Al Sharpton: Liar, liar, cities on fire

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

Over the past three decades, Al Sharpton has used deception to make himself rich and powerful.

Sharpton first came to the attention of many New Yorkers in the 1984 case of Bernhard Goetz. Goetz, sitting in a New York City subway car, was surrounded by four robbers, three of whom carried sharpened screwdrivers; he defended himself, shooting them with a .38-caliber pistol, and fled the scene. After a massive manhunt in which the mayor called out 1,350 extra policemen, Goetz, dubbed the “Subway Vigilante,” turned himself in, and Sharpton demanded that the “racist” serve jail time. Goetz was ultimately acquitted on four counts of attempted murder but served eight months for carrying an unlicensed firearm.

“The Reverend Al” became a national figure in 1987, after Tawana Brawley, a 15-year-old African-American girl, was discovered in a garbage bag, smeared in feces and with racial epithets written on her body in charcoal. Brawley claimed to have been raped by six white men, some of whom were police officers. Sharpton led protests and accused several individuals of involvement in the crime, including prosecutor Steven Pagones. He called New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D.) a “racist” and compared state Attorney General Robert Abrams (D.) to Hitler. Brawley’s supporters suggested that the Mafia, the KKK, and the Irish Republican Army may have been involved. The whole thing turned out to be a hoax. Sharpton was sued successfully by those he accused, and his supporters paid the damages.

In 1990, Sharpton strongly supported the efforts of a fellow radical activist, Sonny Carson, who led a boycott of Korean-owned groceries in Brooklyn. The New Republic reported that, during the boycott, “not far from the boycott line, a black teen smashed the skull of a Vietnamese resident with a claw hammer, and his accomplices chanted, ‘Koreans go home.’”

There were the Crown Heights riots, as described by Ben Shapiro of Breitbart News and

In 1991, after a Chasidic Jew accidentally killed a young black child in a car accident, Sharpton went to Crown Heights, where he spoke at the funeral for the child. There, he said that “diamond merchants” had “blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He also said, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” The Crown Heights riots led to the death of Yankel Rosenbaum, an Orthodox Jewish student. Rosenbaum’s brother told TruthRevolt, “He has never apologized, he has never offered any sincere remorse for the atrocious things he has done by way of terrible racist behavior and lies, for inciting racial events. Anybody who takes a look at that person and wants to spend advertising dollars on him should take a hard look at their moral stance in terms of their position in business, in commerce, and in the community.”

In one march after the Crown Heights riots, Sharpton led some 400 protesters through the neighborhood, his followers chanting, “no justice, no peace!” One of the protest banners read: “Hitler did not do the job.” During the riots, an estimated 43 civilians and 152 police officers were injured, in addition to the rabbinical student who was killed by rioters chanting, “Kill the Jew!”

Then there was the case of Freddy’s Fashion Mart, as described by Ben Shapiro:

In 1995, Freddy’s Fashion Mart raised rent on a black-owned music store. That was because Freddy’s Fashion Mart had its own rent raised by a black landlord in Harlem. But that didn’t stop Sharpton from blaming Freddy’s Fashion Mart, accusing them of racism. “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton said. Protesters yelled, “Burn down the Jew store.” One of the protesters then shot four employees of Freddy’s and set the store on fire. As [columnist] Jeff Jacoby wrote in 2003, “If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe.”

The Rev. Sharpton seems to show up whenever the Left needs a good lie—for example, in the case of George Zimmerman, a Florida man of Latino heritage who defended himself from a vicious attack (apparently a mistaken gay-bashing) and was falsely charged with murder.

Then there was Ferguson. Michael Brown, age 18, robbed a convenience store in Ferguson, Missouri, near St. Louis; he roughed up an Indian-American store clerk half his size and walked away. Some ten minutes later, Brown was confronted by a police officer, Darren Wilson, who was on the lookout for the robbery suspect. Brown assaulted Wilson and attempted to take the officers’ gun, which discharged inside the police car. Brown, 6’4” and almost 300 pounds, ran, then turned around and charged the officer. Following an investigation by the Obama Justice Department, the police officer was found to have been entirely justified in shooting Brown. The Justice Department examined all the witnesses, and those whose stories stood up to scrutiny were all African-American, and all backed up Wilson’s version of events.

