Monday, 16 June 2008
SHARPTON: WHERE THE HUSTLED MONEY GOES
Yesterday I blogged about the dissolute charlatan al sharpton and, based on a
New York Post report, how he hustles corporations into giving him
If you read that blog you might be saying to
yourself "well, regardless of how sharpton gets the money, it doesn't go
pocket. The beneficiaries
are charities he supports through his group, the National Action Network
If you actually think this, for God sake, c'mon. This is al sharpton
we're talking about.
Here, from the invaluable web site, www.sweetness-light.com, is where the
money goes, straight off of sharpton's tax filings (and aren't we lucky to see
them, since he sometimes files and sometimes doesn't bother):
June 15th, 2008
Here is how
Mr. Sharpton describes his National Action Network to the IRS, via Guidestar:
MISSION AND PROGRAMS
THE NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK IS A (CHRISTIAN)
ACTIVIST ORGANIZATION WEDDED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE NONVIOLENT PHILOSOPHY
AND METHODOLOGY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AND ARE COMMITTED TO THE TASK OF
THE LIBERATION FOR ALL OPPRESSED PEOPLES.
1. NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK - CRISIS OUTREACH AND
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO CHAMPION THE CAUSE OF PEOPLE OF COLOR ON
REGIONAL POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES.
2. THE MADISON AVENUE INITIATIVE - CONDUCTED
MEETINGS WITH THE CEOS AND TOP DECISION MAKERS OF SEVERAL OF THE NATIONS
LEADING CONSUMER PRODUCT COMPANIES WHO, BASED ON MINORITY CONSUMPTION FIGURES,
DO NOT SPEND ADEQUATE DOLLARS ON MINORITY MEDIA. BASED ON THE MEETINGS AND A
REVIEW PROCESS, PUBLISHED A RATING OF COMPANIES IN MAI NEWSLETTER & WEB
And here is the modest sum NAN collected in just
the 2006, according to its form 990 (a pdf
Thats right. Mr. Sharpton made $1,050.740.00 in
2006 alone from just this one organization.
And if we are reading the form 990 right, NAN
managed to spend more than that on salaries ($527,633) and consulting fees
Mr. Sharpton is the only employee listed on the
The National Action Network lists itself as a
501c4, which according to the US Code and Wikipedia is not supposed to be for
the benefit of any private individual:
501(c)(4) exemptions are given to civic leagues
or organizations not organized for profit and operated exclusively for the
promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees. Net
earnings are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational
The exemption applies so long as "no
part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual."
And yet almost all of the money NAN collects goes
to "salaries" and "consulting fees."
Which sounds like a lot of inuring to the benefit
of someone most likely Mr. Sharpton.
Also please note that out of the $1,050.740.00
taken in 2006, the National Action Network gave only $1,000 to
Still think anyone but sharpton benefits from this scam? Good, I
thought you'd see the light.
Now I have a few questions to ask:
-Why are most media (obviously not the New York Post and obviously not at
least some of the blogosphere) bowing down to this charlatan?
-How come so many of the news media that seem to have no problem tracking
down high crimes and misdemeanors of George Bush and his administration seem
incapable of so much as looking at an available tax form when it comes to
-Most people would see al sharpton as one of the three or four most well known, highly
publicized Black "leaders" (what a shame to use that word in the same sentence).
But it is clear that, in almost all cases, media studiously
avoid even the most perfunctory examination of what he is all
about. Is it because they fear the discord he can create based
on the influence he has over some Black people? That certainly is
the hatchet sharpton uses against corporate America; maybe media are
just as scared for the same reason.
-When does the Democratic party cut this sickening
fraud loose? Are they scared too? (In this instance I admit they have good reason to be,
since even a small loss of Black voters is catastrophic for Democrats)
-Is there even one major Democrat left who has the honesty, integrity and
guts to stand up and disclaim al sharpton? So far, the answer is
no. And it isn't like media are pressuring them to do so, is
Finally, when will Barack Obama, the single most significant Black
Democrat there is (he has to be, he's their presidential standard-bearer this
year) speak up about sharpton? Or is this going to be one of those "gee, I
didn't know he said stuff like that" routines, like the one he did with jeremiah
BARACK OBAMA'S NEW CHURCH
Barack Obama has changed churches.
