remarks regarding the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

The remarks were ridiculous, and even if that is the way he really feels, he should have had sense enough not to say it on the air. That being noted, he still has the constitutional right to say it.

OAS_AD(‘300x250_1’); OAS_rn = ‘001234567890’; OAS_rns = ‘1234567890’; OAS_rn = new String (Math.random()); OAS_rns = OAS_rn.substring (2, 11); document.write(”); 

What is equally galling is that the most strident voices in the aftermath of Imus’ remarks are those of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Yes, the same Al Sharpton who took to the streets and the airwaves trying to railroad six white men for allegedly attacking Tawana Brawley, a young black woman who was unequivocally proven to be a liar.

Yes, the same Jesse Jackson who once called New York City “Hymietown,” which is a derogatory term for Jews. These two extortionists have no credibility whatsoever for the thinking man, and yet the media continues to champion their public shams.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are an affront to legitimate debate regarding race relations, free speech, or any other discussion of value in America. Any time there is a chance for shameless self-promotion, race-baiting and the bully pulpit, these two shysters come running.

Don Imus’ comments were irresponsible. Legitimizing phonies like Sharpton and Jackson in the rhetoric that follows is no less reckless.

Iran Ratchets Up War On U.S. ***With Update Including Suicide Bomb Video***


Is peace still possible with Al Sadr alive?

A suicide bomber killed at least two Sunni lawmakers at a Parliament cafeteria in Baghdad today.

Just days ago Al Sadr forced a demonstration calling for a U.S. abandonment of Iraq, which would leave him and his parner Achmedinejad to pillage as much of the country as they could. In the wake of this event, fresh streetbattles with Al Sadr’s militia have erupted in Baghdad. 4,000 of Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army soldiers were trained in Iran. They continue to be armed by Iran.

The jig is up: there can be no victory in Iraq as long as Al Sadr is alive. There can be no peace without fighting Iran back.

Keep in mind that the only reason why neither have been done so far is due to pressure from the Left. Their constant counsel against aggession constantly leads us to suffering, and can only lead ultimately to defeat. Every time we employ a “liberal” instinct in this war, we are set back. And I’m talking about the big picture of this war, not merely Iraq.


Major General William Caldwell

This morning the U.S. military offered further proof of Iran’s undeclared war on our country, and its ongoing slaughter of young Americans in Iraq. Note especially the details of Iran’s hi-tech, super IED bombings of our troops.


Interestingly, just before speculation started that the Parliament bomber was a Sunni, and therefor not likely connected to the U.S. Democratic party’s military wing, the country of Iran, the U.S. military issued a statement that it’s intelligence indicated that Iran was indeed arming Sunnis as well. This would indicate that Iran understands that all that is needed to arm their allies in the Democratic Party is overall chaos in Iraq.


From the wires:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Iraqi militia fighters are being trained in Iran to build and use deadly armor-piercing roadside bombs and complex attack strategies against American forces, a U.S. general said in a new presentation of evidence of Iranian meddling.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said interrogations of fighters captured as recently as this month confirmed many had been in Iranian training camps.
“They do receive training on how to assemble and employ EFPs,” Caldwell said. EFPs – explosively formed penetrators – can penetrate armored vehicles with fist-size lumps of molten copper. U.S. officials say EFPs have killed at least 170 U.S. soldiers.
“We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees’ debriefs,” Caldwell said.
He would not say which arm of the Iranian government was doing the training but called the instructors “surrogates” of Iran’s intelligence agency. He said the U.S. military has evidence Iranian agents are active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters. He showed photographs of what he said were Iranian-made mortar rounds, RPG rounds and rockets found in Iraq.
Commanders of a splinter group inside rogue cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army have told TheAssociated Press up to 4,000 militia members were trained in Iran and have stockpiles of EFPs. Al-Sadr is believed to be hiding in Iran. The Mahdi Army commanders said Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard is running the training operation.


Posted by Pat Dollard 21 Comments

Salafist Islam spawns Islamic terrorism

Salafist Islam spawns Islamic terrorism
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
At the very roots of the violence is an ideological interpretation of the Koran, rather than mere reactions to Western aggressions. The time has come for Muslims to react to this blind and childish style of religion. The first in a series of lessons on Islamism. Beirut (AsiaNews) – The bloody attacks on Algiers, along with Morocco’s’ suicide bombers once again show that Islamic fundamentalist violence is born of violence within Islam itself.  This is contrary to what some Western observers would have us believe, that it is a reaction to “western aggressions”.  The root cause lies within a certain current in Muslim thought.  

Islamic terrorism is caused by Islamism that is a certain mode of reading the Koran and Sunnah, which has become widespread in Muslim schools and Universities, such as Cairo’s Al-Azhar.  Islamic terrorism – particularly in the Sunni world – is caused by Salafism, in short a blind attachment to the tradition of the Ancients, to who preceded us (Salaf), a literal and rigid reading, without life and without soul. 

Terrorism is nota n Islamic disease: it is merely the manifestation of a far more deeply rooted illness, of a certain way to interpret life and the Islamic religion.  As a result, terrorism cannot be fought by force alone, but must be countered with a culture that promotes a more open interpretation of the Koran.

Ideological and Islamic terrorism

Islamic terrorism is neither gratuitous nor brutal violence, it is a religious ideology.  It is seen as a sacred duty, the concrete application of divine will, as clearly expressed in certain excerpts of the Koran and in some of the practices and sayings of Islam’s Prophet.