Yet the tale spread that Brown was shot while holding up his hands in surrender. (That version apparently originated with Brown’s accomplice in the robbery, who was running away and did not actually see the fatal shot fired.) Sharpton and his associates turned the “hands up, don’t shoot” gesture into a symbol for alleged police abuses; it appeared in that context on national magazine covers, was replicated by performers at the Grammy Awards, was seen at Democratic Party meetings and countless protests, and became part of the national culture.

David Hogberg, an alumnus of the Capital Research Center, interviewed Thomas Sowell, the renowned economist at the Hoover Institution, for an article for FrontPage magazine. Sowell, who is African-American, laid much of the blame for violent “protest” at the feet of Sharpton and his close associate, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

DH: Some of the protesters in New York City chanted, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” To what degree are they responsible for the two cops who were shot to death?
TS: To a degree, they are. If you stir up hostility against a group, in this case police, terrible things are going to happen. Some people express their hostility in words, some in other ways. But you can be sure that across a broad spectrum of people there will be those who will use violence. I love it when the left says that these were peaceful demonstrations in Ferguson that got out of hand. Well, going in, it’s as predictable as the swallows coming back to Capistrano: If you are going to have a mass of people whipped up by demagogues like Sharpton and others, if these people are told that the world is against them, and the protest occurs at night, somebody is going to start doing something violent. And I can’t believe that the people who organized this are so naïve that it has never occurred to them that violence might happen.
DH: To what degree, if any, are people like Al Sharpton and Bill de Blasio responsible for those dead cops?
TS: To a considerable degree because, again, they set the atmosphere. When you go out and stir all of this stuff up, of course you are responsible. You can’t turn this stuff on and off. When you open the floodgates, you can’t tell the water where to go. The ultimate responsibility, obviously, is the man who pulled the trigger. But what I’m saying is that when you set this kind of stuff in motion, you know that violence is a likely outcome.

The likely outcome
In New York City, two police officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were shot to death in revenge for the Ferguson incident and for the death of Eric Garner, who died after struggling with police while resisting arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes. The killer posted on Instagram: “I’m putting Wings on Pigs Today … They Take 1 of Ours … Lets Take 2 of Theirs.” When Mayor de Blasio [see Labor Watch, May 2014] visited the hospital where the officers were pronounced dead, and again at one of the funerals, fellow officers turned their backs on the mayor. Some of the officers specifically cited de Blasio’s close relationship with Sharpton in assigning him some of the blame for the revenge killing.

In Ferguson, two St. Louis-area police officers were shot in revenge for Brown’s death, but survived. In Harris County, Texas (Houston), a sheriff’s deputy was shot execution-style while pumping gas; “Our assumption is that he was a target because he wore a uniform,” said the sheriff, Ron Hickman, who linked the shooting to the anti-cop campaign. Then, as Chuck Ross reported in the Daily Caller:

A Missouri man who shot and killed a Kentucky state trooper during a traffic stop [September 13] was an apparent Black Lives Matter sympathizer who protested in the days after the shooting death of Michael Brown last year and attended the 18-year-old’s funeral, social media posts show.
Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks, 25, shot Kentucky State Police Trooper Joseph Cameron Ponder after a high-speed chase on Interstate 24 . . .
Shanks is from Florissant, Mo., a St. Louis suburb near Ferguson, where Brown was fatally shot by police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9, 2014. A Facebook account that appears to belong to Johnson-Shanks shows that he took part in the protests that followed the shooting. Pictures show him adopting the “hands up, don’t shoot” pose which became the rallying cry following the shooting. . . .
Johnson-Shanks also snapped photos of civil rights leader Al Sharpton, who rallied in Ferguson following the shooting.

Black Lives Matter, by the way, is the group that seized the stage from a presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), to demand a moment of silence to honor the robber Michael Brown; that forced another candidate, former Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.), to apologize for insisting that “all lives matter”; that chanted, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon,” during a recent march in Missouri; and that demands the imprisonment of former policeman Darren Wilson, an innocent man. (Ironically, about a dozen BLM members stormed the stage and seized the microphone in December at a protest led by Sharpton. One radical website declared that Sharpton, along with talk show host and entrepreneur Oprah Winfey, are “scared witless that the Black Lives Matter mobilization will become a sustained, independent political movement—one that challenges both the rich white rulers and their junior partners in the Black Misleadership Class.” As often happens in protest movements, the older generation is seen by younger members as insufficiently radical.)

