Saturday, June 27, 2009

Buju Banton: Boom Bye Bye's Inconvenient Truth, Part-2 ... The "Other" Words In The Song

Boom Bye Bye: An Inconvenient Truth Part 2 ...The “other” words in the song!
An investigation of the "other" words in Boom Bye Bye, illustrating that gay militants have latched on to controversial lyrics in the chorus in order to hide the devastating denunciation provided by the other words in the song!
Dear Editor,

Justin DeFreitas (KN 10/31/07) and Lutchman Gossai (GC 10/31/07) enter into a torrent of rage regarding the article “Gay militancy represents more fear and danger”: Justin DeFreitas’ “Song Incites Criminal Violence” allows for effective rebuttal.

They offer no facts, no countervailing evidence to the torrent of material offered in that article. As always, it is the ad hominem argument that is used in rebuttal, the subtle plea to ignorance, the deceptive semantic sand-dance of the intellectual snake. In extraordinary leaps of simple-minded effrontery, they infer that the article supports murder. Nothing could be further from the truth!

So this response is about the conceptual trap that they both walked into, because Part 1 (“Gay militancy represents more fear and danger”) was precisely structured so that persons would ask the question: “What does all of Buju’s song really say?

It will come as no surprise that millions around the world, after hearing Boom Bye Bye, did not go out and assassinate people. Buju has apparently failed miserably at that aim. So what, really, was Buju trying to convey … other than “gunplay” … that makes the song so astonishingly popular, and appealing, to the instinctive sense of truth for untold millions!

It will come as a surprise to many that it is the catchy “chorus” of “Boom Bye Bye” that gay militancy and DeFreitas has latched on to … in a desperate attempt to silence the two main verses of Buju’s outspoken song that illustrate great social and Christian truths. They have hitherto been artfully hidden by the “gunplay” outcry of the gay militant community, but are even more damaging to their cause if the song is allowed to be ventilated. The verses illustrate the innate wrong that homosexuality represents:

“.... (Two man) Hitch up on an rub up on … An lay down inna bed … Hug up on another … Anna feel up leg …”
“Don't want Jackie … Give dem Paul instead … Dem don't want di sweetness …Between di leg … Gal bend down backway … An accept di peg … An if it really hot … You know she still naw gon fled … A some man … Still don't want di … Panty raid … Pure batty business … dem love …”

“(Woman is di) Greatest thing … God ever put pon di land … Buju lovin dem from head … Down to foot bottom … But some man a … turn around … Where dem get that from … Peter is not for Janet … Peter is for John … Suzette is not for Paul … Suzette is for Ann … Where the bobocloth … Dem get dat from … Here come the DJ … Name Buju Banton … (Come fi …Straighten yuh talk?),,,,”

The science we refer to, and which DeFreitas denies so scornfully, is illustrated below, and illustrates the astonishing fact that what the Bible outlines in only a few sentences has taken us thousands of years to rationalize in various scientific journals. It is again astonishing that Buju Banton arrives intuitively at the same conclusions as these reports:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al have gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections....."

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Gossai’s arguments:

".... But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being ...."

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) ( This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. DeFreitas needs no “facts” for his letter, only innuendo, and the hapless gullibility of those who will not read!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University’s “Homosexuality: Truth Be Told” Law Review series (

".... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of paedophilia ...."

Homosexuality is not a civil right, it is a civil wrong! … And it is in that sense only that Gossai should appreciate the raw metaphor of Boom Bye Bye.
DeFreitas and Gossai will not touch one word of the evidence quoted above … we can bet on that.

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
3rd November 2007

No comments:

Post a Comment