Terrorists and Islamists consider the majority of Muslims who do not agree with this point of view to be hypocrites  (munâfiqûn), as God himself defines them in the Koran, thus they are not worthy of to be called Muslims. 

And the Muslim states?  They are not Islamic, but a caricature of Islam: their hypocrisy is far greater, because they founded their constitutions on western standards (which is for the most part true) merely adding Muslim elements.  In doing so they have “deceived” their people.  They are worse still than the Western States and governments who at least do not deceive Muslims! 

These are the type of Islamists we see every day on the streets of Muslim countries.  The Algerian Salafists, the Afghan Taliban make up a small part of this giant spider’s web, which spawns terror far beyond the Middle East:  in Pakistan, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia … and tomorrow in Europe.  My intention is not to alarm.  I only wish to underline that the web spreads by its very nature where it finds fertile ground.

The relationship between Islamism and Salafism

It is essential that the intrinsic link between Islamism and Salafism is understood, as well as the difference which separates them.   

Salafist thought is rooted in the Koran and the Sunnah, in other words it finds its justification and elaborates its thoughts and way of life within these texts.   Salafist thought was not borne of this century, but goes far back to the early years of Islam.  This tradition is one of the most interpretative of the Koran and Sunnah.

The Islamist current basis itself on the Salafist interpretation of Islam and it radicalizes it, turning it into a concrete application, through intense propaganda and presenting it as authentic Islam.  It renders Salafism extreme, by prescribing precise rules applied to the actions of daily living.   

For example it regulates eating and fasting habits, they way to dress and pray according to a series of  purification rituals; it indicates how Muslims should relate with others (according to whether they are men or women, Muslim or non Muslim etc..), in the choice of profession and how to exercise it, in the use of money and how to invest it, in sex (how, when and with who it can be done) as with marriage: in short an unending list of every day gestures.  Islamism penetrates everything and leaves little space to human freedom or personal choice.   

 Fatwa and puerile terrorism

A characteristic consequence of this concept of Islam is the widespread social phenomenon of the fatwa. In this picture, the Muslim believer feels ignored by his religion, incapable of discerning right from wrong, of choosing between “Islamic good” and evil.  He is afraid of becoming a bad Muslim such as those who surround him, all because the Islamists have nurtured the idea within the believer that he is the only true Muslim.   Thus, for any given reason the believer turns to the ulema, asking for a fatwa.

In Egypt this phenomenon has arrived at an extreme: hundreds of thousands of fatwa’s are issued each year, often for nothing.  Fatwa’s can be requested via specialized telephones, or by direct request to the Mufti’s, or even by internet, television and radio.  This results in reducing the faith  and the faithful to a childish, puerile state; making the Muslim believer totally dependent and robbing him of the ability to take on an adult responsibility for his religious or spiritual life.

Islamist thought forms people who have renounced their right to think or make personal judgements, to blindly follow teachings of those who indoctrinate them.  It reduces the believer to the state of a docile follower, incapable of critical thought.  In the end this docile follower can easily become a terrorist: he only needs to be convinced that what he is about to do is a religious duty, which pleases God and will save the Islamic community (ummah).

It is important not to confuse or identify Islam with Islamism, but is also necessary that we push Muslims to reject Islamism as an alteration of authentic Islam and to fight against this spreading tendency.  Western society must defend Muslims from Islamism.  For this reason, giving even minimal credence to the demands of the Islamists is a regression which only serves to open new terrorist fronts. 

Terror-sponsoring Syria takes comfort from Dems

Terror-sponsoring Syria takes comfort from Dems

Ray Robison
Speaker Pelosi claimed that her trip to Syria would “establish facts, to hopefully build the confidence” between the U.S. and Syria.

Everyone in the Department of State, Defense, and CIA should take note of the ‘no-confidence vote’ that the Speaker just registered with them  regarding their ability to “establish facts”. Apparently only Speaker Pelosi can do so.
Her trip to Syria appears to have indeed built the confidence of Syria as indicated in this article from the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency:

Washington, (SANA)- Democratic Member of the US. House of Representatives and Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affaires Tom Lantos has underlined that Syria vehemently believes in the dialogue in its relations with the US and in dealing with the issues.
In an interview on Tuesday, Lantos described the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Damascus as important to open dialogue channels with it as saying:  “The visit expressed in a  marvelous way interests of the US, that led to embarrassment of the current US administration  which has closed doors for dialogue with Syria.” [emphasis added]
“President Bashar al-Assad strongly encourages the continuation of the Syrian-American dialogue,” Lantos added.
Lantos expressed desire to visit Damascus once more and that he will not comply with the policy of the US President George W. Bush regarding it.