After attending the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) for only 18 years,
he noticed that it was a cesspool of racism, anti-Israel and anti-White
No one can say Mr. Obama isn't a quick study.
Now he is attending the Apostolic Church of God (ACG), which is a short
distance from Trinity United in Chicago.
I thought you might like to see what Mr. Obama's new church is all about,
from its web site. So here is its mission statement and its belief
The chief purpose of the Apostolic
Church of God is to glorify God, who has given us the highest
revelation of Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. In glorifying
God, we enter into public worship services, seeking to give fitting
expression to our profound and dedicated commitment to our Lord
Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave Himself for us. In our worship
service we find a meaningful awareness of His presence with us, and
we respond to this awareness with adoration and praise.
Our worship includes the
preaching and teaching of the gospel concerning the death, burial
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so as to enlighten the conscience
to the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, and
to open the heart to the matchless grace of God. In our service to
Christ, we are to call sinners to repentance, lift the fallen, visit
the sick, uplift and maintain the highest standards of morality, and
urge all believers to seek a Spirit-filled life.
It is essential that we
nourish and cultivate the Christian lives of our parishioners; that
we concern ourselves with giving aid and comfort to the poor, to
work for better living conditions in society in general, and in our
community in particular. In order to effectuate this purpose, the
ministries and auxiliaries of the Apostolic Church of God
What We Believe
That mission statement and belief system should absolutely thrill any truly devout Christian,
regardless of his/her color. What an immense change from TUCC! And
what an immense change there is from TUCC's hate-soaked pastor jeremiah
wright to ACG's exceptionally impressive pastor, Dr. Byron Brazier.
|We believe that
we should earnestly contend for God's standard of salvation. In the Word
of God we find nothing short of a holy, Spirit-filled life with the signs
following as on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:4;
8:14-17; 10:44-48; 10:1-6, Romans 12:1-2, Hebrews
The only ground upon which God will
accept a sinner is repentance from the heart for the sins that he has
committed. (Psalm 51:17, Luke
We believe in water baptism in the name of
Jesus Christ, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38; 10:44-48;
- We believe in
the Translation of Saints.
- We believe in
- We believe in
the Lord's Supper.
- We believe in
- We believe in a
wholly sanctified life and final judgment.
But I do have just a few questions:
-If Barack Obama sincerely accepts the mission statement and belief system of
the Apostolic Church of God, why in God's name wasn't he going there in
the first place instead of spending all those years at TUCC? Why did
he subject his wife and children to the TUCC hate-fest instead of the far more
Christian teachings apparently available at ACG?
-If George Bush's church had the same mission statement (and it very well may), what would the
people who are fawning over Mr. Obama say about it? Isn't this precisely the kind
of Christianity that so many of them reference when demonizing Mr. Bush as a hopeless
fundy? If that is how they feel, wouldn't Mr. Obama be one
Please note that my purpose in asking this question is not in any way meant to denigrate
the Apostolic Church of God. ACG is exactly what a committed Christian Church
should be and I have nothing but respect for it.
My point is that there are two different sets of rules here for the same situation. And, using those different sets of
rules, Mr. Obama wins and Mr. Bush loses.
I wonder what the mission statement and belief system is at John McCain's
DID PRESIDENT BUSH LIE ABOUT IRAQ?
This is a question that, you would think, rests entirely on the
political views of the answerer. Liberal/leftists are more likely to say he did. Conservative/rightists
are more likely to say he did not.
But there are exceptions. And one very notable exception is James
Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic.
