Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Real Sherrod Story Still Untold
The American Thinker ^ | 7-30-10 | Jack Cashill

Posted on 07/30/2010 4:05:05 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

Had Andrew Breitbart dutifully written a column detailing how an obscure USDA official, Shirley Sherrod, and her husband, Charles Sherrod, had scammed the government out of millions, the story would have had the range and lifespan of a fruit fly.

Instead, as the world knows, Breitbart released an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech before the NAACP that provoked national headlines and caused the NAACP to denounce her and a panicky Obama administration to fire her from her position as the Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA.

Then, of course, when the full version of the speech emerged -- which showed Sherrod as a recovering racist, not as a practicing one -- the Obama White House fell all over itself apologizing, and the media turned their guns on Breitbart.

Breitbart, however, had put a potentially huge story into play the only way he could -- through sheer provocation. As he knew, and as we are learning, the story goes well beyond Sherrod's long-ago racist mischief-making with a poor white farmer.

This past Sunday, in his weekly column for the San Francisco Chronicle, "Willie's World," veteran black politico Willie Brown confirmed that "there is more to the story than just [Sherrod's] remarks."

"As an old pro," Brown acknowledged, "I know that you don't fire someone without at least hearing their side of the story unless you want them gone in the first place." Brown observed that Sherrod had been a thorn in the USDA's side for years, that many had objected to her hiring, and that she had been "operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN." Although Brown does not go into detail, he alludes to a class action lawsuit against the USDA in which she participated some years ago.

In the way of background, in 1997, a black farmer named Timothy Pigford, joined by four hundred other black farmers, filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, claiming that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly in all manner of ways, from price support loans to disaster payments to operating loans. Worse, they charged that the USDA had failed to process any complaints about racial discrimination.

The notion that the Clinton Ag Department had spent four years consciously denying black farmers their due defies everything we know about Clinton's use of race and should have made the media suspicious about Pigford's claims dating back to 1983.

Flush with revenue in 1999 and eager to appease this bedrock constituency, the administration settled with the farmers -- more realistically, their attorneys -- for fifty grand apiece, plus various other perks like tax offsets and loan forgiveness. If any of the presumably racist USDA offenders were punished, that news escaped the media.

After the consent decree was announced, the USDA opened the door to other claimants who had been similarly discriminated against. They expected 2,000 additional claims. They got 22,000 more, roughly 60 percent of whom were approved for this taxpayer-funded Lotto.

Despite having a year and a half to apply, some 70,000 more alleged claimants argued that they not only had been discriminated against, but also had been denied notice of the likely windfall that awaited them.

In 2008, for reasons unknown, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa lobbied to give the alleged 70,000 "another bite at the apple." Co-sponsoring the bill was none other than U.S. Senator Barack Obama. In February of 2010, the Obama administration settled with the aggrieved 70,000 for $1.25 billion that the government did not have to give. This money, by the way, was finessed out of a defense appropriation bill.

At the time, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the agreement would close a "sordid chapter" in the department's history, a chapter in which no one seems to have been so much as reprimanded.

The major media reported the settlement as though it were the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For the last forty years, as the civil rights industry has manufactured more and more absurd grievances -- most notably the Tea Party smear that incited Breitbart's reprisal -- the media have reported on them with increasingly wide-eyed innocence.

In the various stories on the settlement, not one reporter that I could identify stopped to do the math. Pajamas Media did in a detailed article by "Zombie" titled appropriately, "Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?"

Although 86,000 black farmers are alleged to have received payments, at no time in the last three decades have there been more than 40,000 black farmers. Nor is there much turnover in the farming business. No entrepreneurial activity involves more long-term investment.

Realistically, of the 40,000 or 86,000, how many could have applied for a USDA loan and been rejected while white farmers in comparable circumstances were getting loans? If there were hundreds, let alone thousands, the heads of loan officers should have been rolling around the USDA floors, but I know of no such purge.

More to the point, out of about $1 billion paid out so far in settlements, the largest amount has gone to the Sherrods' New Communities Incorporated, which received some $13 million. As Time Magazine approvingly reported this week, $330,000 was "awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone."

Unwittingly, Charles Sherrod shed light on the how and why of the settlement in a speech he gave in January 2010. As he explained, New Communities farmed its 6,000 acres successfully for seventeen years before running into five straight years of drought. Then, according to Sherrod, New Communities engaged in a three-year fight with the USDA to get the appropriate loans to deal with drought.