That’s right. Congressman Lantos appears to have bragged to Syrian media that he embarrassed the President of the United States (unless the article is a complete lie which I frankly hope so). Congressman Lantos then went on to defend the Syrian President and committed in no uncertain terms one of the most egregious acts of appeasement to a State Sponsor of Terror that our nation has ever witnessed.
The word treason floats to mind, although I never invoke it for politics and will not here, but this is getting close…very…close. At the very least the Democrat put himself into a position to be used as a propaganda tool by the Syrians.
Maybe we should help establish some facts about Syria for the Democratic leadership. According to the Department of State, Syria was declared a State Sponsor of Terror back in 1979 (under the Carter Administration) the oldest member of an exclusive club that was recently reduced by one member.
Of course, any Department of State data from 2001 on would be considered tainted to the liberal masses, so let’s start at the data presented by the Clinton Administration. The 2000 State Department Report on the Patterns of Global Terrorism said:

Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist groups, some of which maintained training camps or other facilities on Syrian territory….
The Syrian Government allowed HAMAS to open a new main office in Damascus in March, although the arrangement may be temporary while HAMAS continues to seek permission to reestablish its headquarters in Jordan.  

Syria was a state sponsor of Hamas according to the 2000 State Department report. Now that our liberal friends can’t complain that President Bush made it up (but of course they will) here is an excerpt from the latest 2006 state report:

The Syrian Government continued to provide political and material support to both Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups. HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), among others, base their external leadership in Damascus.

Syria supports Hamas still. Yet the 2006 report is a bit more generous to the Syrians than Clinton’s version:

During the past seven years there have been no acts of terrorism against American citizens in Syria. Damascus has repeatedly assured the United States that it will take every possible measure to protect U.S. citizens and facilities in Syria.

In the past, Damascus cooperated with the United States and other foreign governments against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations and individuals. In May, however, the Syrian Government ended intelligence cooperation, citing continued U.S. public complaints about the inadequate level of Syria’s assistance to end the flow of fighters and money to Iraq.

The 2006 State report is even in its assessment citing some cooperation. But the bottom line is Syria still allows Islamic terrorists into Iraq and still provides a safehaven  for former Saddam regime leaders who now lead the Sunni insurgency.
Perhaps the Speaker can explain why the Democrats are bashing the President to the Syrian government which sponsors Hamas that at the very least has the intent to kill US troops in Iraq. A captured memo from the Iraqi Intelligence Service shows that the Hamas leader, Khaled Mashal well known to operate in Damascus under the protection of the Syrian government was begging Saddam for permission to send Palestinian Islamic terrorists into Iraq to conduct suicide bombings against American troops. Our Democratic leadership just went to Syria to meet with that same government and then bragged to them about embarrassing the President of the United States.
On a side note, the memorandum also makes clear that Hamas had a liaison living in Baghdad where Hamas “students” were being trained. If you read the article Cheney is Absolutely Correct you might remember that I stated there are many Islamic terror groups whose leaders were Palestinians living in Kuwait before Saddam’s invasion. These Palestinians were kicked out for collaborating with Saddam by the government of Kuwait upon its liberation. Mashal is yet another example of one of those Palestinians who just happened to leave Kuwait after collaborating with the Iraqi government and would soon become an Islamic terrorism mastermind. Wonder where he got the backing to rise to the leadership of Hamas so quickly?
Just as the Democratic leadership proclaimed after the Saddam regime was toppled that it didn’t support Islamic terrorism, they now want to “establish facts” by showing that they trust the Syrian government more than our own President. While separating Syria from Iran would indeed be a brilliant strategic move and is a worthy goal, appeasement is not a price American’s are willing to pay. Lantos should stay home and try harassing this country’s enemies for a change.

How stupid is this?

Clarice Feldman
Robert Novak reports in detail that the CIA doesn’t seem to know even now what Plame’s status was at the agency. How dumb is that?

DCI Heyden told Novak and others Plame was “undercover”, not covert. He told Waxman she was “undercover”. An attorney at the CIA apparently changed that to “covert”. The explanation is that all agency employees are all either “undercover or covert”. Novak continues:

The CIA gave me a lot more than either Toensing or Hoekstra received. Toensing’s letter to Hayden[to state whether or not Plame was covert within the meaning of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act] has gone unanswered. On March 21, Hoekstra again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson’s status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA’s director of congressional affairs, said only that “it is taking longer than expected” to reply because of “the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking.”
Mike Hayden was brought into the CIA as an intelligence professional when President Bush fired Porter Goss, who had retired from Congress to go to Langley at the president’s request. Goss thought he had a mandate to clean up an agency whose senior officials delivered private anti-Bush briefings during the 2004 campaign. The confusion over Valerie Plame’s status suggests the CIA gave Waxman what he wanted, even if the director of central intelligence seemed confused.

It suggests to me the agency is seriously misnamed.

Why the rise of Islamism?

Why the rise of Islamism?

