USDA Official Resigns After ‘White Farmer’ Video
**Written by Doug Powers
We interrupt this “Tea Partiers are so incredibly racially biased” broadcast for the following update:
Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy — video that now has forced the official to resign.
The video posted at BigGovernment that started it all is here if you haven’t seen/heard it yet.
Breitbart claims more video is on the way.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled “Tea Partiers are so incredibly racially biased” broadcast.
Update: Sherrod tries to put the video in context — also blames Fox News. No blame for Bush?
(h/t Allahpundit at Hot Air)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Palin officially endorses desperate, clingy Orrin Hatch; time to rally around Dan Liljenquist
May 22, 2012 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
83 Comments1997 Fordham Law Review article: Elizabeth Warren was Harvard’s ‘first woman of color’
May 15, 2012 11:38 PM by Doug Powers
83 Comments
Kiss of death: Specter endorses Beltway barnacle Orrin Hatch, trashes Tea Party “cannibals”
May 14, 2012 06:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
112 Comments
Harry Reid worried ‘Tea Party zealots’ tossed out Lugar just for cooperating with Dems
May 10, 2012 09:39 PM by Doug Powers
147 Comments
Eye on Indiana and Wisconsin; Update: Lugar defeated; Barrett to face Walker
May 8, 2012 06:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
129 CommentsIndiana Senate primary poll shows Mourdock extending lead on Lugar; Santorum endorses
May 4, 2012 10:10 PM by Doug Powers
110 Comments
If you’re gonna call Tea Party activists RAAAACISTS…
May 3, 2012 12:33 AM by Michelle Malkin
162 Comments
MSM: Occupiers Anarchists arrested for bridge bomb plot
May 2, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
79 Comments
Categories: Race relations,Tea Party
Villainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearJustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like This
See. Here is a way to keep your blog and MM’s straight.
You will notice that when you post here, all the letters in that last sentence come out the same color and font size.
Glad I could be of help.
Absolutely, Rags!
I listened to some of the tape. She does say, in more than one place, that the issue is one of the poor vs those who have. The rich vs the poor. So, in that respect, she is definitely a redistributionist. But she also emphatically said this was not about race. She said that the poor, black or white are all the same to her when it comes to oppression of the poor. See the second minute of Part 3. She says it there.
So, she doesn’t come off as a racist to me. The NAACP does, but not this individual. You need to understand her life experiences here too. Her father was murdered by a white man when she was 17 and no one was prosecuted. She grew up in a racially divided country and was oppressed. This is bound to affect your attitude. BUT, it looks like she overcame her racism, at least as far as the rich vs poor are concerned. Now, being a redistributionist is bad enough and I don’t absolve her of that attitude. That is a HUGE problem! Is she a racist? My conclusion is…NO. Is she a fascist? Again, I wouldn’t go that far. But she definitely has socialist ideas.
I am not trying to make excuses for her…just trying to understand.
Looks like Breitbart has some explaining to do. It seems he was a little too quick to condemn this woman without releasing the entire video. She was badly treated by the White House, Vilsack, the NAACP, Breitbart, etc. And no, I’m not a liberal at all. Very conservative. But, come on, people, let’s get the story straight before we rush to judgment. She is owed several apologies.
hahahahahahahahaha
The house I was born in did not have an indoor toilet. The town was tiny (600 people), and others thought a certain kind of person came from that town.
I certainly don’t want anyone to take from the ‘haves’ and redistribute it to the ‘have nots because they have decided they don’t wanna work for it and choose to wait until they can take what they want.’
Some context…
Since context is important to this story, let us return to context (Chaps kicking and screaming).
Breitbart was incensed that the NAACP would CONSIDER a resolution condemning TEA Parties as racist.
He promised to put up a video showing actual NAACP racism.
Did the Sherrod video do that? I assert it did, does, and will.
Did the entire world appear to react to the Breitbart video? Sure. Was it an over-reaction? I think not, but you decide.
Is Ms. Sherrod revealed to be a bigot in BOTH videos? Affirmatively, YES!
Oh, oh! Can I play the context game too? This is Breitbart describing Sherrod:
This is Breitbart describing the audience:
So don’t try to tell me Breitbart wasn’t trying to make a specific issue of Sherrod as well as the audience, Rags.
