IMUS: Why lend credence to Sharpton?

Tawana Brawley, attempts to bilk New York corporations, his children attended private school on the cuff of soul-singer James Brown. His National Action Network is a front for the distribution of street money in local,state and nation elections. He used his national prominence to help promote Christopher Hitchens' book “Is Christianity Good for the World.” Was he being compensated by the book’s publisher Twelve Book? Did he debate Hitchens in his role as a minister? This is a precise of Rev.Al Sharpton.

Why does Don Imus lend so much credence to this charlatan cleric?

He used the Brawley case to achieve media attention. He tried to defraud some of New York’s Fortune 500 companies. The reason for his presidential candidacy was to extend the reach of his National Action Network as the distributor of street money, while he pretends its’ mission is to provide voter education.

As most already know, Imus is being sued by one of the members of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team. Don’t resist the conclusion that Al didn’t play a role in the instigation of this lawsuit. He has a history for feigned lawsuits, remember Brawley.

Democratic politicians across the nation curtsy to Al rather than scorn him. He should receive the same disdain Bill Clinton leveled at rap singer Sister Soulja. Watch the video clip where his arms are spread to accept all with open arms. The pertinent question is: Are his arms open to preach the word of God or get a good hunk of change? Watch the tape and listen to the derogatory hate speech he utters.

Imus is dead-wrong to appear on his radio show and to lend him even greater credence. Imus’ recognition of Sharpton as one of the leaders of the Black community is woefully ill-conceived. I personally would like to see poll numbers which measure his favorability among African Americans. I think we may be startled.

Imus is correct to hire the lawyer who defended Lenny Bruce as I likened Mr.Imus to in the midst of this controversy. Mr. Imus’ first amendment rights have been violated and the notion,hyped by Sharpton that offensive speech should not be protected speech is unconstitutional on its' face. If a person chooses not to hear a certain type of speech do what detractors of Rush Limbaugh have been doing for years—change the station.

Our first amendment right to free speech should be absolute. Unless it spurs violence than the purveyor of the speech-- particularly if a conspiracy to initiate violence can be proved --criminal sanctions should be imposed. In the Imus imbroglio there was no violence. His remark was inappropriate but why do media outlets hire shock jocks? It is not to teach political correctness. Our civil liberties are being eviscerated enough by the Bush Administration and we want to censor Don Imus.

Who has anointed Sharpton to be the arbiter of what we can or cannot say? A right wing wing-nut or a left wing wing-nut they are the same—wing-nuts. Are we going to be forced to parse our words to ensure we do not violate Sharpton’s: “Dictionary of Offensive Language?” We don’t need Sharpton to tell us the phrase “napppy headed hos” is a hurtful appellation. However, Mr. Imus should vigorously fight the civil suit filed yesterday which is ab initio an example of this whole affair--frivolous.

The young woman must have known that media coverage may result because of her membership on the team. She may have relished that coverage. The coverage may have benefitted her aspirations if she should want to become a professional athlete. She wanted celebrity. She is a public figure. She may have not liked some of the press coverage she received but that did not directly cause what ensued after Imus’ remark. It was the press that chose to turn the incident into a media circus. Mr. Imus is not in charge of what the media does or does not cover. He is not a “national assignment editor”.

On the other hand, Mr. Sharpton hyped this story because he knew it might place him yet again, in the media spotlight as the leader of the Black community. This has been Sharpton’s modus operandi throughout his career. Mr. Sharpton wants to be the left-wing’s Anne Coulter. He wants to be the “Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment” but here in the United States, at least not yet, we are sans a Joseph Goebbels

One final question: Mr. Sharpton announced recently he was going to Utah to, as he calls it, encourage a “dialogue” with Mormon leaders.Who paid?