Warner Todd Houston of www.newsbusters.org gives us the
Liberal TNR Editor: 'Bush Never
Lied to Us About Iraq'
James Kirchick, assistant editor of The
New Republic, has come under NewsBusters scrutiny for his bias before, of
course. Our job is, we all know, to document and analyze that bias. But while we
naturally focus on when the media get it wrong, we should have the maturity to
point out when those who we criticize get it right. Here is a case when a member
of the media that we usually criticize did, indeed, get it right and this time
it might get him in Dutch with his lefty pals in the nutroots. After all, the
surest way to get the nutroots upset at you is to say Bush did not lie
about the war. But that is exactly what Kirchick just did and he did an
admirable job chronicling it, too.
In an editorial in the L.A. Times on the 16th,
Kirchick said that "Bush never lied to us about Iraq" and then went on to substantiate his claim in a style that
runs contrary to the Media and nutroots meme that "Bush lied and people died."
Kirchick started his piece with a recounting of
the flip flop that Mitt Romney's father, George, undertook when he reversed his
support of the Vietnam war as he geared up to run for president in 1968. Romney
initially supported the Vietnam War but later claimed that the administration
and war supporters "brainwashed" him into believing in the war. With his flip
flop he claimed that he had seen the light, but critics said that he was merely
playing to a perceived anti-war changing tide and trying to capture that vote --
in other words, Romney's flip flop was only calculated to get votes. This,
Kirchick says, is the same thing that politicians like John F. Kerry have done
with the Iraq war. They voted for it before they voted against it.
The left narrative, one the media is happy to
parrot, has been that Bush lied us into war. Kirchick points out that "the
notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the
accepted narrative of how we went to war."
But Kirchick then steps out into some of the most
intellectually honest analysis I've seen from the left since before the 2000
election when BDS first began to infect the media.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White
House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into
connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass
destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to
distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly
Kirchick goes on to chronicle some of the agencies
and investigative bodies that have found absolutely no evidence that the Bush
Administration manipulated Congress as it made the case for the war.
Kirchick also comes as close to calling John D.
Rockefeller (D, W. Va.) a liar as you can without using those specific words
when he notes that Rockefeller's "highly partisan" Senate Intelligence Committee
report does not support the wild eyed claims made in its summation.
Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does
not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges
that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely
linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a
role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links
were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims
about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his
alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Kirchick also trenchantly notes that the latest
partisan attack that is being presented as a "report" conveniently forgets to
mention the words of the many dozens of highly placed Democrats who's words were
nearly identical to Bush's in the run up to war.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just
Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as
alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements
Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence
Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it
scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign
Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same
intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many
senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today
characterize as warmongering.
In the end, Kirchick finds no shred of proof that
Bush "lied" about anything. In fact, he scolds every Democrat and partisan
leftist for saying that he did and that the claim that Bush lied us into war is
an "unsubstantiated allegation" that is "cowardly and dishonest."
So, kudos to James Kirchick for an honest look at
the record. Certainly we can agree to disagree right now, at this point, if the
war was a good idea or not. But, it is beyond question that there were no lies
disseminated by the Bush Administration and neither did the president
"manipulate" any evidence to "mislead" the nation into war.
Go read Kirchick's piece and marvel that it came
from a lefty. He really nailed it. "Bush never lied to us about Iraq" is worth your time.
Now this is one courageous man. And an honest one too.
I urge you to click on the link to Mr. Kirchick's commentary. You will
be treated to a thoughtful analysis which deals in facts rather than emotion and
partisan fury. These days, that isn't easy to come
SUDAN DISINTEGRATES WHILE THE UN DOES NOTHING. AS USUAL
This perfectly sickening article about what is happening in the Sudan comes
to us from Stephen Brown of www.frontpagemag.com. Read it, if
you have the stomach to do so:
By Stephen Brown
Monday, June 16, 2008
It just shows what is wrong with our
The front pages of most newspapers last week
carried a story about a horrific plane crash in the Sudan that cost 100 lives. While this tragedy
was certainly newsworthy, hardly a single media outlet has been covering the
real story in Africas largest
country that could turn into a human catastrophe for millions of its non-Muslim
A twenty-year civil war between the Sudans Arab and Islamic North and Christian
and animist African South that ended with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA) in 2005 is set to explode again. Fighting broke out last month between the
Norths Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army
(SPLA), the armed forces of southern Sudan, in the oil-rich Abyei region, resulting in dozens of
The Abyei region, located between North and
South, is technically part of northern Sudan, having been transferred there by the British colonial power in
1905. According to the CPAs Abyei Protocol, which was put into the accord at
Americas insistence, the Abyei
area, which is inhabited mainly by Africans of the Dinka tribe, is supposed to
hold a vote to decide whether it wants to join the South. In 2011, the entire
South Sudan will have its own
referendum on independence.