By Daniel Mandel

According to the Hoover Institution’s Dinesh D’Souza in his new book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, the Western radical left has so repelled Muslims with its secularity, impiety and license that it, rather than gruesome Islamist imperial ambition, is a primary cause of Muslim rage and terror against America.
The left ought to be indignant, but a peculiar aspect of this controversy, little remarked upon, is that D’Souza’s liberal critics, for reasons best known to themselves, are missing in action. True, Alan Wolfe wrote a review for the New York Times , but his is an exception. Andrew Sullivan’s long review in the New Republic is a late-comer and seems more anxious to prove that D’Souza’s views are mainstream conservative (a perusal of the pages of this publication or National Review Online decisively refutes this thesis) rather than simply wrong. It has been left largely to conservatives to rebut D’Souza in detail.
D’Souza acknowledges that he “is making a strong charge, one that no one has made before.” In doing so, however, he has been obliged to charm away some alarming facts and doctrines and it is instructive to watch the exorcist at work. This is especially evident in his treatment of Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual inspiration of Al-Qaeda’s Islamism, whose works D’Souza has read and acknowledged as central to Islamist thinking.
From Qutb’s clear assertions rejecting the secular state and affirming the supremacy of Islamic sharia law, with its drastic restrictions on non-Muslim minorities, women and free expression, D’Souza gleans a previously undetectable commitment to democracy.
From Qutb’s plain assertions reiterating centuries-old doctrines of Islamic supremacy, D’Souza contends that an imperialist strain in Islam disappeared (for reasons not disclosed) in the fifteenth century.
From Qutb’s plain assertions intolerant of social mixing of the sexes based, not on his having fraternized with revelers at Woodstock, but on having attended a church social in 1949, D’Souza awards Qutb points for a moral sensibility sorely missed in the 21st century.
The left “has a measure of responsibility” (to use D’Souza’s own circumspect phrase) for many things, but church socials in the 1940s are not among them.
In rightly insisting that Western vices are self-evidently offensive to Islamists, D’Souza wrongly surmises that Western virtues are not equally so. Yet it is clear that Western freedoms minus the license that can come with them is equally unacceptable to Islamists. Qutb’s church social is but one index of the fact. Indeed, some of D’Souza’s critics have pointed out Islamism’s long-standing detestation of Western mores, but D’Souza declines to address it. Instead, he merely insists that Islamism only started making inroads across the Muslim world due to Western permissiveness rearing its head. Perhaps it is his refusal to recognize the historical connection of Western totalitarian movements and radical Islam that has led him to confuse concurrence with cause, but the connection is easily established.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan Al-Banna, an admirer of Italian and German fascism who corresponded with Hitler. It was the Brotherhood that attracted Qutb, whose intellectual leader he became, and who in turn exerted his considerable influence upon its growing followers. In the 1950s and 1960s, this was extended to Saudi Arabia and beyond by his many exiled comrades, including his brother Mohammad, who disseminated Qutb’s ideas widely. One of his pupils was Ayman Zawahiri, now Bin Laden’s second-in-command. Is it credible that these ideas had their impact on someone in Saudi Arabia like Zawahiri because Western permissiveness was getting into full swing in North America?
Beyond precise historical links, D’Souza also misses the hallmarks of totalitarianism writ large in Islamism. Like fascists and communists, Islamists pursue a utopian re-ordering of the world; exhibit a willingness to use unbridled violence and terror to bring it about; and anchor their justification for the consequent barbarism in immutable, iron laws. All three have claimed to know where history is or should be headed and decreed the complete obliteration of all opponents – whether whole classes, peoples or states – as the necessary and beneficent prelude to an epoch of orderliness and justice. These ideas can have mass appeal in societies that are old, established – and failing.
One wonders how D’Souza missed all this. But then conservatives and liberals alike were once oblivious to the seductive appeal of fascism and communism and refused to face them on their own terms. Instead, they accounted for their drawing power by reference to socio-economic grievances leveled at the democracies – a condescension reprised by D’Souza today in respect of Islamism. Such blindness did not equip the world for dealing with Nazism and it will do as little to equip Americans in this war.
How dubiously meritorious is D’Souza’s thesis can be gauged by the two claims he has made for its importance. The one – that he is exposing the radical left seeking to prioritize defeating Bush at home over defeating Bin Laden abroad – scarcely requires an error-ridden thesis on the nature of Islamism. The other – that it will be taken seriously because he is a serious scholar – suggests a unique susceptibility to instruction on the part of congressional Democrats and liberals on the views of a conservative intellectual at the Hoover Institution.
Daniel Mandel is a Fellow in History at Melbourne University and author of H. V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist (Routledge, London, 2004). His blog can be found on the History News Network.

Michael Savage: Sharpton’s a ‘Bum,’ Keep Imus

Michael Savage: Sharpton’s a ‘Bum,’ Keep Imus
April 11, 2007 2:27 P.M.

Calling Rev. Al Sharpton a “street bum,” megatalk show host Michael Savage said Sharpton is guilty of his own racism and shouldn’t judge radio and TV host Don Imus.

In a statement given exclusively to, Savage asked if the so-called “reverend” was really serious in “calling the kettle black.”

“Which Sharpton is it calling for Imus’s firing?” he asked. “The “reverend’ Sharpton [we cannot locate the church where he holds regular services, nor find out where he was ordained] or the talk-show host Sharpton calling for the firing of a competitor to his zero-rated radio ‘show’?”

“Does nobody in the media remember the Al Sharpton-Tawana Brawley hoax?” Savage asked. “Or the Crown Heights [New York] riots where rabbinical student Yankel Rosenblum was stabbed to death by a black mob? Or, the Freddie’s Fashion Mart mob in Harlem that was told to ‘boycott that Jew store’ by activists, resulting in four innocent people being shot to death (all Hispanic workers) and the building set on fire.”

“Why” asked Savage, “is the media asking this street bum, Sharpton about racism?”

Turning to Don Imus, Sharpton’s target, Savage said that Imus, “has no ratings, is a has been, and to me, is an ancient cracker whose veneer has worn off.”

Recalling that he himself had been fired by what he called “the MSNBC empty suits without any chance of redemption,” he said that the only reason Imus is being given a second chance “by the empty suit Phil Griffin [NBC corporate executive] is because he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.”