And odd, isn’t it, Brietbart’s use of the word “meandering” to describe the speech. He claims to have had only 3 minutes and 39 seconds of the tape, from two different places. Of course it is clear that there is more before and after each of these sections, but surely he would have no way of knowing that if he was only given these clips. Unless he was lying.
Small edit.
Hey Spacey, get a grip! She didn’t say that. Now, is that the prevailing attitude with the poor who voted for Obama so he would give them some of his “stash”? Yes!! But I didn’t hear this particular woman say anything like that! Or are you generalizing and saying all blacks are racist? I don’t think you really mean to do that, do you, Spacey?
oh dear G-d–where in my post did I mention any race?
“While he was acting all superior, I was trying to figure out how much I was going to help him.”
When I first heard this, I thought, of course, thats what your job is. There are varying degrees of help. I had no problem with that. It was some of the other things she said, the way she said them, the reaction of the audience, that was bad. Thats what Breitbart was pointing out. She admits to being a racist in 1986. Kinda like Byrd, thats all ok now. I guess we will extend similar forgiveness to Trent Lott now too.
It seems she was insinuating that his superiority attitude was racist. The audience was agreeing with her about the man being a racist as if thats what all white farmers do. Was that what he was doing? Sherrod said she gave them a black lawyer and a white lawyer name and they chose the black laywer first until he resigned. That doesn’t sound very racist to me. More likely, he was just an arrogant type person but she tells the story as if he was being a racist to her and the crowd seemed to agree with her conclusion. So she painted him as a racist to the people at the NAACP to curry favor with them? That is just wrong and that didn’t happen in 1986.
Some other statements:
You know what I mean
I had to help a white guy
Refer him to his own kind
Too many strange things here. Hearing that her Dad was murdered by a white guy but never prosecuted is weird too. That would be a traumatic experience. If they know it was a white guy, why was there no prosecution? Hmm.
I do have some sympathy for her in this mess but the NAACP? No way. That organization is racist starting with its name. Yet they attack the Tea Party. Shame on them.
Although the facts and Breitbart himself contradict your entire premise, suppose for a second he is lying – so what? Does that excuse the WH instructing/pressuring the USDA to fire Sherrod w/o “due process,” w/o having gathered ALL the facts before libeling her a racist?
That’s Breitbart’s point – the more hateful Sherrod’s words sounded, the more the audience ate them up.
This entire episode is evidence of Breitbart’s genius at highlighting the hypocrisy of the media in smearing the Tea Party as racist while ignoring the real racism displayed by groups on the Left.
So, again I ask: does anyone know the source for these video clips? Were they, or were they not pre-edited in the manner in which Breitbart presented them?
Did he only add the misleading title card frames? Were those based on false information presented to him that he accepted on good faith?
Or were those already attached to the video clips?
I think it makes a difference, at the very least with whether I am upset with him over outright fabrication or merely not doing due diligence in his reporting.
Sorry Spacey, I meant to use the word “fascist”, not racist.
Nope. Never said it did. The White House screwed the pooch as well. But back to Breitbart. The man already is known to have a nasty habit of editing things for the benefit of his narrative. He described the speech as “meandering” even though he had less than 4 minutes of it. Plus, and admittedly this is personal, he just oozes a@@holeishness. I’ll believe anything out of his mouth the day I vote for Palin.
The reaction of the audience is greatly exaggerated in any case, but there is no debating he was going after Sherrod as well. His words directly contradict the lies he told on MSNBC, that he “felt bad that “they” made it about her.” And that he “feels sympathy” for her. Disgusting pig of a liar. His very own words about Sherrod.
We’ve seen the tape; it is as Breitbart said, an audience wildly appreciative of racist anecdote. Breibart is a wealthy man because of his intrepid reporting and investigative stings. He had NO reason to pursue Sherrod beyond the racist appeal of her speech and the NAACP audience’s reaction to it.
Bull. Watch it again. They chuckle once relatively loudly when she said she was “acting superior to her.”
The second she gets into the meat of how she was struggling helping a white person over all the black people she knew was struggling, when she talks about “his own kind” taking care of him, etc… there is not a single peep from the audience.
Watch again and see for yourself.
Also, to further rebut Rags on-its-face absurd argument that Breitbart was not making this about Sherrod, I’d encourage him to review the last 15 seconds of that tape Breitbart posted, and see the editting he did.