Disgracefully, the world hardly noticed that the
town of Abeyei was destroyed in
May by aggressive federal forces, which are controlled by the ruling National
Congress Party in Sudans
capital, Khartoum, located in
the North. As usual, it was the civilians who suffered the most. More than
100,000 Dinka, according to one report, were driven from their homes. Many Dinka
arrived in refugee camps with little or no belongings with some grieving for
their children who were lost in the flight.
Roger Winter, a highly respected expert on the
Sudan who was once appointed
Special Representative of the Deputy Secretary of State for Sudan by the Bush administration, visited the
area a few days after the attack by the governments army, which now occupies
the ruined and looted town.
The town of Abyei has ceased to exist, stated Winter in
his report. Brigade 31 of the Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, has
displaced the entire civilian population and burned Abyeis market and housing
to the ground.
Such Arab atrocities are nothing new to southern
Sudans black African
population. This large area of about 227,000 square miles and 11 million people
was once one of the main sources of slaves for the Islamic world until British
colonization put a stop to the inhuman practice. But when the British left and
the Sudan was granted its
independence in 1956, the Arab Norths oppression of the non-Muslim, African
South quickly picked up where it left
As a result, African Sudanese almost immediately
formed a resistance movement that fought a civil war against the Arab North that
ravaged the South and ended with a peace treaty in 1972. During that time, the
odious custom of slave raiding also returned, supported by the Arab worlds new
oil wealth. In 1962, a Swiss journalist recorded that hundreds of black African
Sudanese were enslaved and sent to northern Sudan, and some even further on to
Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other oil
An Italian journalist, who was in the Sudan in 1966, wrote
the Arabs continue in the Sudan what could be called their national sport,
hunting slaves, and the bondage of Negro Sudanese who are guilty of not only of
having a black skin but also of not being Muslim. Arab slavers even had the
audacity to seize a Sudanese African member of the pre-independence legislature
and put him up for sale for $1,600; but he managed to
All in all, it is estimated that between 500,000
and one million people died in Sudans first civil war.
The second civil war, which ended with the 2005
CPA, began in 1983 when the Khartoum government threw out the 1972 peace accord, squashed the Souths
constitutional guarantees, declared Arabic the countrys only official language
and made sharia the law of the land. In other words, everyone, both North and
South, had to become Muslim and Arabic. This was reinforced when the northern
government declared jihad against the South in
In this second round of civil strife, the racial and
religious hatred of the Sudanese Arab for the Sudanese African was in full
evidence. More than two million southern Sudanese perished and another two
million were displaced, becoming exiles in their own country, as the Islamic
government embarked on a policy of genocide.
Evidence of this genocide was on
display last January in the United States when dozens of young, southern
Sudanese men gathered at Harry S. Truman College
in Chicago to celebrate their common birthday (since they fled the war as
children, many do not know their real birthdays). They form part of the 20,000
Lost Boys who had fled to Ethiopia, walking hundreds of miles across harsh and dangerous terrain to
avoid almost certain death. The last eight years, the United States has taken in about 4,000 of
these refugees, many of whom have gone to college themselves in their new
Again, like in the first Sudanese
civil war, the slave trade made its loathsome reappearance. Francis Bok, whose story was told in Front
Page Magazine, became its most visible representative in the
States. Captured in a slave raid at age seven, the
southern Sudanese Dinka boy spent ten cruel years as an Arab slave before he
escaped and eventually made his way to America where he has testified across the
country and before Congress about his barbarous experience.