In spite of his expressed contempt for Imus, however, Savage said Imus should be kept on.

“Do I think he should be fired?” he said. “Absolutely not. Let the audience decide.”

Savage added: “Last word, don’t liberals believe in redemption? They oppose the death penalty, and tell us even murderers can be reformed. Yet, when it came to Michael Savage, they gave me the ‘death penalty’ by demanding MSNBC execute me from their geography – television.”

Copyright 2003-2006 : DiscoverTh

The Culture of ‘Bitches, Hos, and Niggas’

The Culture of ‘Bitches, Hos, and Niggas’

By Michelle Malkin | Let’s stipulate: I have no love for Don Imus, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. A pox on all their race-baiting houses.
Let’s also stipulate: The Rutgers women’s basketball team didn’t deserve to be disrespected as “nappy-headed hos.” No woman deserves that. I agree with the athletes that Imus’s misogynist mockery was “deplorable, despicable and unconscionable.” And as I noted on Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor” this week, I believe top public officials and journalists who have appeared on Imus’s show should take responsibility for enabling Imus — and should disavow his longstanding invective.
But let’s take a breath now and look around. Is the Sharpton & Jackson Circus truly committed to cleaning up cultural pollution that demeans women and perpetuates racial epithets? Have you seen the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks chart this week?
The No. 1 rap track is by a new sensation who goes by the name of “Mims.” The “song” is “This Is Why I’m Hot.” It has topped the charts for the last 15 weeks. Here’s a taste of the lyrics that young men and women are cranking up in their cars:

This is why I’m hot
Catch me on the block
Every other day
Another bitch another drop
16 bars, 24 pop
44 songs, nigga gimme what you got . . .
. . . We into big spinners
See my pimping never dragged
Find me wit’ different women that you niggas never had
For those who say they know me know I’m focused on ma cream
Player you come between you’d better focus on the beam
I keep it so mean the way you see me lean
And when I say I’m hot my nigga dis is what I mean

Let’s move down the Billboard list, shall we? The No. 2 rap track in the nation this week is by rappers Bow Wow and R. Kelly (yes, the same R. Kelly who was indicted five years ago on a raft of child-porn charges and is still awaiting trial). The “song” is called “I’m a Flirt,” and it’s been on the charts for 12 weeks:

Ima b pimpin
I don’t be slippin
When it come down to these hos
I don’t love em
We don’t cuff em
Man that’s just the way it goes
I pull up in the Phantom
All the ladies think handsome
Jewelry shining, I stay stuntin’
That’s why these niggas can’t stand em
Ima chick mag-a-net
And anything fine I’m bag-gin it
And if she got a man, I don’t care
10 toes and I wanna be, cause I gotta have it

The final line:

Now the moral of the story is cuff yo chick, ’cause hey,
I’m black, fresh, and I rap, plus I’m rich, and I’m a flirt.

Al Sharpton, I am sure, is ready to call a press conference with the National Organization for Women to jointly protest this garbage and the radio stations and big pimpin’ music companies behind it.

Or perhaps the New Civility Squad is not convinced yet that the Billboard chart toppers I’ve highlighted are representative? Let’s proceed to No. 3 on the Billboard rap charts this week (and on the charts for the past 13 weeks): “Go Getta” by a rapper named “Young Jeezy” with a special appearance by R. Kelly (again!). Here’s the “chorus”:

You know we trap all day
Play all night
Dis Is Da Life Of A Go Getta (Ey) Go Getta (Ey) Go Getta (Yea)
U In Da Club
U C A Bad Bitch
Point Her Out (Oh)
Yea U Damn Right Ima (Ey)
You Damn Right Ima Go Getta (Ey) Go Getta (Ey) Go Getta (Yea)

The No. 4 song on the Billboard Rap Tracks charts is “Throw Some D’s” by “Rich Boy featuring Polow Da Don.” (It’s been on the charts for 18 weeks.) Here’s the chorus:

Rich Boy sellin’ crack
F—k niggas wanna jack
Sh-t tight no slack
Just bought a Cadillac (Throw some D’s on that bitch!)
Just bought a Cadillac (Throw some D’s on that bitch!)
Just bought a Cadillac

The lyrical rap poet known as “Unk” has the No. 5 spot with “2 Step.” On the charts for nine weeks, here’s a taste of his dope rhyme:

I See You Got It Right
Beat My Wrist Ice
Colder Than A Bud Light
Now I’m a Take My Time
Where The Gangsters At
And You Can Still Post The Wall Nigga Holla Back
Grey Goose And Yak
Blunt Filled With Kush
I’m Getting Jiggy With It
Smoking On That George Bush

And at No. 6 is “Rock Your Hips” by “Crime Mob.” Here’s the non-obscene part:

She rock her hips
She rock her hips
I like that way
She rock her hips
She rock her hips
I like the way
She rock her hips

But you can’t have a hit without the n-word, of course:

Now I got 32 flavors of that bootylicious bubblegum
Raspberry, grape, cherry,
Come and get this honey bun
Yummy-yum baby, not your ordinary lady
Known to drive the niggas crazy

One dumb radio/television shock jock’s insult is a drop in the ocean of barbaric filth and anti-female hatred on the radio.

Imus gets a two-week suspension. What kind of relief do we get from this deadening, coarsening, dehumanizing barrage from young, black rappers and their music industry enablers who have helped turn America into Tourette’s Nation?