Said Sherrod, "They were saying that since we're a corporation, we're not an individual, we're not a farmer." Nevertheless, the Sherrods prevailed, but the late payments "caused us to lose this land." In other words, the bureaucratic delay over taxpayer-funded corporate welfare payments cost them their business.

Then, thanks to their "good lawyers," said a gleeful Sherrod, who seems to have fully recovered from his mental suffering, the Sherrods successfully sued the government for "a large sum of money -- a large sum of money." While saying this, he made hand gestures suggesting $15 million. The land itself was admittedly worth no more than $9 million.

Sherrod gave this talk to announce that the FCC had awarded New Communities a radio station in Albany, Georgia, still another race-based corporate welfare boondoggle. Before the award of this station, he added, the Sherrods "had no means of communicating with our people."

The "our people" in question, of course, are black people. With this new voice, the Sherrods will help "stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black."

Yes, indeed -- these are just the people we want spending the money we don't have.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: breitbart; pigford; sherrod; shirleysherrod; usda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

1 posted on 07/30/2010 4:05:09 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Instead, as the world knows, Breitbart released an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech

The video was not edited; it was an excerpt.

2 posted on 07/30/2010 4:08:24 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Reparations by any other name.


3 posted on 07/30/2010 4:10:35 AM PDT by SueRae (I can see November from my HOUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Blacks shaking down the system as usual. Pathetic.


4 posted on 07/30/2010 4:15:45 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
New Communities farmed its 6,000 acres successfully for seventeen years before running into five straight years of drought

I would want to look into that. 'Five years of drought' sounds like the sort of excuse the Soviets used to make for why communism didn't work.

5 posted on 07/30/2010 4:16:18 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The good news is that she’ll be suing Breitbart.


6 posted on 07/30/2010 4:17:10 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree

The video was not edited; it was an excerpt.

**************

The lawsuit, if it is in fact ever filed, will be a catastrophic mistake.

Discovery is a bitch.


7 posted on 07/30/2010 4:17:58 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die. - Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

If anything this story illustrates the reason why government should be helping farmers at all.


8 posted on 07/30/2010 4:21:09 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Bump for later


9 posted on 07/30/2010 4:21:17 AM PDT by Senator_Blutarski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

The 90’s were a period of drought.It was not universal but was prevalent in many areas of America


10 posted on 07/30/2010 4:22:52 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... The winds of war are freshening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bert

Thanks for the clarification Bert.


11 posted on 07/30/2010 4:24:02 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

So the Sherrod family was paid 15 million dollars for alleged infractions on land worth 9 million? Is that what this article is saying?


12 posted on 07/30/2010 4:24:29 AM PDT by Mere Survival (The time to fight was yesterday but now will have to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree

She is suing Andrew... this will all come out in court when he sues her for defamamtion and slander... which will probably be in the same trial.

LLS


13 posted on 07/30/2010 4:24:55 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ( WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bert

Yah, I remember that an area in Texas had 70 straight days over 100 degrees without rain in the 90’s.


14 posted on 07/30/2010 4:26:18 AM PDT by Mere Survival (The time to fight was yesterday but now will have to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
Depends upon where the suit is filed and jury makeup!
15 posted on 07/30/2010 4:36:25 AM PDT by Old Badger (boy do opportunities abound everywhere for Real Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

You are paying for the piggy pig pigs of Pigford


16 posted on 07/30/2010 4:38:06 AM PDT by dennisw (Sarah McLachlan in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mere Survival
Well droughts do happen, but there must be more at play here.

I think the issue here is that the droughts disproportionately targeted black farmers. These were discriminatory droughts. These, in fact, were “Hate Droughts.”

These droughts were so hateful, so discriminatory, that they destroyed over 80,000 of the 40,000 black farms. Without, apparently, harming one white owned farm.

17 posted on 07/30/2010 4:38:09 AM PDT by Never on my watch (The Obama Administration - an outrage a day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Another shake down in the works...


18 posted on 07/30/2010 4:42:04 AM PDT by dps.inspect (uttox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch

LOL, you have a point.

As we all know, Rhodesia was Africa’s breadbasket, but when the black farmers took over, it was the start of a multi-decade ‘hate drought’ which has crushed food production ever since.

South Africa too is beginning to suffer from ‘hate droughts’ - which again only affect black-owned farms.

It’s just the most mysterious thing.


19 posted on 07/30/2010 4:43:52 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

It was a smart move by Breitbart to raise the woman’s profile in order to open up the larger story. Now let’s see if he can convert.