Ultimately, the effect of Sharpton and the Pigs in a Blanket movement is felt not just by police but by all victims of crime. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

A virulent antipolice campaign over the past year—initially fueled by a since-discredited narrative about a police shooting in Ferguson, Mo.—has made police officers reluctant to do their jobs. The Black Lives Matter movement proclaims that the police are a lethal threat to blacks and that the criminal-justice system is pervaded by racial bias. The media amplify that message on an almost daily basis. Officers now worry about becoming the latest racist cop of the week, losing their job or being indicted if a good-faith encounter with a suspect goes awry or is merely distorted by an incomplete cellphone video.
With police so discouraged, violent crime has surged in at least 35 American cities this year. The alarming murder increase prompted an emergency meeting of the Major Cities Chiefs Association last month. Homicides were up 76% in Milwaukee, 60% in St. Louis, and 56% in Baltimore through mid-August, compared with the same period in 2014; murder was up 47% in Minneapolis and 36% in Houston through mid-July.

Lies matter. Sometimes lies get people killed. Does Al Sharpton care?

Green Watch October 2015: “Waters of the United States,” including Creeks and Ditches: Obama bureaucrats work to expand their power over waterways, land, and Americans’ lives

“Waters of the United States,” including Creeks and Ditches
Obama bureaucrats work to expand their power over waterways, land, and Americans’ lives [PDF here]

By Marita Noon

Summary: Nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the Obama administration are seizing on a loophole—ambiguity in a split Supreme Court decision—in order to vastly expand the federal government’s power to control waterways and land throughout the United States.

The term “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) refers to the waters regulated by the federal government, with most of that regulation conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Under the Constitution, the federal government, rather than state and local governments, has jurisdiction over waters that carry goods and people between the U.S. and other countries or between U.S. states. As the power of the federal government has grown, this jurisdiction has come to cover all navigable waters, even lakes and rivers within states.

Surprise! If the Obama administration gets its way, WOTUS will include every pond, creek, stream, and ditch in the country, and the price will be paid by farmers, developers, manufacturers, taxpayers, and consumers—and sweet old ladies hoping to build gazebos.

On August 28, 2015, the definition of the WOTUS changed—not in the dictionary, but in the government’s official journal, the Federal Register. The moment passed with little fanfare in the media and among members of the public. Outside a few groups such as poverty rights activists and farmers, Americans had little sense of what was happening. Now, unless the courts decide otherwise, people who learn the importance of the definition of WOTUS will find out the hard way. Just try to plant or build something on your private property, and you could receive tens of thousands of dollars a day in fines!

Have you seen the TV ads for flood insurance in which a woman exclaims, “But I don’t even live near the water!”? If you don’t live near the water, you may think that the new interpretation of WOTUS is nothing you need to worry about. That would be wrong.

You’re not immune
The federal government has great power to restrict one’s otherwise legal activity on one’s own private property, as I learned nearly nine years ago after I assumed the leadership of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy.

One of my first activities in that position was to attend a property rights meeting in Washington, D.C. About thirty people were there, mostly average citizens, not professional advocates. Most were people who had experienced the harsh reality of their own government telling them they couldn’t engage in simple activities on their own property. In searching for some help and guidance, these people, this little band of warriors, had stumbled upon the property rights movement,

One of the attendees was a sweet, gentle-spirited woman with qualities any of us would wish for in a grandmother. She told us there was a little creek that trickled through the back edge of her property. To enjoy the setting, she’d embarked upon construction of a little gazebo near the creek where she could sip a cup of coffee in the morning or a glass of wine in the evening. Maybe her grandchildren would have weddings there. At one point early in the process, when she had just a few boards erected, there was a knock at the door. The folks at the door were from the federal government and they weren’t there to help. They told her that her property was a “wetland” and therefore her gazebo was illegal and had to be torn down immediately. She was forced to comply. At the gathering in Washington, she asked, “How could this happen in America?” [Click HERE for the rest of the article.]