Copyright 2003-2006 : DiscoverTheNetwork.

The Nine Lives of Al Sharpton

The Nine Lives of Al Sharpton
By John Perazzo | April 12, 2007

By now everyone knows about the recent idiotic remarks that longtime broadcaster Don Imus made last week about some black members of the

University women’s basketball team, to whom he referred as “nappy-headed hos.” Imus’ words require no comment; their stupidity is clear to all.

What is not at all clear, however, is why Al Sharpton has become Imus’ de facto confessor in this case. On Monday, the shock jock contritely appeared on Sharpton’s radio program and apologized for his stupid statements. Sharpton, for his part, slid into his customary moral preening routine and denounced Imus’ comments of last week as “racist” and “abominable,” adding that the broadcaster “should be fired” for what he had said. “I accept his apology,” Sharpton later elaborated, “just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation.” Moreover, Sharpton vowed to picket Imus’
New York
radio home, WFAN-AM, unless the broadcaster was fired within a week for having “use[d] the airwaves for sexist and racist remarks.”

When one considers the multitude of hurtful, malicious, deceitful things Al Sharpton himself has said and done over the years—chiefly for the purpose of justifying his own existence as a proverbial shepherd dutifully shielding black Americans from the white racist wolves that supposedly surround them all times—it is beyond incredible not only that he hosts his own radio program, but that anyone on earth should take seriously anything he has to say.

Sharpton’s career as a public liar and racial arsonist began in earnest two decades ago when he injected himself into the case of 16-year-old Tawana Brawley, who in November 1987 claimed that she had been repeatedly raped and sodomized for four days by six white kidnappers, at least one of whom was wearing a police badge. She further alleged that her assailants had chopped off some of her hair, forced her to perform oral sex on them, urinated into her mouth, smeared her clothing with feces, and covered her chest with racial slurs before finally depositing her in a wooded area of

Falls, a town in
Dutchess County, New York
. It was among the most disturbing tales in living memory.

Al Sharpton quickly assumed the role of special adviser to Miss Brawley and thereafter worked closely with the girl’s attorneys, C. Vernon Mason (who, later in his career, would be convicted of 66 counts of professional misconduct and disbarred from the legal profession) and Alton Maddox (who has publicly expressed his profound hatred for white people). Lamenting that their client had fallen prey to “certain elements that have constantly antagonized the black community, including the Ku Klux Klan and law-enforcement personnel,” Sharpton and the Brawley lawyers demanded that New York Governor Mario Cuomo appoint a special prosecutor to the case and publicly charged that “high-level” local law enforcement officials were involved in the crime—an allegation that led to numerous death threats against members of the Dutchess County police department. Sharpton further demanded that New York Attorney General Robert Abrams be removed from the case because of an alleged “relationship” between Abrams and the Dutchess County sheriff who was, according to Sharpton, “a suspect in this case.”  Sharpton insisted that there was “absolutely no way” that his client would talk to Abrams. “That’s like asking someone who watched someone killed in the gas chamber to sit down with Mr. Hitler,” he said.

So the case dragged on, week after week, with Brawley refusing to speak to even a single investigator—ostensibly because she feared that as an African American she would be unable to get a fair hearing.  

Then at a March 1988 news conference, Sharpton and the attorneys fingered Stephen Pagones,

’s assistant district attorney, as one of their client’s attackers. Further accusing district attorney William Grady of trying to cover up Pagones’ involvement in the crime, they demanded that Governor Cuomo immediately arrest the two “suspects.” When asked what evidence they could provide to substantiate their charges, Sharpton and his cohorts were evasive, saying only that they would reveal the facts when the time was right. 

Three months later something very important happened: a Sharpton aide named Perry McKinnon stepped forward to make a remarkable series of disclosures. A former police officer, private investigator, and director of security at a

, McKinnon revealed that “Sharpton acknowledged to me early on that ‘The [Brawley] story do sound like bull—t, but it don’t matter. We’re building a movement. This is the perfect issue. Because you’ve got whites on blacks. That’s an easy way to stir up all the deprived people, who would want to believe and who would believe—and all [you’ve] got to do is convince them—that all white people are bad.  Then you’ve got a movement.” Explaining that Sharpton was methodically “building an atmosphere” for a race war, McKinnon continued: “Sharpton told me it don’t matter whether any whites did it or not. Something happened to her…even if Tawana done it to herself.” To prove his truthfulness, McKinnon submitted to a lie detector test administered on camera and passed all questions. 

In the autumn of 1988, after conducting an exhaustive review of the facts, a grand jury released its report showing beyond any doubt that the entire Tawana Brawley story had been fabricated, and that at least $1 million of
New York
taxpayers’ money had been spent to investigate a colossal hoax.

Sharpton, however, would concede nothing. He continued to reiterate his claim that Brawley had been brutalized by a gang of whites. In February 1989, he told a Spin magazine interviewer, without the barest shred of proof, that Stephen Pagones had privately confessed to the crime. Sharpton further asserted, falsely, that Brawley’s gang-rape allegations had been confirmed by medical tests whose results were—conveniently—in C. Vernon Mason’s exclusive possession. And finally, for good measure, he lamented that Miss Brawley had tragically fallen prey to a barbaric “white supremist [sic] cult ritual.”