I don’t know if Breitbart had more than that one clip to begin with or if he had the part where she explains that she was racist but then realized that she should be for poor people of all colors and just omitted it.
His point was that the MSM and the NAACP are labeling the Tea Party racists without any proof of it but the MSM and the NAACP don’t say anything about the NAACP being racist even when there is proof.
This proof in the video is weak because of the context in which she was speaking but those people were approving her racist treatment of the white farmer before she got to the punchline. Thats why it wasn’t about Sherrod in total but certainly included her in the process.
They were laughing because someone who was (allegedly) acting superior to this woman now suddenly needed her help. It is a common and ironic situation that is worthy of derisive laughter no matter the colors involved. Again, look to when she really started to describe her prejudices and how she initially treated the white farmer. How did the audience react? They did nothing.
They were only “wildly appreciative” in the same sense that Michele Bachmann is “wildly grounded in reality” or Lidsey Graham is “wildly in love with women.”
I can see the irony of that situation, just not the comedy.
Not exactly what I would describe as “Night At The Apollo”.
They had the choice of sitting on their hands or deciding to hoot -’n -holler. They chose the latter.
But the issue at hand is how the ad went in entirely the wrong direction in handling this, and are now blaming every conservative within pointing distance – from Fox to Breitbart (can Bush be far behind?) – rather than explain why they assumed Ms. Sherrod was racist, that everything was it appeared on the tape excerpt, and why they overreacted by firing her [Sherrod].
Isn’t this the same as admitting they have perhaps allowed racists to infiltrate their agencies/ranks?
chapoutier said:
I watched a 2&1/2 minute clip of this lady speaking, and I’d describe her as meandering. Her speaking. was. so. slow. and. she. rambled. here. and. there.
So I don’t think that proves Breitbart had the whole tape, or even much of the tape. In fact, I think it is more credible that Breitbart didn’t have the whole context. If he did, he would have know there would be a backlash when the context came out.
Breitbart didn’t need to condemn Sherrod in order to make his point. Breitbart’s primary target was the NAACP, not Sherrod. This is seen in the fact that Breitbart had the tape for some time, but released it now in response to the NAACP labeling the tea party as racist.
The only “lie” in that quote that I can find is this: “that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.” Since, as I have heard, she was referring to a time prior to her federal job. But of course, it would only be a “lie” if Breitbart had the rest of the tape. And I see no reason to believe he had.
What I find very interesting is that the NAACP tape, that is supposedly the “whole tape,” has an edit at the 21 minute mark. When the tape resumes, there is some residual laughter. I wonder what was edited out that was so funny…
The fact that you would describe that response as “hooting and hollering” shows you have no grasp on the reality of the situation.
Yet he did. I don’t see how you can possibly deny that. He even went so far as to dispute that the farmers from the story, when they were interviewed on TV were real!
The lie is that he was not also going after Sherrod herself, as he claimed last night. The lie is that he is “sympathetic” to her now that “they” (which is who, exactly?) have simply twisted what poor ol’ Andy was doing! He’s always loved Sherrod! He meant “racist” in the incest possible way, dontcha know!
yeesh “nicest” possible way. Now there’s a mixup that spellcheck won’t catch.
I’ve been in a three hour meeting with a client.
Only to find you all chasing the same calf around the barn…
I am put in mind of a Bible verse…
Let those with ears to hear hear; let those with eyes to see see…
And let Chaps do whatever it is he does.
I got a good chuckle from that.
I am put in mind of a quote from Exorcist III:
Who cares if Mr. B went after Sherrod or not? The point to all of this is how awfully the WH reacted to it!
Besides, it’s making a huge splash in the media attracting attention to how the Tea Parties have been smeared through similar editing tricks on some cable outlets and liberal blogs, and will make Ms. Sherrod – and some lucky attorney – very, very rich!
How would you feel about a poll on that thesis…
you v. me.
Right here, right now…
hmmmmm….
musta struck a nerve…
chapoutier said:
Yes, chap, but the point is, if Breitbart knew ahead of time the complete context, he was only hurting his cause by going after Sherrod personally, not helping it. It doesn’t make sense for Breitbart to go after Sherrod if he had the whole tape.
