There Really is No Sharp in Sharpton

The DJ Formally Known As:
Reverend Al Sharpton



Today, New York Senator, Antoine Thompson, along with The Rev. Al Sharpton held a press conference to announce their new stance against bad words being used by Black Rappers. Sharpton stated, "The idea of divesting New York State taxpayers' money from record companies that have a double standard when it comes to language is something that will be a priority," said Sharpton.

Ok…stop. Before I even hit The Political Sage rage, let me just address Al directly…

Al; first of all, that whole statement makes me think reverting back into primitive ‘grunting’ would possibly help humans like yourself speak a little more perceptibly, so the rest of us can understand just what the hell you mean, man! You make NO sense. And the fact that YOU of all people claim to have a vested interest in where tax payer money goes is utterly outrageous and just down right offensive.

Anyways… Sorry, I really needed to get that off my chest.

Sharpton and Thompson’s news conference held today in Buffalo, NY, comes just a few months after Rev. Sharpton “called” for the firing of Radio Host, Don Imus for his offensive comments that he made on-air. If you happened to turn on the television around that time, then you probably were able to witness the network debates and heated discussions that arose from that situation. I think a lot of you would probably have to agree; it was Liberalistic Idiocy at it’s finest. But, I must admit, the “list” of Deomcratic Racist qoutes, including statements from Sharpton, himself that Sean Hannity broke out, in light of the Sharpton charade; was really touching, to say the least.

Sharpton has issued a proclamation emanicpation, I guess, to all Black Rappers, and that is what it is. We all know very well he isn’t talking to band members from the group, Korn or to the any of the pasty musicians from head bangers ball. The New York Daily News specifically described Sharpton’s sermon to the music industry to be a “…four-day conclave to deliver a thundering jeremiad against offensive rap.” Sharpton has even seemed to hypnotize one of Hip-Hop’s legends, Russell Simmons along with his “Hop Summit Action Network. Simmons is now even making gut wrenching suggestions advocating for and setting up industry watchdogs which will recommend guidelines for lyrical and visual standards. What the hell, Russ? Visual standards, you say. How about setting up a watchdog group that makes sure 12 and 13 year-olds don’t keep showing their booties while they sport your wife’s “Baby Phat” clothing? I think it all sounds like another lofty way for a liberal program to get funding. I wonder if the tax dollars that will be removed from the Entertainment industry will just be allocated to the new Russell Simmons, Entertainment Industry’s “watchdog” group? Come on, Russell…these idiots got to you too??
It isn’t so bad that Al and the Gang are making suggestions to eliminate bad words, from songs, I guess. But, I just really have a hard time with what Sharptons’ next step might be. How about ending the actions that really occur in “real-life” from which the rap lyrics come from? Then Super Al could set up stations in all the communities he takes interest in, and monitor the street action? Maybe Sharpton should be spending his soapbox moments exposing all on the filth that is taking place in the DEMOCRATIC RUN inner cities around the country. Well, wouldn’t that be more conducive to the mission and purpose behind expelling of words in songs?
Also reported in the New York Daily was this little comment:
"Some of these people see Sharpton as an opportunist," says one source involved in the planning. "He's crying about rap lyrics. At the same time, he's calling all the major music labels to get them to donate $50,000 apiece for a table at his convention tribute to [Island Def Jam chief] L.A. Reid."

Money, money, money. Of all the crap I read about this Rap Crusade I found one sentence that carried a hint of refreshing, self-accountable truth, “We need talk about mentorship - not censorship,” one rebel stated in opposition to Sharptons’ insane idea of healing the community. Well said, I thought.
In the Associated Press they reported what I thought might be a slightly more productive role Sharpton could play in healing the community. Sharpton, being primarily positioned in Buffalo, New York, told reporters he would “consider town hall forums and other venues to steer young blacks toward positive goals,” Yeah, I thought. Then I kept reading, “…especially now that the city has elected its first black mayor and has a black schools superintendent and police commissioner.” Wh^%$ the F#$K are you F#@!ING Serious, AL??? Of course YOU are. But then I had a Political Sage moment of clarity, and said out loud to myself; well that would make total sense….since it has been The DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT HAS DOMINATED BUFFALO POLITICS FOR THE LAST HALF-CENTURY!

Do you think these Liberals are EVER gonna put 2 + 2 together???
References:
1)http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=395674

2)http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/24/721923.html

3)http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/04/17/2007-04-17_war_of_words_for_rev_al__rap_execs.htm


© Tracy Phernetton 2007

"Mr Reid Goes to Washington"

A Production by:

The Democratic Military Strategy Theatre Group:



Starring: Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin & Co.