When Pagones sued Sharpton for defamation of character in 1997, the latter portrayed himself as a wrongly persecuted man of honor who, mysteriously, could “no longer recall” having made a number of his slanderous accusations against Pagones and other law-enforcement officials years earlier. When asked whether he had made even the slightest attempt to verify Brawley’s allegations about Pagones before going public with them, Sharpton self-righteously retorted, “I would not engage in sex talk with a 15-year-old girl.”

Pagones won a court judgment against Sharpton for $345,000, which Sharpton never paid. Moreover, during the decade prior to Pagones’ long-awaited vindication in court, the former prosecutor had suffered constant stress and anxiety (exacerbated by numerous death threats from Sharpton’s credulous followers) that contributed heavily to the devastating dissolution of Pagones’ marriage and the virtual ruin of his life.

In comparison to what Sharpton did, Don Imus’ recent transgression seems rather minor, doesn’t it? And unlike Imus, Sharpton has never—in twenty yearshad the courage or the decency to acknowledge what he did and to apologize for it. Never.

But the Brawley hoax was merely one of the early chapters in Sharpton’s long career as a peddler of racial grievance. Consider his response to the 1989 case of a white female jogger who was raped and beaten nearly to death in
New York’s
Central Park by a gang of at least 30 black and Hispanic teenagers who later acknowledged that they had specifically set out to target a white woman. Fracturing her skull with a lead pipe and mutilating her face with a brick, the assailants left the woman for dead. She lost three quarters of her blood in the attack and was so badly mangled that even her boyfriend was able to recognize her only by a familiar ring on her finger. When investigators later asked one of the attackers why he had tried to smash the victim skull, he candidly replied, “It was fun.” A multiracial jury convicted several of the defendants on the basis of their own confessions. But Sharpton, who served as an adviser to the boys’ families, said the defendants had been framed by a racist justice system. At one point during the trial, he escorted Tawana Brawley into the courtroom in an attempt to illustrate the alleged inequities of that system. “Those boys aren’t guilty for what happened to the jogger,” Sharpton said. “This is just like the old Scottsboro Boys case.”


Sharpton smelled more blood in 1991, when anti-Semitic riots in

Heights section erupted after a seven-year old black child named Gavin Cato was accidentally killed by a car driven by a Hasidic Jew. Neighborhood residents were enraged by the boy’s death, and within three hours a black mob had murdered an innocent rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, in retribution. At Gavin Cato’s funeral, Sharpton criticized the Jewish community and thereafter organized a series of massive, angry demonstrations. He declared that Cato’s death was not merely the result of a car accident, but rather “the social accident of apartheid.” The contentious activist then challenged local Jews
who he derisively characterized as “diamond merchants”to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” to settle the score. Finally he claimed, without proof, that the Jewish driver had run over the Cato child while in a drunken stupor.

Stirred in part by such rhetoric and false accusations, hundreds of

Heights blacks took violently to the streets, pelting Jewish homes with rocks, setting vehicles on fire, and shouting “Jew! Jew!” The riots continued for three days and nights. Sharpton’s response: “We must not reprimand our children for outrage, when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system.” Five days after the original car accident that had triggered the violence, Sharpton led 400 shouting protesters through the heart of the Crown Heights Jewish community, shouting “No justice, no peace!” The relentless Sharpton even traveled to
to search for the driver who had run over Gavin Cato. When angry Israeli onlookers taunted Sharpton with shouts of “Go to hell,” he replied: “I am in hell!”

In 1995, Sharpton led his National Action Network in an ugly boycott against Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned business in
Harlem, New York.
The boycott started when Freddy’s owners announced that because they wanted to expand their own business, they would no longer sublet part of their store to a black-owned record shop. The street leader of the boycott, Morris Powell, was the head of Sharpton’s “Buy Black” Committee. Repeatedly referring to the Jewish proprietors of Freddy’s as “crackers,” Powell and his fellow protesters menacingly told passersby, “Keep [going] right on past Freddy’s, he’s one of the greedy Jew bastards killing our [black] people. Don’t give the Jew a dime.”

All of this occurred under the watchful, approving eye of Sharpton, who provided some additional sound bites for the media: “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street…There is a systematic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business on 125th Street….[O]ne of our brothers…is now being threatened.” Sharpton exhorted blacks to join “the struggle brother Powell and I are engaged in.” The subsequent picketing became increasingly violent in tone until one of the protesters eventually shot four whites inside the store and then set the building on firekilling seven employees, most of whom were Hispanics.

One wonders why Al Sharpton’s apparently delicate sensibilities—as evidenced by his current snit over Imus’ comments—were undisturbed by the incessant, ugly rhetoric that accompanied the Freddy’s boycott. Equally inexplicable is how someone with Sharpton’s professed abhorrence for racial insensitivity could have spent so many years as a strong supporter of the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, whose vulgar diatribes against whites were too incendiary for even Louis Farrakhan to condone.


Perhaps you remember Mr. Muhammad, who publicly referred to Jews as “slumlords in the black community” who are busy “sucking our [black’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; who said that Jews had provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; who said that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill the women,…kill the children,…kill the babies,…kill the blind,…kill the crippled,…kill the faggot,…kill the lesbian,…kill them all”; who praised Colin Ferguson, a black man who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters (killing six of them) in a racially motivated 1993 shooting spree aboard a New York commuter train, as a hero who possessed the courage to “just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw”; who advised blacks that “[t]here are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes”; who told a Donahue television audience in May 1994 that “[t]here is a little bit of Hitler in all white people”; and who characterized black conservatives as “boot-licking, butt-licking, bamboozled, half-baked, half-fried, sissified, punkified, pasteurized, homogenized Nigger[s].”  