Breitbart’s primary target is the NAACP, no question about it (hence the timing of releasing the tape). Regardless of how you want to parse what the crowd was and was not laughing at, the fact is, it makes the NAACP crowd look bad.
chapoutier said:
“Dispute?” From what I saw, he didn’t say they were fake, he was asking for evidence they were real. And if he had known the context all along, this wouldn’t make sense for him to do.
No, no, no…
According to our Resident Final Arbiter of Points, the only point is “the racism DEMONSTRATED in the NAACP.”
He might want to put some ice on that.
No, no…I’ve been called worse by a lot better. Usually by men who were immediately answerable, and who regretted it.
You stated a testable proposition, and I’m calling you out.
This is the same person who opened himself up to lawsuits by filming in Maryland where they have stringent wiretapping laws when he had several other tapes from jurisdictions where there was no such impediment.
Clearly, foresight into the consequences of his actions is not one of Breitbart’s strong points.
You saw the same tape we did and yet still insist on continuing w/ this line of reasoning? Oh well, move-along I guess
Oh dear. Here comes the whole “e-tough” routine. Next are you going to personally invite me down to Texas to “talk about this in person?” Should I just premept that bit of silliness by inviting you up to Silver Spring?
Setting aside your whole rough and tumble Texan bit, which “testable proposition” do you claim I made, exactly?
Yes. If you think the crowd was “hooting and hollering” and carring on wildly then indeed, discussing it any further would be a waste of time.
Why would Breitbart edit that tape or try to misrepresent it when he knew there was more out there. He would have known he would be busted. Breitbart is not stupid.
The whole thing is another “the police acted stupidly” moment for the WH, with the overreactions and smearing of that woman. Making her pull over to the side of the road and resign immediately, before they investigated was unbelievably dictatorial and corrupt political bullying of the worst kind. Will the MSM even call them on that?? Or will they just continue to blame FOX? Another thing…does anyone know what George Bush was doing during all this? It could all be his fault. Someone needs to check his alibi.
How would you feel about a poll on that thesis…
you v. me.
Right here, right now…
Just so there’s no confusion…which is your stock-in-trade.
Why did Breitbart intercut O’Keefe dressed as a caracature of a pimp into his ACORN videos, when in reality he went in to the offices dressed perfectly normally?
He had to know that the ACORN employees would know the truth.
So do you want to test whether everyone thinks you’re and a$$hole or do you want to engage in a popularity contest between me and you? I said the former. You somehow made it into the latter.
But in any case, would it soothe your soul if I conceded that more people probably like you here than like me? Would that, and a warm blanket, help you sleep tonight?
The real story about this is the write up I read on CNN. Very restrained and ready to take on Conservatives and side with Sherrod, without having all of the facts. Wonder why they have not shown the same reporting restraint with the charges and calls of racism toward Tea Parties? I am glad this lady got her whole story out, wish everyone had that opportunity against the biased lame stream media. Another indictment against a propaganda news organization. I guess there didn’t need to be anymore though. I will use this as further proof to my liberal, thick friends of the propaganda being spewed. Some of them are starting to see it.
Actually, there are many points – two of which are cited above.
You can the ad the obvious fact that Sherrod has no problem at all with publicly using racist language, e.g. she casually refers to whites with their “own kind”.
If I were as sue-for-bucks dependent as she – she got millions from taxpayers and was also given what she presumes should be a job for life – she’s the type of racist bureaucrat that I’d love to have attempt her patented race-based government shafting on me.
As I said before, she’s a walking civil rights suit just waiting to happen. That the WH realizes this was reflected in Vilsack’s explanation for her firing:
“The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia.”
With the NAACP, Sherrod, the WH and the Obama Dept Of Ag pointing fingers at one another, frantically coming up with excuses and clarifications we can deduce another important point: “Live by Alinsky Rules, die by Alinsky Rules”.
That the kind of contest I think all lawyers of any political stripe would try to avoid….
Touche.
Wait…how is this so? Not saying you are wrong, just trying to figure out what you are talking about.
I’d like to see Ms. Sherrod and Mr. Jealous repudiate (or “refudiate”
) the following:
I think they won’t repudiate that, but rather fully support it.
What’s the source of that quote?
Most of the Democrat[ic Socialist]s in our government, and most of the MSM, support and implement the agenda of the Communist Party USA.
The NAACP supports and implements the agenda of the Communist Party.
Most unions support and implement the agenda of the Communist Party.
“Progressives” are Communists.