20 posted on 07/30/2010 4:46:57 AM PDT by sbMKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

FOX needs to have WILLIE BROWN on!!! That was a VERY INTERESTING comment he made!!!! GO WILLIE!!!


21 posted on 07/30/2010 4:50:02 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect

Discovery is hell as they say; she’ll have her sainthood peeled off her to the rotten core.I truly hope she goes through with it.


22 posted on 07/30/2010 4:51:49 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Reparations by any other name.


Until you call it Reparations, they’ll always come back for more (reparations). Of course, even if you gave ‘em reparations, it still wouldn’t be enough. This article made me very angry.


23 posted on 07/30/2010 5:06:25 AM PDT by rbg81 (When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
The "our people" in question, of course, are black people. With this new voice, the Sherrods will help "stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black."

Are these actual quotes from January 2010? Can you imagine the outrage if a white person said "stop the black man from stealing our elections"?

24 posted on 07/30/2010 5:06:54 AM PDT by DejaJude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
I'd be curious to see a picture of the house these Sherrods live in.

ML/NJ

25 posted on 07/30/2010 5:11:06 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
'Five years of drought' sounds like the sort of excuse the Soviets used to make for why communism didn't work.

Don't most farmers have sprinklers these days?

ML/NJ

26 posted on 07/30/2010 5:13:30 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree

It was all Breitbart had. The NAACP was in the best position to release the rest of the tape. Instead, they made a panic move to CYA now that at least a few on our side are punching back on this racism BS.

I don’t know how Sherrod thinks she can win a libel case against Breitbart but then it would appear she’s made some bank in the past via questionable law suits.

http://joytiz.com/2010/career-bureaucrat-to-sue-breitbart/


27 posted on 07/30/2010 5:24:07 AM PDT by jazminerose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Never on my watch

Just exactly like Katrina!

Hate drought, hate hurricane, hate leveees . . . are we the only ones who can connect the dots here?


28 posted on 07/30/2010 5:25:33 AM PDT by jazminerose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Co-sponsoring the bill was none other than U.S. Senator Barack Obama. In February of 2010, the Obama administration settled with the aggrieved 70,000 for $1.25 billion that the government did not have to give.

This money, by the way, was finessed out of a defense appropriation bill.


29 posted on 07/30/2010 5:29:30 AM PDT by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose
It was all Breitbart had.

That's what I thought I had heard. Someone was probably trying to set him up with a race-baiting charge.

30 posted on 07/30/2010 5:31:03 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

Blacks shaking down the system as usual. Pathetic.


We need to stop paying. I know it could bring economic collapse and chaos but we’re getting there anyway.

I am hearing more and more people say, “bring it.” It’s about time for this game to end.


31 posted on 07/30/2010 5:33:07 AM PDT by boycott (CAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree
The video was not edited; it was an excerpt.

Stop with the robotronic litany of a non-difference. Excerpting is a part of editing. Any excerpt is an extract edited out of a bigger piece.

32 posted on 07/30/2010 5:34:27 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree
Someone was probably trying to set him up with a race-baiting charge.

That might apply IF it had been about Sherrod and not the NAACP's reaction to her story and IF the clip hadn't included her saying "it's not about black and........well it IS about black and white but it's about the haves and have nots" (paraphrased)

The problem is it was always about the reaction of the NAACP and when they threw Saint Shirley under the bus it took the focus off of them.

33 posted on 07/30/2010 5:35:55 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree

I think the possibility of a set up is quite realistic. Why didn’t NACCP respond by releasing the complete video?


34 posted on 07/30/2010 5:35:57 AM PDT by jazminerose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Yes,

The real story — Sherrod’s case and the ‘settlement for 70 thousand’ is a stat case of pure and massive racial extortion of the worst kind.


35 posted on 07/30/2010 5:37:03 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bvw; thethirddegree
Stop with the robotronic litany of a non-difference.

Excerpt - Merriam Webster

excerpt : to select (a passage) for quoting

edit - Merriam Webster

edit : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging

Words mean something and they DO make a difference.

36 posted on 07/30/2010 5:40:40 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

More robojunk. Stop it, already. Have some damn common sense and learn to read a dictionary.


37 posted on 07/30/2010 5:43:28 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bvw
More robojunk. Stop it, already. Have some damn common sense and learn to read a dictionary.

I posted from Merriam Webster. And words have meaning. The more the press pounds that this was an edited tape the more people believe that Breitbart hung together some pieces to change their meaning rather than it being an excerpt.

YOU have some damn commonsense. Words have MEANING.