Briefly Noted: October 2015

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) officially endorsed the radical left-wing Black Lives Matter movement, which accuses police nationwide of systemic anti-black racism and brutality against African-American suspects. Approved by hundreds of delegates at the recent DNC meeting in Minneapolis, the resolution accuses American police of “extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.” It also states “the Democratic Party believes in the American Dream and the promise of liberty and justice for all, and we know that this dream is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy.…”

The statement was insufficiently extreme for the BLM movement, whose leaders quickly rejected it. In August the movement unveiled a list of policy proposals it claims will help to bring about “a world where the police don’t kill people.” DNC delegates approved the resolution on the same day a white sheriff’s deputy in Texas was shot to death allegedly by a black suspect in an unprovoked attack. The next day movement demonstrators marched near the Minnesota state fair chanting violent anti-police slogans and carrying signs reading “End White Supremacy.” Activists shouted “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon,” while walking (protected by police) on a highway south of the fair grounds.

Continue reading →

Martian SUVs, the Zell Miller effect, and those racist Carsonites

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

A few short items this week: climate change on Mars, Kim Davis now has a party, and the RINOs are, as the kids say, showing the h8.


You may recall when the Clinton administration announced the discovery of “life on Mars”—actually, microfossils from a meteor that supposedly proved that life had existed on Mars in the distant past. It was the Story of the Century, or would have been, if it had turned out to be true and not a Clintonite hoax to knock the Republican National Convention off of magazine covers and off the top part of the front page of the country’s newspapers. Continue reading →

Planned Parenthood Under Fire


Planned Parenthood Under Fire:  The nation’s largest abortion provider faces its worse crisis ever

By Jeanne Mancini, Organization Trends, October 2015 (PDF here)

Summary: Whatever your view of abortion, it’s hard not to be appalled by the recent undercover videos of Planned Parenthood personnel casually discussing how they can profit from the body parts it “harvests.” The powerful, politically connected nonprofit enjoys massive government subsidies, as well as invaluable aid from the mainstream media who help it pretend to be what it is not: a broad-spectrum provider of healthcare. Now it faces efforts to end taxpayer subsidies for its lucrative business.


On July 14, 2015, a small nonprofit organization, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), released a video that marked the beginning of a tidal wave of public opposition to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The video was part of a much bigger, broader three-year undercover “sting” project detailing a horrific reality: Planned Parenthood harvests and sells baby hearts, lungs, livers, and brains. At press time, 10 such videos had been released by CMP with more expected in the weeks ahead.

The footage raises a number of critical legal questions. Is Planned Parenthood involved in the unlawful activity of harvesting and selling baby parts? Is Planned Parenthood obtaining informed consent agreements from the mothers whose babies’ hearts, lungs, livers, and brains are being obtained? Is Planned Parenthood unlawfully altering abortion procedures to obtain intact baby parts or whole babies? Is Planned Parenthood performing illegal partial-birth abortions to facilitate obtaining those organs?

The CMP videos also focus public attention on Planned Parenthood as a government-subsidized agency and provide an insightful snapshot of problems in the abortion industry. The videos follow previous undercover “sting” projects conducted by the new media group Live Action, founded by Lila Rose, as well as the startling revelations about Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, now in prison for life, who was convicted of multiple infanticides and accused of gruesome mistreatment of mothers who came to him, including at least one maternal death.

The videos are raising awareness among the public of the truth about Planned Parenthood, yet they are only a small part of the story. For years, a wealth of data and information has shown that Planned Parenthood isn’t a benevolent healthcare provider; see, for example, the April 2012 Organization Trends. I published a background document on Planned Parenthood in 2010 and updated it in 2012 ( This essay further updates that information and provides new data, particularly on Planned Parenthood’s management and finances. Most of the material is taken from the group’s publicly available tax forms and annual reports.

Continue reading →

See something, keep your racist mouth shut

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

“Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.” – President Barack Obama, September 16, 2015

When you’re practicing political deception, it helps if your target is really, really stupid. That’s why the Left targets the ignorant, and seeks to keep them ignorant through its domination of the academic world and the news and entertainment media.

How stupid was the Left’s response to the Texas case of a teenage boy, the son of a former candidate for president of Sudan, who brought to school a bomb-lookalike that was actually a clock (probably from Radio Shack)? Continue reading →

Green Watch September 2015: Bee-mageddon, Magic Chocolate, and Bad Reporting on Science: Junk science beats real science in newsrooms and in the halls of power

Green Watch

Bee-mageddon, Magic Chocolate, and Bad Reporting on Science
Junk science beats real science in newsrooms and in the halls of power [PDF here]

By T. Becket Adams

Summary: Bad scientists and bad journalists team up to use junk science—scientific claims that are unsupported by the facts—to mislead the public and exploit people’s fear. For this, society pays a high price. Pesticides and genetically modified foods get banned for no good reason, which leads to higher prices for food (hurting poor people worst of all). Baseless concerns over vaccination help spread infectious disease. The checks-and-balances that are supposed to protect us from junk science are broken, and there is a critical need for reform.