She was the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit settlement that netted 13 million $. She (and her partner-husband-whatever the correct term) personally received $300,000 for “pain and suffering”.
There may be some rocks that she (and perhaps the Ag Dept) would rather gov’t investigators, or investigative media, not turn over. For example, her part in the handling of the settlement funds. More info here.
I could see where “don’t rock the boat” might be the operative phrase for involved parties.
I don’t think that underscores her views on economics as much as how she views everything through the prism of race, RedPill. She’s actually quite the “entrepreneur” in her own way, as I just noted to Chap.
On July 21st, 2010 at 9:22 am, happyscrapper said:
If she had simply said she wanted to help him because he was poor and needed her help, that would have been fine. But this wasn’t an issue of her having a charitable heart. It was her deciding that he was on the same side as her in “the struggle”. The key word is the word “versus”…
She didn’t say, “it’s about helping the poor”. She said:
The enemy is the rich white man, a.k.a. “The Man”.
This isn’t about her just having a charitable heart. It’s about her viewing the world as groups “versus” other groups. At first she wasn’t going to give him the “full force” of her help because he was white and (without proof) “acting superior”. She decided to help him because he was poor and it was “revealled” to her that
If he had not been poor, but still needed help, would she or would she not have given him the “full force” of her help?
Yes, she helped the Spooners. But she still views the world with an “us versus them” mentality.
That is why, even though she helped the Spooners, I believe she deserved to be fired and does not deserve an apology.
Again, RedPill, that was done hrouh a private nonprofit organization. How is that in any way marxist or socialist?
She just got a promotion for her “difficulties”. Vilsack took the entire blame, skirted questions about the aides comments about White House involvement, and said he offered her an undisclosed job because of her “vast” experience that he apparently just discovered.
It was a learning experience.
Vilsack also said he didn’t think properly because of the “tens of thousands ” of civil rights lawsuits the dept is facing. He is adamant to rid the department of the types of behavior that led to the lawsuits.
He has a zero tolerance policy and thought the transcript of the edited video was enough to violate that. He had no contact with the White House until he mentioned a White House liason later that “might have been contacted”
Hmmm..
The question I woulod have asked is.. Are you going to resign?
Obama must have added that extra o in “would” with his internet control password.
I don’t see where those two thoughts would be mutually exclusive. That is, someone can work at a non-profit and be sill be a radical Marxist.
In fact, I suspect there are more than a few socialist nonprofit groups. They’d pretty have be have nonprofit if they were really Marxist.
(BTW, if memory serves, the group she was with at the time was funded at least in part by the state gov’t.)
She sounded like a really nice lady but some of her comments…whew.
Dad mudered and covered up by whites.
Radical sheriff abusing everybody.
$13 million civil rights suit won.
Own kind.
Didn’t do everything for white farmer.
Poor vs Rich.
It is white and black.
I’m very interested in the murder of her father. Whats the statute of limitation on murder? She made some broad allegations there. I think she said 1965? Someone should look into that instead of worrying so much about Glen Beck.
On July 21st, 2010 at 6:37 pm, chapoutier said:
Her recent comments reveal both race and class bias, and neither one is appropriate.
She deserved to be fired for her recent comments, independent of what happened 20 years ago.
There’s more to this story than first meets the eye.
Did she get the job because of the lawsuit?
But wait, there’s more…
Bill Ayers is a self-admitted Revolutionary Communist.
How much of Bill Ayers’ agenda is shared by Mr. and Mrs. Sherrod?
On July 21st, 2010 at 6:59 pm, T-Bone said:
As a rule, murder (especially capital murder or first degree murder) has no statute of limitations.
Indeed.
Whose faith? Not the faith of the founders. They weren’t fighting to “bring an Empire to its knees”. No, that would be the faith of Malcolm X…
Be prepared. Obama fully desires to bring Malcolm X’s dreams to reality. “A new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline” will likely be Martial Law.
Who is Shirley Sherrod? Things may get interesting here.
Has anyone seen anything on what was edited out of the NAACP’s “full” tape? The edit that contains the trail of laughter?
Did Sherrod make a racist joke? Did a member in the NAACP make a racist joke? Was there a “little too much laughter” after a racist comment made by Sherrod?
Who knows? I want the FULL context!
Jim Geraghty
As I’ve noted before, the lady is a racist and class-hater. Impure and simple.