Once again, I am moved to pursue the facts. I always find comfort in historical records. Some days are harder than the others, I guess. Being the news junkie that I am, I am fully aware that the “harder” moments are completely my fault. My daily ambiance consists of my computer, C-SPAN on in the living room, FOX news back in my bedroom, all while the voices of Sean or Rush gleam out of my radio. (Al Gore would despise me!) However, even for an obsessive compulsive truth seeker like me, annoyance and bubbling agitation can sometimes set in. And the straw that always seems to break the camels’ back (Is it still ok to use that phrase?) is when I happen to catch those little “top-of-the-hour” news clips with recorded audio from Harry Reid or read quotes from Nancy Pelosi, and then catch a glance of some “Democratic Strategist” churning out their Liberal take on the latest “issue.” And then, I have a moment of temporary insanity and scream at all of my appliances! But eventually, I calm down and recognize that God put The Political Sage on this Earth to seek, find and report Truth, and then I resort back into my comfy, little safe haven which is found in History and Facty-tale land.

This article is inspired by the wonderful quote I heard from Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) yesterday, “This week we’ll make Republicans answer for their refusal to allow an up or down vote on the most important issue facing our country today,” Mr. Reid said. “We’re going to work today. We’re going to work tomorrow and work tomorrow night. We’re going to continue working on this until we get a vote on this amendment.” Of course, if you haven’t heard yet, the Democratic dingbats in the Senate are held an “all-nighter,” in the efforts to get those darn Republicans to explain themselves to the American people. Mr. Reid and his little intelligence committee in his head claims, “…they are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.” No, Mr. Reid, I think that is called “supporting,” our President rather than “protecting,” him! And I like his play on words, “the President,” and, “our troops.” Sorry Mr. Reid. If I were you, I would have constructed that statement this way, “they are supporting our President and protecting our troops.” In other words, Harry, that’s what some of us like to call, being an American!

So here I am again, on another rampage. The Political Sage will not rest until the Loony Left is silenced. And, this time I was moved to investigate U.S Troops and their history of staying positioned in areas of “need” after a conflict. So, what exactly is our definition of “need,” anyways? Well, Six decades later we are still in Germany, Japan, Italy and many other countries as a result of World War II. That obviously means that someone should be “protecting” President Roosevelt, because 60 years is a long time to keep U.S troops in a region, wouldn’t you say?? The “need” of keeping U.S troops’ present in post-WII Regions is not seen as a conspiracy is it?? I think if you ask any Historian or Military official why they believe there is a “need” for U.S Troops in those regions, they just might give you a simple answer; Democracy.

But of course, we are dealing with a Democratic Majority in Congress today, and we all know that to them a, “78-day war,” consisting of dropping cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas, that kills 2,000 civilians is a much better Defense strategy. Did we already forget about President Clintons’ surge in Kosovo?? 2, 000 civilian causalities in 78 days seems pretty disgraceful compared to the numbers of casualties that have occurred over the last 6 years!! Liberalism rationality says that killing is ok, as long as it is done “quickly and “easily.” Just take a look at their positions on Abortions, Government “hand-outs” and Military strategies. The Democrats in this country, along with their faithful Left-Wing “Activists” are proven to be much more deadly and threatening than any other “whoever” or “whatever” they choose to accuse.

So Senator Reid’s “all-nighter” proved to be a great big slumber party, with the Republicans sleeping and talking amongst themselves, while Senators, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all take turns playing “Jefferson Smith,” from the 1939 movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Maybe Hillary will even whip out a great voice impression of Jimmy Stewart, since we all know just how skilled she is in doing impressions! But in this case, I don’t think Hillary, Dick and Harry will be reading from the Constitution like Mr. Smith did. In this screenplay they will most likely be reading from the 1992 Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian book titled, “Chronicles of Dissent.” That is sure to keep the republicans amused!

Let me close by offering a handshake to Senator Harry Reid and Senator Hillary Clinton for pretending to care about Human life. I hate war too, and I also hate having to fight people who insist on seeing people like you and I blow up into little tiny pieces. Your effort to show human kindness and attain a Political facelift is cute compared to your heartless whines to defend the slaughtering of babies and the killing of human dignity every time you cry for more money to give people who maybe could get it themselves if you allowed them to. So with that said, I will leave with a complimentary reminder of 1990’s history:

Number of military deaths during the Clinton administration:

1,245 in 1993;
1,109 in 1994;
1,055 in 1995;
+ 1,008 in 1996.
= 4,417 “Peacetime” Deaths

(Will someone get a calculator and a calendar to the Senate floor, pronto?!)