Perhaps you think that an individual who could utter such filth must be a hollow-headed racist. Well, Al Sharpton did not think so, not by any means. In fact, Sharpton actually lauded Muhammad for being nothing less than “a very articulate and courageous brother.”

 But such an evaluation makes perfect sense for someone who, like Sharpton, loathes white people and considers them the scourge of humanity. In December 1998, for instance, Sharpton hosted an AIDS forum in
which featured a dozen guest speakers, all but one of whom professed to believe that the disease had actually been engineered by white racists as a tool for genocide against blacks.

At another public event, Sharpton declared: “White folks was in caves while we was building empires…We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Yet today Al Sharpton casts himself as a moral arbiter qualified to pass judgment on the words and actions of an aging broadcaster who recently uttered some stupid remarks that are no more offensive or insipid than a thousand other things he has said during his long radio career. Sharpton contends that Imus no longer has a moral right to hold a job in the industry where he has worked for more than four decades. But if Imus is unfit to be a broadcaster, by what calculus could anyone conclude that Sharpton himself merits a job behind a microphone? The episodes discussed in this article barely scratch the surface of what Sharpton has done to poison race relations for more than 20 years.

If Imus deserves to be fired, clearly, so does Sharpton. 

Crisis of the Republic

April 12, 2007

Crisis of the Republic

(Note to Jihad Watchers: I wrote this a few weeks ago and thought I would reproduce it here for comments.)

by Gregory M. Davis

We learn today that the FBI and DHS have been handing out bulletins to law enforcement across the country warning that jihadists may be targeting US schools. Terrorism analyst Lt Col Steve Grossman recently warned that the US is vulnerable to a Beslan-style attack. Beslan, you will recall, is the southern Russian city where in 2004 Muslim jihadists took over a school and killed 332 people, 178 of them children. “The enemy is infiltrating us at all levels, and certainly school bus drivers are one area to look at,” Col Grossman warns. “And how about high school, middle school and elementary school cafeteria workers? Janitors? Delivery people?” Not a comforting thought.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, echoing the sentiments of many of our public officials, sometime ago pronounced that, “Another attack is a matter not of if, but when.” This coming from the second elected representative of the executive branch, whose very reason for existence is to protect us from such attacks. This is a little like your doctor telling you that malpractice is a not a matter of if, but when.

Should something like Beslan occur in this country with hundreds of American schoolchildren dead, those in government will be guilty of nothing short of criminal negligence.

A terrorist conspiracy on the order of Beslan or 9/11 only becomes inevitable when the powers that be willfully choose not to take the necessary steps for its prevention. Those necessary steps today would entail common-sense ideological profiling: pay special attention to those adherents of ideologies bent on our destruction. The most powerful such ideology in the world today is Islam. Thus, putting two and two together, place restrictions on Muslims that would forestall the development of a major terrorist conspiracy.

But instead of taking the necessary, modest, and overt measures that would protect the US from Muslim terrorism, Washington has chosen to aggrandize its power at home and abroad while leaving us open to attack. It is almost unbelievable to reflect on the fact that, five and a half years after the most spectacular terrorist attack in world history, US borders and ports remain effectively unguarded. We should bear in mind that 9/11 would never have come off had we simply enforced the laws that were already on the books – several of the hijackers would have been picked up on visa violations. Perhaps instead of spending half a trillion dollars trying to bring “democracy” to Muslim Mesopotamia, we could spend a tenth or a hundredth of that keeping jihadists off US soil.

The vague, ill-named “war on terror” amounts to a titanic power grab by the national security establishment in the service of its own – rather than the nation’s – interests. After another attack, can we expect an even more sweeping “war on evil?” But we are not at war with some shadowy “terror” lurking in every closet, we are war with Islamic jihad. The natural course is to name the enemy, fight jihad, and prevent the seeds of jihad – namely, Islam – from taking root in this country. But such an approach would deprive the national security establishment of the justification for its worldwide cloak-and-dagger game as well as the military expansionism we have been practicing since the collapse of the Soviet Union – to the tune now of 700 overseas US military bases.

The Founding Fathers warned against precisely the sort of thing that has transpired since 9/11: handing over the keys of the kingdom to a national security apparatus that operates outside effective constitutional controls. We should not be surprised that the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc., etc. are hungry for greater powers, but we should be outraged that our elected representatives have so cravenly give it to them. Handing our welfare over to largely secret and gigantically complex institutions while trusting them to act in our best interests is naïve at best and, for a free society, potentially suicidal. Instead of aggrandizing the national security establishment that so failed us on 9/11, we should have culled the herd. Who in our defense and intelligence agencies was fired for failing to stop 9/11? Not the heads of the CIA, NSA, FBI, or DOD. Was anyone?

Washington today is seriously off the rails. That in and of itself is not too surprising. But instead of mishandling the environment, transportation, or health care, Washington is now recasting the very foundations of our civil society and leaving us exposed to the jihadist enemy. It is a crisis of the republic.