With such a record of savage brutality, one
wonders why the media, the Bush administration and the rest of the world for
that matter, remain silent as the Sudan appears to be sliding into a horrific
and unthinkable third civil war. It is all the more puzzling when one considers
the justifiable media attention given to, and the international condemnations
made, concerning the Darfur
President Bush himself enjoys great prestige
among the people of South Sudan
for having helped bring about the 2005 CPA treaty; so much so that the African
inhabitants there want to see the Republicans stay in the White House under John
McCain. They well remember President Clintons bombing of Serbia to force the end of ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo, while he undertook no action on their behalf against a Khartoum government that was much more
inhumanly ferocious and merciless.
The Democrats did nothing for us, said a southern
Sudanese journalist. They were not interested.
Winter believes the reason the Bush
administrations inaction is that it will soon be out of power and is in
meltdown mode, which Sudans
Islamic government well recognises. Moreover, President Bush is currently
attempting to normalize relations with the Khartoum regime, probably as part of his
overall strategy in the War on Terror, holding talks to this end in Rome in April and May. As a result, Bush does
not wish to endanger these efforts by vigorously responding to the Abyei attack.
This is disappointing. Appeasement and inaction
never work and will only encourage the predatory Arab Khartoum government to
commit more depredations against a people that would make natural allies of
America, especially if and when
they get their own country. Already, the northern leaders are refusing to accept
the Abyeis boundaries that were set by an international committee, a term of
To their credit, during the recent
primaries the three main candidates, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama, issued a joint declaration saying they will continue to keep
a close watch on events in the Sudan and speak out for
the marginalized peoples. They also condemned the Sudanese government for
breaking the CPA. Hopefully, their actions will match their words after
Abyei has been called the cornerstone to peace
for the Sudan. What happens
there will determine whether the Arab North sincerely desires peaceful
co-existence with the South. But a southern Sudan army spokesman ominously says the
population displacement in Abyei indicates the Khartoum government is actually preparing a
If this is the case, western media outlets should
be calling politicians in their countries to account for their inaction
regarding the developing human catastrophe in South
Sudan. They should also be putting the Khartoum government under the microscope of
international criticism and be calling for sanctions. In the long term, the
world press duty will be to monitor closely the previously agreed referenda in
Abyei and the South Sudan to
ensure the will of these long-suffering peoples is
Twice in the past half century the African people
of the southern Sudan have
called for help against a murderous racial and religious hatred that has left
their country littered with killing fields; but the West and its media scarcely
heard them. So to ignore any aggression by Khartoums Arab regime that may cause such heart-rending appeals to be made a
third time is both unpardonable and unconscionable.
Where is the UN? Where is the African Union?
What purpose do either of these organizations serve, other than generating well-paying jobs in which the fatcats
who hold those jobs can congratulate each other on
their humanitarianism --- as the people they are supposed to protect suffer
and die by the millions?
Maybe we should just leave the UN to do the three
things it really
-Facilitate the rapes of pre-teen girls in third world countries their
troops are sent to;
-Keep the fine restaurants of Manhattan prosperous with their expense
account dining while the condemnations and rapes
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE 2008 ELECTION
Less than a week ago the US Supreme Court decided it was the legislature too,
and voted to give enemy combatants habeus corpus rights. The vote was 5-4,
with the four most liberal justices, joined by Anthony
Kennedy, overcoming the remaining four most conservative justices.
Today, in an identical 5-4 split - same justices in the same roles -
additional latitude was granted to people who have stayed in the USA beyond
the limits of their visas, but who want us to forget about their illegality
anyway. The bold print is mine.
Here, from www.yahoonews.com, are the
WASHINGTON - The Supreme
Court made it easier Monday for some foreigners who overstay their visas
to seek to remain in the United States legally.
The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here
illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try
to get approval to remain in the United States.
