Racist Al Sharpton Gives Patronizing Lecture to Dr. Ben Carson
Al Sharpton whose use an opinion on America is the most comical thing you can listen to on the Internet now has decided he has the moral authority to lecture...
By: Rane Davi
More:
Racist Al Sharpton Gives Patronizing Lecture to Dr. Ben Carson - Video
Reverend Al Sharpton: From Slavery to Freedom
By: MSUCOM0
MSNBC Is Firing Al Sharpton! About Damn Tim
MSNBC Is Firing Al Sharpton! About Damn Time! http://patdollard.com/2015/02/insiders-al-sharpton-to-be-fired-as-msnbc-to-no-longer-be-leftist-network/ BUY TH...
By: Promoting Common Sense One Person At A Time
View original post here:
MSNBC Is Firing Al Sharpton! About Damn Tim - Video
NEW YORK, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Al Sharpton, the NAACP and other African-American advocacy groups are being sued for discrimination by the National Association of African American Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks.
NAAAOM, the media company founded by comedian Byron Allen, claims that Comcast discriminates against media owned by African Americans.
The $20 billion suit claims that the only 100 percent African American-owned channel Comcast has agreed to broadcast is the Africa Channel.
The suit accuses Sharpton of helping "whitewash" white-owned businesses with black celebrities as "window dressing." It also charges Comcast with making large cash donations to Sharpton and his National Action Network for public support of Comcast's diversity and the acquisition of NBC Universal.
The suit claims that when Entertainment Studios contacted Comcast to talk about a merger, the company replied "We're not trying to create any more Bob Johnsons," in reference to the African American founder of Black Entertainment Television. Johnson sold BET to Viacom in 2001.
"Comcast has engaged in good-faith negotiations with this programmer for many years. It is disappointing that they have decided to file a frivolous lawsuit. We will defend vigorously against the scurrilous allegations in this complaint and fully expect that the court will dismiss them," Comcast said in a statement.
Related UPI Stories
2015 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.
Popular Photos
Notable deaths of 2014
Visit link:
Media companies, Al Sharpton sued for discrimination
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The Rev. Al Sharpton seems to have learned this lesson long ago: When youre a controversial civil rights leader whos made a career out of harassing the cops and embarrassing the government, never keep any assets in your own name. But that has never prevented authorities from vigorously inspecting the good reverends personal and organizational finances over the years, often coming up with troves of improprieties ranging from misappropriation to delinquency and possible fraud.
But even when the government seemed to have Mr. Sharpton and his organization squarely within its sights and hobbled by the costs of litigation, fines and arrears assessed for unpaid taxes, none of it seemed to stick.
He has repeatedly stuck his thumb in the eye of the best-laid plans for his demise and risen to a level of mainstream power and influence that belies what many feel is at best an unorthodox style and, at worst, a cynical exploitation of the suffering of the people he purports to represent. Certainly Mr. Sharptons role in the tawdry Tawana Brawley hoax, and his subsequent conviction for defamation for his role in tarnishing the careers and reputations of the falsely accused police officers, should been enough to bury him for good.
But the lessons he learned early on stood him in good stead. When the cameras are on, Mr. Sharpton seems to be literally everywhere. But when it comes time to pay the bill for that infamously earned publicity, he vanishes into a cloud of impalpable smoke. What assets does he own? Who pays his expenses? How does he manage to get around the country and set up shop at a moments notice each time there is a controversy involving the police and black people? Those are questions that government officials have tied themselves in knots trying to answer over the years, mostly to no avail.
Whats probably most remarkable about Mr. Sharptons financial shenanigans is that, rather than being a source of shame, they are seen by his most ardent supporters as a badge of honor. In fact, he has played on the justified suspicions of many blacks that the powers that be will use every trick in the book, up to and including assassination, to discredit black leaders who are considered a thorn in the side of the system.
But Mr. Sharpton can adroitly use that cover because he has singed the government so many times over cases such as the abuse of Abner Louima and the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo that, in many cases, municipalities will try to settle cases as quickly as possible, lest Mr. Sharpton drag them through the mud for months and years. Its not just the millions in settlements to the aggrieved families: Mr. Sharpton has probably been more influential in spurring changes in police procedure, including use of force and improving internal investigations, than perhaps any single person since the civil rights movement.
Thats impressive.
And yet how hard could it possibly be for the government to collect the $4.5 million in federal taxes that even Mr. Sharpton acknowledges he owes? Therein lies the rub. The government has attempted the threat of financial and/or criminal sanctions to gain leverage over Mr. Sharpton and his organization. It does not really want him to be free and clear of financial encumbrances lest he really get out of hand and start making more substantive demands. And so rather than bringing the full weight and power of the law down on Mr. Sharpton, the government has acted more like a lenient creditor at best and, at worst, an angel investor in Mr. Sharptons improbable yet undisputedly successful enterprise.
He has in a sense evolved into the crazy uncle who owes you money but still gets invited over to holiday dinners because not doing so would cause strife in the family. And who wants family strife, especially during the holidays?
Follow this link:
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: The Teflon Don of civil rights