The next time you read an astonishing news report based on the latest scientific study, and you think, “They can’t make this stuff up!”—you should reconsider.

They can, and do, make stuff up.

Last spring, Dr. Johannes Bohannon and a team of German scientists discovered that people on low-carbohydrate diets could lose weight faster if they ate a bar of chocolate every day.

Newsrooms around the world responded eagerly to Bohannon’s findings. “Excellent News: Chocolate Can Help You Lose Weight!” declared Huffington Post India. The U.K.’s Daily Mail blared in a headline, “Pass the Easter Egg! New study reveals that eating chocolate doesn’t affect your Body Mass Index…and can even help you LOSE weight!” In the United States, Modern Healthcare advised: “Dieting? Don’t forget the chocolate.”

The report leaped around the world, with news of the sweet discovery spreading from the Internet to print and television. Even Europe’s highest-circulation newspaper, Bild, got in on the action, publishing a report titled “Slim by Chocolate!”

Journalists and readers looked past the too-good-to-be-true nature of the findings and devoured the story wholesale.

As you may have guessed, Bohannon’s research was a hoax.

Chocolate not the key to weight loss
The health study was fabricated; it was a test of the hypothesis that scientists and reporters rarely detect junk science.

No one caught onto the ruse.

“Our point was not that journalists could be tricked by fakers, but rather that scientists themselves in this field and other fields are making the kinds of mistakes that we made on purpose,” said Bohannon, a journalist whose real first name is John and who holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology. “This whole area of science has become kind of corrupted by really poor standards between scientists and journalists.”
He told the Washington Examiner that his interest in the project was rooted in personal experience. His mother [Click HERE for the rest of the story]


Democracy, Washington style

U.S. Capitol Building

 [Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

One of the aspects of the federal government that regular people find mystifying (and, when they learn the details, astonishing) is the bureaucracy’s rulemaking process. The Constitution puts legislative authority entirely in the hands of Congress, except for the President’s legislative veto and the Vice President’s role, rarely played, as presiding officer and tie-breaker in the U.S. Senate. However, the powers of the executive branch, which the President heads, have greatly increased over the years, rising to a level far beyond anything in the Constitution. Many legislative powers have been improperly delegated to the President, and various presidents have further delegated those powers to unelected, unaccountable, usually anonymous bureaucrats and their allies (such as the carefully selected scientists who provide a fake-scientific cover for bureaucratic policies).

Part of that bureaucratic process is that bureaucrats, when they announce proposed rules, seek out comments from the general public; that’s supposed to ensure Continue reading →

The Victims of “Dark Money” Disclosure


The Victims of “Dark Money” Disclosure
How government reporting requirements suppress speech and limit charitable giving

By Jon Riches, Organization Trends, September 2015 (PDF here)

Summary: Anonymous political speech has been essential to democratic discourse since the founding of our republic. Debates over whether to ratify the U.S. Constitution were primarily conducted through a series of anonymous papers. Yet in recent years, anonymous political speech has been under attack by so-called “dark money” critics, who demand that government expose the identities of individuals, businesses, labor unions, and nonprofits that spend money to participate in political dialogue. Couched as “transparency” measures, “dark money” disclosure mandates are often used as excuses to silence disfavored speech. Troublingly, mandated disclosure of private donors is sweeping the country in the form of vague and overbroad regulations of nonprofit organizations that operate in nearly every sector and industry and represent views across the political spectrum. These mandates have diluted political dialogue, invited harassment and retaliation against speakers, and chilled speech and association. Although the Constitution protects political and private associations against compelled disclosure, federal courts have often failed to enforce those protections. Liberty advocates should fight for greater constitutional protection of free speech and association rights, both in court and in state laws that regulate spending on political issues.

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995

The following cautionary tale is a true story. It reveals how endangered political speech is in America.