I have seen all the coverage these past couple days, read many comments, watched her video. I now have come to the INFORMED conclusion that she is a racist and a redistributionist. As I have said before on this thread, we just needed to keep a more open mind and wait for the facts. I think we could have been terribly wrong and done a great disservice to this woman. I now see that she is indeed pretty bad. Bad enough to be treated that way she was? I don’t think so. Not the thug tactics used by the government!! They had no business treating her that way without even giving her a chance to discuss it!! Chicago mafia style at its finest! Obama acting stupidly. So now, I hope we can put this intentional distraction aside and get back to the economy and jobs!! People are desparate out there and they don’t give a darn about this woman and her comments, which reflect thousands of other government employee’s exact thoughts.
just wondering…
does anyone know for sure if her story abou the big bad white man who killed her parent (or parents) checks out?
Max, does that really matter?
Yup, Scrapper, the administration should have called her in, asked questions and done some investigation before it just up and fired her. They made the Keystone Kops look like efficiency experts.
Her Dad was Hosie Miller who was killed in March 1965 by a local white farmer ostensibly over a dispute about ownership of some cows. The grand jury did not indict.
Baker county Georgia was one of those counties in the 60′s where Sherrif Gator Johnson and his sons ruled the land. Johnson was said to have killed 3-4 blacks himself.
He was aquitted of shooting one black in the neck 3 times. The guy survived to tell the story that he was a worker at the big plantation owned by the Coca Cola chairman at the time. The overseer held a 4th of July party for blacks every year. 3-4 thousand blacks would come. This one guy flirted with the overseers black mistress and the Sheriff followed him from the party, beat him and took him to the jail where he was handcuffed in the front seat of the squad car. He then picked up the radio and shouted, this guys coming after me, I’m gonna shoot and shot him twice. Then he radioed, He’s still coming, I gotta shoot again and shot him again. He survived to tell that story.
The sheriff told them he picked up the guy for running a stop light or something and the guy attacked him. He was acquited of the shooting.
That county was a bad place for anyone, black or white, to run afoul of the law and I am sure blacks were not treated well. The same Sheriff locked the courthouse and pushed blacks down the steps to keep them from registering to vote.
Whether the cow ownership issue was real or not, blacks were probably not going to get justice back then. Her Dad could have been a thief and got caught. Locals did not want to convict a man for killing a cow thief so they let it go. Or the white man may have stolen the cows from the black man and when confronted, killed him, and hid behind his white buddies to get away with it.
Not much info on how he was killed, shot, beaten, lynched? I think shot.
Sherrod says she has moved past that but I suspect she hasn’t. There will be other information coming out about her. She has been an activist and speaker for a number of years. Something in her manner led me to believe she has racist tendencies and certainly class warfare issues. Especially based on her attacks on Fox, when it was really Vilsack and Obama who screwed the pooch on this one.
I would bet more of her real self comes out. CNN of course blamed Breitbart who may be smater than I think he is. He may have set the table that unfounded charges of racism should not be run with. That is what the MSM did with racist charges against the Tea Party, Karl Rove, Trent Lott and a host of others. They had no proof either or had taken things out of context. Future claims will be met with skepticism based on the Sherrod treatment.
By the way, that plantation was the biggest industry in the county. The overseer ran it and local law enforcment did the dirty work and probably took a kickback of the profits. Of the Sheriffs in that county over the last 50 years, only 2 of the 5 were not indicted or convicted of some corruption. The current Sherriff is a black man who is under indictment right now. What was that movie, Macon County line? The law controls who comes and goes and what they do there. Those were the days. I think Gator Johnson was Sheriff from 1955 to 1977 and his son was sheriff till 1986. They ruled with deadly force during the most violent racial period of my time. Sherrod is a product of that insanity.
Before canonizing Sherrod, we should not the following statement from her speech:
from the transcript (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/shirleysherrodnaacpfreedom.htm)
I, for one, would like to know exactly what she “endured” for eight years under Bush. Where is the racism in the “mean spiritedness” in the health care debate? What “stuff” are “these Republicans doing”?
Also note that her complaining went from “three calls demanding her resignation from the White House” to “Fox News is out to get me”. How did that transition happen? Could a job/promotion have been dependent on switching her dismay from the president to Fox?
Food for thought.