For more Information Go To:

http://democrats.senate.gov/agenda/
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp

© Tracy Phernetton 2007

Remember... or ELSE!
Putting All This Terrorism Business Back Into a Historically Accurate Perspective


{“Well this looks like a job for me…now everybody just follow me; cause everyone needs a little controversy, cuz it feels so empty without me” -Marshall Mathers}

Well, this looks like a job for The Political Sage! I guess it is in my destiny to be the one who reminds the public about a few historical facts. Apparently, some very important details in history have slipped the minds of too many Americans. It is so typical of the American media to exclude relevant, past events from present dramas. Well, personally folks, I am sick and tired of defending a President who is merely pressing on in the campaign against terror. The problem of Terrorism is so old news, people. The only difference with the current situation is our current American President, you see. It looks like the battle against terrorism was only meant to be battled by those who have political backbones.

The only unfortunate revelation about our current President is that he just happened to be President on September 11, 2001. What happened to that American unity and forthrightness that existed at around He was bound to be “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” President Bush has taken this old battle against terrorism by renewing rigorously and aggressively fighting terrorism.
Already, the common American calamity of amnesia has set in. And the Party that was not in power on 9/11/01 has somehow twisted those tragic events into partisan diversions that attempt to boost their own political image. I’m telling you that is much more disgraceful and corrupt than any of the crazy accusations that have been aimed at this President and his Administration.

Oh, and I haven’t forgotten about all of you conspiracy advocates! This article is also dedicated to you. You may want to include these forgotten, yet documented, historical episodes into your conspiracy theories. Hey maybe Michael Moore should put out a 2nd edition of his 911 documentary, which includes some other examples of terror-related squabbles and verbal battle words from previous Presidents. And I wish that the conspiracy theorists would at least think about considering the relevance in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the Bojinka Plot, the 1998 US Embassy Bombings, the Millennium Bomb Plots, the 2000 USS Cole Bombing and all the countless Foreign Intelligence Warnings that occurred. If you argue that the 911, 2001 tragedy was made up; then why not enhance your argument with all the other pre-911 tragedies?? At least, then it might result in a slightly more balanced display of conspiratorial propaganda. You can use my references and ideas Michael! All’s I ask in return of you Mr. Moore is that I at least get a shot out in your revised movie! That’s T-r-a-c-y P-h-e-r-n-e-t-t-o-n, T-h-e P-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l S-a-g-e.

No matter how Americans view the present media arrangement of this current battle against terror; the truth remains; President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John Ashcroft, and all the other officials that are made to look like evil antagonists are just plain inaccurate illustrations of reality. Besides, it exposes to any intelligent person just how much American and World history has been forgotten by the main stream media and the Left. We are all aware that George W. Bush majored in History, right? Just checking.
The Liberals and the mainstream media (oops that was rather oxymoronic of me, I meant; the Liberal Mainstream Media) have been making President Bush and his Administration the scapegoats for the sake of fabricating the Liberalistic partisan fairytale. Liberals love to erase historical facts and replace them with present distractions, consisting of blame, aggressive smearing tactics and personal pot shots.

No more, I say. I DEMAND that America take a breath, relax and review what is truly in front of them. And this goes for all of you spineless congressmen that still call yourselves “Republicans,” but are obviously lacking Conservative backbones. This ones’ for you, too ex-compadres. Each and everyone you need to take a moment of silence breathe and stop falling prey to the present charade of Liberal/media deceptions.

The rest of this article is dedicated to the facts; nothing more. I have inserted one particular documented report from the not so distant past. I have chosen to include the document, in its’ entirety simply because I do realize the lazy tendencies of those who just rely on, as Rush would call, “the drive-by media,” to formulate your opinions. You are not getting off that easy, this time! No measly links as references that can give you an option whether or not to click on it, to further your knowledge…Uh-uh. This is The Political Sage, and in my world; accuracy comes in full written expulsion. Then it’s much harder for you to argue. However, a Liberal will always have an argument, even after the truth is laid out for them. Their argument, however will just be downgraded to smearing tactics and be a barrage of personal, immature attacks. That’s ok, that is expected.

Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Wednesday, December 16, 1998 (CNN)

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S: O.k. will let you have one link to choose to either ignore or see for yourself. I realize that this whole 1998 transcript from Bill Clinton was probably hard on some of you. Take it easy, there will be more to come……
For complete pre-911, 911 and post 911 timeline, go to: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

© Tracy Phernetton 2007