The decision essentially embraced a proposed
Justice Department regulation governing the treatment of similar cases in the
Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, stayed
beyond the expiration of his tourist
visa in 1998. He married an American the following year and soon began
trying to obtain a visa as an immediate relative of a citizen. But Dada
and his wife apparently failed to submit some documents, causing immigration
officials to deny the visa.
Dada has been trying again to obtain the visa, but
immigration authorities meanwhile have ordered him to leave the
He agreed to leave voluntarily, which would allow
him to try sooner to re-enter the country legally than if he had been
The court's task was to decide whether he could
withdraw his voluntary agreement to leave the country and continue to try to
adjust his status while in the United States.
Immigration authorities recently ruled
that Dada had entered a "sham" marriage in order to stay in the United States,
but that finding was not part of the court's consideration.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined
by his four liberal colleagues. The four conservative justice
Antonin Scalia said, "The court lacks the authority to impose its chosen
Nice. A phony marriage of convenience to get into the country, and "that
finding was not part of the court's consideration".
For better or worse, Anthony Kennedy appears to have decided he is the
court's new Sandra Day O'Connor -- that is, a justice who effectively runs the
court by being the majority vote between four liberals and four
It is becoming more and more evident to me that one of the most important
keys to the 2008 election is who will be replacing USSC justices whose
terms will end in the next four years. As I have mentioned in previous
blogs, the most likely to go are Justices Stevens and Ginsburg - two of the
most unconditionally liberal of the bunch.
If voters favor the 5-4 habeus corpus and immigration decisions, they
should run, not walk, to Barack Obama. If they don't, they should be
thinking about John McCain.
What an election this is going to be.
THE ISLAMIC SAUDI ACADEMY: HATRED AND JIHAD IN VIRGINIA
Did you ever hear of the Islamic Saudi Academy?
What if I told you it was a hate-school teaching exactly the
kinds of sickness that we are fighting in the war against terrorism? And
what if I told you that a) this is known to the state department which b) knowing it, is
allowing the school to remain open?
Here are the particulars, from www.littlegreenfootballs.com.
The bold print is mine:
Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 3:40:45 pm
Theyre teaching children to hate and kill Jews
A former school valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali,
was convicted of joining Al Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President
And theyve been spreading this radical Islamic
ideology in the US for decades.
But the State Department has no plans to close the
Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax,
Because they promised to change their
State Department officials said Thursday they
have no plans to close a Saudi-financed Islamic school in Northern Virginia
that has failed to eliminate violent and intolerant language in
They told us they would revise the textbooks by
the 2008 school year, State Department spokesman Rob McInturff said. We
dont plan to take additional action apart from the discussions that have been
going on with the Saudi government.
Results released Wednesday from a
federal investigation into the Islamic Saudi Academy - with campuses in
Alexandria and Fairfax - found textbooks at the 900-student private school had
passages that blame the Jews for discord and say it is sometimes permissible
to kill non-Muslims.
The investigation by the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom focused on 17 textbooks used during the last
school year and obtained from independent sources. The panel, formed by
Congress, last year recommended the State Department close the school, though
members had not yet reviewed the textbooks. The commission said the
Foreign Missions Act gives the Secretary of State authority to require a
foreign mission to divest itself of or forgo the use of property and to order
it to close.
State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos on
Thursday cited the Saudi governments 2006 acknowledgement of a need to revise
its textbooks and agreement to do so in time for the start of the 2008 school
year, which starts this fall.
In this "academy" they teach anti-semitism and a
rationale for murdering people based on their religion. But the state
department says "no problem, it's ok, they promised they'll change their
textbooks", as if that would change a thing. There is a reason
those textbooks had such material - it is what these jihad
wannabes intend for the students to learn. Forcing them to revise a few
words in their textbooks will not change a thing.
But the state department says everything will be ok.
Incredible stupidity and/or malevolence like this is exactly the kind of thing the state department seems to have
unchecked power to do. Even President Bush, who has had always had a
contentious relationship with the state department, appears powerless to stop
Why is the state department beyond reproach? Who put these amoral idiots
above everyone else?