“Anne” was alarmed when she heard an early morning pounding on her front door. “It was so hard. I’d never heard anything like it. I thought someone was dying outside.” When she ran to open the door, armed police came pouring into every room of the house, yelling orders, cornering her family, and seizing Anne’s private property. The police verbally abused Anne and her family, instructing them not to contact a lawyer or tell anyone about the early morning raid.

Anne’s crime? She had supported Wisconsin’s Act 10—Gov. Scott Walker’s public union reform bill that passed in 2011. Anne’s story is one of several incidents of harassment and intimidation that occurred in Wisconsin’s “John Doe” investigations, so named because of the extraordinary powers granted to law enforcement to maintain the secrecy of their investigations. The investigators didn’t have to reveal the names of their targets, and even when those targets, including Anne, had their homes publicly raided, they were put under gag orders and required not to reveal they were under investigation, even as government agents compelled the targets to disclose their personal information (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18, 2013).

The investigation began as a probe into the activities of Walker and his staff, and expanded to reach nonprofits nationwide that had made independent political expenditures in Wisconsin, including the League of American Voters, Americans for Prosperity, and the Republican Governors Association (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 14, 2011).

This John Doe probe serves as a chilling example of one state’s attempt to criminalize political speech. It shows the danger to free speech when regulators use their authority to silence political expression with which they disagree.

The apparently politically motivated attempts to suppress speech in Wisconsin and invade Anne’s privacy led her to protest that this was not the America she recognized. Nor is it consistent with this country’s long tradition of respecting the right to free association and private speech of all kinds.

Indeed, when Americans were debating whether to ratify the U.S. Constitution, much of the public discussion occurred through anonymous essays and pamphlets. The most famous of these were the Federalist Papers, written with great secrecy under the pen name “Publius” by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in hopes of persuading citizens—especially in the critical state of New York—to ratify the Constitution.

Continue reading →

Ferguson Bombers Sentenced: Two Black Panthers get a slap on the wrist, courtesy of the Obama administration.


A timely article from CRC Senior Editor Matthew Vadum:

Two Black Panthers get a slap on the wrist, courtesy of the Obama administration.

By Matthew Vadum (originally published by FrontPageMag on Sept. 9, 2015)

A foiled plot to use bombs to assassinate the police chief, county prosecutor, and other officials in troubled Ferguson, Mo., and also blow up the iconic Gateway Arch in nearby St. Louis, has ended in federal prison terms for two New Black Panther Party members.

In a sweetheart plea bargain deal, Olajuwon Davis and Brandon Orlando Baldwin, both radical black Muslim men in their twenties, received mere seven-year custodial sentences last week from U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey when they could have been sent to prison for decades. The men were sentenced “on charges of planning and conspiring to ignite explosive devices during the Ferguson protests and procuring firearms for convicted felons,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri.

U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan congratulated law enforcement for preventing what might have been a major disaster. “The disruption of this plot … undoubtedly saved lives. Luckily for all of us, we’ll never know just how many,” he said.

Davis and Baldwin met when they participated in the protests in Ferguson that followed the Aug. 9, 2014 death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man. Brown was killed by white then-police officer Darren Wilson when he charged Wilson after trying to wrest his service weapon from him. Brown’s death sparked riots in Ferguson and across America. Soon after meeting, Davis and Baldwin began plotting to arm fellow demonstrators and destroy the Gateway Arch.

The sentencing comes as black nationalists and members of the Black Lives Matter movement escalate calls for violent attacks on police, while the Obama administration responds by sitting on its hands. Last month Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan called for “10,000 fearless men” to come forward and slaughter white Americans. Black-supremacist King Noble is calling on blacks to murder whites and police. “It’s not safe no more to be white in America,” Noble announced in a viral YouTube video. “Lurking behind any corner could be an angry black man ready to take yo ass out.”

It also comes as the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) throws its lot in with the increasingly violent Black Lives Matter movement. Breitbart News reports that “CAIR leaders and members joined Black Lives Matter in a march on the California State Capitol on [Sept. 2], targeting Gov. Jerry Brown’s office over a new bill that, in part, would expand bans on racial profiling to include perceived ethnicity.” The fact that CAIR is siding with violent activists against police “creates a serious problem for CAIR’s defenders, which argue that its associations with Islamic extremism can be overlooked because it helps law enforcement work with, and within, the Muslim community.”

Continue reading →