38 posted on 07/30/2010 5:48:02 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
You gave this definition for excerpt:
excerpt : to select (a passage) for quoting

Webster's 1913 Dictionary:

EDIT \Ed"it\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Edited}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Editing}.] [F. ['e]diter, or L. editus, p. p. of edere to give out, put forth, publish; e out + dare to give. See {Date} a point of time.]

To superintend the publication of; to revise and prepare for publication; to select, correct, arrange, etc., the matter of, for publication; as, to edit a newspaper.

The verbs edit and excerpt BOTH can be used to describe the action of cutting out.
39 posted on 07/30/2010 5:51:55 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

ROBOJUNK! Take that word and run it through your nit-picker’s “dictionary”.


40 posted on 07/30/2010 5:52:56 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Don’t you mean “shouldn’t”?


41 posted on 07/30/2010 5:57:22 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Outdated and applies to a newspaper. In 1913 they didn't edit film as widely as they do now.

Edit now means to alter not excerpt.

The left is trying to accuse Breitbart of editing/altering the clip. Being precise in language by stating it was an excerpt DOES matter. The EXCERPT that he posted included Saint Shirley's "mea culpa" which the NAACP did NOT applaud as they had her racism.

The press is planting the idea that this was always about Sherrod and that he doctored the tape. It was not.

42 posted on 07/30/2010 5:59:51 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I have to admit, at the beginning of this story, even I , a great admirer of Breitbart and his tactics, was down on him for a misstep with this one, owing strictly to the way this was characterized in the media. But Breitbart is way too wily and creative in the way he does things-—the truth he was trying to coax out of it, eventually does come out.
But the official story, this one even having Obama as a vocal participant, is a very different one, and the one the general public will remember, unfortunately.


43 posted on 07/30/2010 6:01:27 AM PDT by supremedoctrine ("Every election is like an advance auction sale of stolen goods"--H.L.Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Stop telling other posters what they can and can't say. Words have meaning. This is a war of words with the left.
44 posted on 07/30/2010 6:01:32 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Words do have meaning. In this case both ‘edit’ and ‘excerpt’ mean to ‘select’ or ‘cut out’ sections of the original material. And the 1913 definitions do have meaning, and do apply just as well to audio-visual material as they do to written matter.

It’s interesting. You run around like a Robo-chicken sqawking “Words have meaning!” “Words have meaning!” “Words have meaning!” brrraawkk “Words have meaning!” “Words have meaning!” brraawkk

But then you DENY that the meaning in a dictionary that is 97 years old no longer means what it says.

That’s called what? Maybe you know the word to describe it. Cognitive dissonance? Schizophrenia? ADD?


45 posted on 07/30/2010 6:14:35 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Just to be clear, in case you might think I don’t like you or something like that: I like you.

I think you are another great Freeper.

Just wrong on this issue of the meanings of edit and excerpt.


46 posted on 07/30/2010 6:19:47 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bvw
But then you DENY that the meaning in a dictionary that is 97 years old no longer means what it says

It's called outdated. Modern definitions apply when one is talking about modern society and their understanding. Especially with all the "special" edits that make the rounds in email and on You Tube. You can make anyone say anything with editing now. Excerpted and edited means something entirely different in 2010 than it meant in 1913.

Again, by using the word "edit" the press is trying to smear Breitbart by saying he altered the tape to make it appear that she said something that she didn't. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

47 posted on 07/30/2010 6:21:15 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Just to be clear, in case you might think I don’t like you or something like that: I like you.

Disagreement only means hatred to the left. Because they are children. I've been married 40 years and never made my Hubby sleep on the couch. LOL

48 posted on 07/30/2010 6:23:17 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine; SueRae

They are still waiting in the corners to receive slave reparations to game the systems, like the usurper and his gram-ma Toot did???


49 posted on 07/30/2010 6:24:07 AM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Exactly... the left and the media have crafted a new storyline that now is accepted as fact.

Take, for example, what I heard on a top of the hour radio news report on the subject. I can't remember if it was Fox news or ABC:

'The Whitehouse today apologized for the firing of Ms. Sherrod based on comments she made that were take dramatically out of context.'

The context of what she said was complete in the EXCERPT and not mitigated by the totality of the speech. In fact she admitted her bigotry remains to this day, and still foments racial discord by reinforcing the lie that white people are stealing the elections.

This post was only EDITED for emphasis, punctuation and spelling. Any remaining errors can be attributed to insufficient intake of coffee.

50 posted on 07/30/2010 6:28:32 AM PDT by Never on my watch (The Obama Administration - an outrage a day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson