Real Sherrod Story Still Untold

Anyway, I thought the Breitbart recording was not from that source. If so, it should have recorded the missing piece. Regardless, she did continue speaking and therefore it was NOT the 'whole speech'.

As someone has been trying to explain to us,

"Someone" (at NAACP?) sent Breitbart a chunk of tape, but not the whole thing, of Sherrod's 43-minute NAACP speech.
Breitbart posted what he had, while saying that that was all he had, under press of news cycles.
The NAACP was sliming the Tea Party people as racists and putting their brawlers on e.g. Wolf Blitzer's CNN show the Friday before (part of which I saw) to attack Tea Party guests to their faces as racists and demand that the Tea Party "purge" itself of its "racist elements", which was all political horse-apples. Their clowns were alley-jumping Tea Party ingenues and having a good time doing it.
Breitbart's purpose was to show racist responses by the NAACP audience/membership to Sherrod's description of her long-ago racist actions.
The additional tape added context but did not exonerate the NAACP of the charge Breitbart wanted to lodge against them, viz., that their own organization is loaded with black racists.
The NAACP then changed the subject and made it "all about Sherrod" -- and the Administration instantly jumped on their cue and fired Sherrod.

That's it in a nutshell. Breitbart made his case, but then Patrick Duffy and Dana Priest (of WaPo) went on Gwen Ifill's PBS show Washington Week in Review and lied like a rug, making it all about Breitbart "editing" the tape to make poor Sherrod look bad, poor baby. Which was a substantive, constructed political lie. Or, another typical newsday on PBS.

There is absolutely a difference between editing and excerpting. A major difference, in fact, when you're implying manipulation of the original.

I have to agree with dead.

It's worth noting, though (as per my last) that MSM journo-liars are eliding the two, and charging Breitbart with having edited the tape -- something they do all the time to make conservatives look bad on TV (cf. Charlie Gibson's and Katie Couric's newsattack interviews of Sarah Palin in 2008).

Whether the video was edited or excerpted, it revealed the racism of the NAACP audience. There is no way one could mistake the overwhelming evidence of racism. I believe Breitbart wanted to reveal black racism against whites that is the true picture of the NAACP, an organization that is trying to tie racism to the Tea Party movement.

Sherrod was only the catalyst and not the main subject. Sherrod was throwing out comments that not only triggered racist reactions against whites, but it also revealed an acceptance of Marxism where wealth is redistributed. This paints a revealing picture of the NAACP!

I see the State Owned Media has done its best to muddy the waters with the focus on Sherrod. This is an effort to shift focus away from the real culprit, the NAACP. And Sherrod, who has acted to promote the media’s effort to redeem her, has dug herself in deeper with revelations about her husband’s racism and now their business dealings.

"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.

Thanks neverdem for the ping and thanks afraidfortherepublic for posting this topic.

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.