Posted on 07/20/2010 6:37:58 PM PDT by Def Conservative
the NAACP isn't the only one speaking out about the video. At the prominent conservative blog RedState, Erick Erickson spoke out in defense of Sherrod in a post called, "Getting scalps at what cost," writing,
Andrew Breitbart promised he would do to the left what the left has been doing to the right for years. He is gathering quite the collection of leftwing scalps and will forever warm the hearts of the right for the ACORN takedown alone. I'm glad he is on our side.
That said, I think Shirley Sherrod has been unfairly characterized as a racist.
In the Breitbart video, we hear Ms. Sherrod discuss meeting with a white farmer who clearly wanted to make sure she knew he was superior to her. And we hear her say she decided she'd help, but only do so much. And we clearly hear her say she decided to send him to his own kind -- a white lawyer.
What we only start to hear before the video ends and where the conversation goes is Ms. Sherrod realizing the issue was not black vs. white, but a matter of the poor. In fact, Ms. Sherrod and the white farmer are now friends. The farmer and his wife are defending Ms. Sherrod for saving their family farm. It seems the video cuts out as Ms. Sherrod is about to make a profound point -- the dynamics of black versus white have changed in the South.
It is refreshing to see Erickson's willingness to be a truth-teller, even if it means letting someone from the other side of the aisle off the hook. One can only hope that if the shoe were on the other foot, liberals would be as intellectually honest.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdaily.com ...
And I am sick of "conservatives" like Erik at Redstate. When will the right realize we are engaged in political war. And why is Glen Beck taking up for this Sherrod woman? She DID say racist things that--regardless of the speech's ending--wouldve got ANY white person in hot water.
exactly right Def
payback is a bitch isn’t left wing?
In other words...how is she connected.
And let's see how she lives....
Black on the outside, red on the inside.
The NAACP association with the Communist Party of the USA is well documented.
“Much of the information I will present is taken from a book called Biographical Dictionary of the Left which was written by a Francis Gannon and was published by Western Islands back in 1969. If you can still find this book somewhere, I would recommend it.
The NAACP “emerged” in 1909, supposedly to promote equality and rights among the races. Needless to say, it has done neither.
However, the formation of this group was urged by the leading radicals of that day, among whom were Jane Addams and government school “educator” John Dewey. Other radicals were among the first officials in the organization. Among these was Oswald Garrison Villard, grandson of the infamous abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison.
The first president of the NAACP was, strangely enough, a white man, Moorfield Story, a lawyer from Boston. Black radical WEB DuBois, who later joined the Communist Party, was the organization’s first director of publicity and research, as well as editor of the group’s monthly publication The Osiris. This publication gave DuBois an excellent outlet from which to pour forth all manner of racial invective against whites, supposedly in the name of “promoting equality.”
According to the Biographical Dictionary of the Left, “Long tenure in office has also been characteristic of the NAACP’s presidents—all white men: Moorfield Story (1910-1915), Joel Springarn (1915-1940), Arthur Springarn (1940-1966), and since 1966, Kivie Kaplan.” Since the Biographical Dictionary was published in 1969, obviously some things have changed. However, it is interesting to note how long the organization had white presidents, almost as if the radicals didn’t trust the blacks to take the organization in the proper direction (to the left).
WEB DuBois, one black that did hold a prominent position, was no problem because he was already on the left. DuBois was known to have “hailed the Russian Revolution of 1917” and he travelled to the Soviet Union in 1926 and 1936. He especially liked ‘the racial attitudes of the Communists’.”
In 1922 the NAACP started to receive grants from the Garland Fund, a big source of funding of Communist Party projects. Officials of the Garland Fund included Communists William Z. Foster, Benjamin Gitlow, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Scott Nearing. Other prominent left-wing officials were Roger Baldwin, Sidney Hillman, and Harry F. Ward, the “Red Dean” of religion in America.” The Garland Fund continued to pour money into the NAACP until around 1934. Even when the money stopped, the Communist connections continued.
“In 1938, the NAACP was represented at the World Youth Congress, a Communist enterprise. In the 1940s the NAACP was affiliated with American Youth for a Free World, the American affiliate of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, a Communist clearing house.”
A most literate apologist for the NAACP was the well-known Langston Hughes. Hughes was affiliated with Communist Party projects from the mid-1920s until he passed away in 1967. In fact, in 1962, Hughes wrote a book entitled Fight for Freedom: The Story of the NAACP. In this book he stated the following:
“Attempts to label the NAACP subversive, Communist-influenced, or out and out Communist have continued for a long time.” In light of the evidence available, can anyone with a brain honestly wonder why?
The organization has, from time to time, gone through the sanitized ritual of “opposing Communism” but this has been a self-serving action designed to keep the support of those that are astute enough to see communism as a problem.
In 1946, the NAACP helped the Communist Party in one of its major political projects, the establishment of the Progressive Citizens of America—the basis for Henry Wallace’s Communist-dominated Progressive Party in the 1948 presidential election.
In 1953 the Communist newspaper Daily Worker recommended that Communists and labor unions “give every possible support to any and all campaigns conducted by the NAACP.” One can only wonder if this strategy has changed in the intervening years”.
-The NAACP’s Red Roots By: Al Benson Jr. FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, July 07, 2000
Lots of people of all colors say all kinds of racist things. We’ve all heard it. (Hey, we may have even thought a few.) This woman made a speech 24 years ago in which she said, “Yes, I started out with racist thoughts, but then I thought again.” That’s the sort of story we should *applaud*. The point is that people can change.
The more important point is did she act on those racist thoughts? Apparently not.
So should we be deceitful and misrepresent her, because that’s what the other side would do? What, then, makes us any better?
Volcanic eruption from our side.
Nevermind that Andrew appeared on Hannity just a few minutes ago to make the point clear:
The racist part of the story was her “telling of it” and the black audience’s laughing along with her at the ‘whitey’ first getting second-class treatment.
Spare us from the high-horse preaching, REDSTATE, NAACP etc.
So she says now.
>> That said, I think Shirley Sherrod has been unfairly characterized as a racist.
The author is missing the point, completely.
Breitbart’s intent is to unmask the NAACP for what they are: a group of racists who hate white people because of the color of their skin, and would do nearly anything to slap whites down.
SHirley Sherrod is just a prop. The NAACP is the racist elephant in the living room — we all know it’s there but we never talk about them. If nothing else, Breitbart’s work may illuminate this band of racists and make it easier to show them for what they are.
What a dip$hit. We kick some booty for once and he gets all girly over it. Deal with it nimrod.
>> made a speech 24 years ago
Get your facts straight. She made this speech four MONTHS ago (in March of this year).
“Is this author blond or stupid? Liberals give conservatives no slack and no benefit of the doubt.”
Neither. He realizes that two wrongs don’t make a right. It was something that our mothers would have hopefully taught us.
Of course the left gives conservatives no slack. And they never will. The fact that they are too emotionally immature as to see the granting of mercy as being anything but a sign of weakness if one of their defining qualities.
Are you suggesting that we should mimic the left in that respect? To look at all human beings as either prey or predator?
Why are we suppose to believe this? Because she said so?
You know what, I’m better than liberals who will take down someone no matter the cost. And if you want to be like them, I’m better than you too.
My morality and ethics are not dependant upon what others have done to me or how they would treat me, they are dependant upon my faith and my beliefs.
Now if you want to throw your morals and ethics out the windows because winning is more important that what you are fighting for, that’s your right. But don’t you dare try to justify destroying the nation that I love by saying you winning will make it less destroyed than a liberal winning.
The fatal wound to the USA is the loss of honesty, bravery, and honor in our society. Without those, it doesn’t matter what is left: we are lost.
The fact that she is speaking to the NAACP means this is racist.
White people aren’t allowed to have White Groups.
Who cares about this woman? I’m glad Breitbart handed the Left its ass. She’s a symptom of a bigger problem, and if you go to the DMV or a local social services office, you know exactly what I’m talking about.
God bless Andrew Breitbart!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.