NAACP member in federally appointed position admits discriminating

[Valli6]

… Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer."
http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/#more-145962

NAACP Bigotry in their ranks (2:36) YouTube - NAACP Bigotry in their ranks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature)
Also encourages employment with the federal government because they never fire anyone. (1:03) YouTube - Federal jobs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zXDNlWESD0&feature)

[VBRonPaulFan]

that kind of thing makes me sick.

[Lord Xar]

I say spread this far and wide.

[haaaylee]

i'd like to see the end of this though ... 'cos she said it opened her eyes. . .

[Valli6]

“There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement. “We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously.
http: //www. foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/

No statement from the NAACP yet.

[Todd]

i'd like to see the end of this though ... 'cos she said it opened her eyes. . .

Yes, because apparently this whole thing is garbage. Apparently there is more to this story and that this is a prime example of using video footage to tell a story that isn't so. Allegedly, she is telling a story of how she was as a young ignorant young woman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life?Gt1=43001

[angelatc]

Yes, because apparently this whole thing is garbage. Apparently there is more to this story and that this is a prime example of using video footage to tell a story that isn't so. Allegedly, she is telling a story of how she was as a young ignorant young woman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life?Gt1=43001

Well, if that was a white guy telling the story of how he used to be a racist, he would have been fired. Too bad for her.

[smartguy911]

But she did help white folks save their farm. overblown in my opinion.

[Todd]

Well, if that was a white guy telling the story of how he used to be a racist, he would have been fired. Too bad for her.

That doesn't sound like accepting peoples past shortcomings for what they are now.

So, because I was a former Neocon, it must suck to be me, and I probably shouldn't try to tell others about my ignorant past and then shouldn't be listened to when trying to convince those of liberty?

[angelatc]

But she did help white folks save their farm. overblown in my opinion.

No, she was originally fired specifically because she never made any attempt to right the wrong.

[angelatc]

That doesn't sound like accepting peoples past shortcomings for what they are now.

So, because I was a former Neocon, it must suck to be me, and I probably shouldn't try to tell others about my ignorant past and then shouldn't be listened to when trying to convince those of liberty?

Making the other side live up to their own rules is an effective political strategy. If Thomas Jefferson has no credibility because he owned slaves, then even former racists must be fired.

[pdavis]

No, she was originally fired specifically because she never made any attempt to right the wrong.

Not true:

YouTube - July 20, 2010 CNN Anderson Cooper: Interviews Farmer at Center of Sherrod Firing - Part 3 of 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm3PyLOk8ng&feature=related)

Also, she was working at a private coop at that time, not the USDA.

[JeNNiF00F00]

<:-P

[jmdrake]

Not true:

YouTube - July 20, 2010 CNN Anderson Cooper: Interviews Farmer at Center of Sherrod Firing - Part 3 of 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm3PyLOk8ng&feature=related)

Also, she was working at a private coop at that time, not the USDA.

Good find. It was apparent from the first video that she was talking about a time before she her job at the USDA, but people don't want to let the facts get in the way of a good "reverse racism" story. I wish I could see her original speech in its entire context. But we live in the era of "soundbite journalism". Sad that someone attempting to talk about her personal transformation becomes the tool to smear her with racism.

[ARealConservative]

Well, if that was a white guy telling the story of how he used to be a racist, he would have been fired. Too bad for her.

really?

explain Senator Byrd please.

[Danke]

Wow.


Sherrod said officials showed no interest in listening to her explanation when she was asked to resign. She said she was on the road Monday when USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her and told her to pull over and submit her resignation on her Blackberry because the White House wanted her out.

[Valli6]

Since when does the media run to an accused racist and give them 20 or 30 minutes to explain their version of the facts uninterrupted (with supportive and sympathetic comments), track down witnesses from 24 years ago to back her up, and then air her rebuttals all day long? CNN interviewed these 3 people repeatedly, from morning till night. It's somewhat investigative!

The interview with the elderly couple indicates that they only became aware of this story through television, suggesting they do not use the internet and may not have even seen the video. They are extremely grateful that they managed to hold on to their farm and can't imagine how the charge of racism came about. Would the Spooners still feel Sherrod was a good friend if they heard how she repeatedly denigrated him for trying to "prove he was superior" to her? Why does she feel such resentment after 24 years? How would they feel about the laughter, approval and applause coming from the audience, especially over Sherrod's smugness at having the power to either help him or let him be destroyed?. Are the Spooners aware that she quickly pawned them off on an incompetent lawyer when she had the ability to help them more effectively? Later she had second thoughts about it - good for her. She learns that it's about poor and those that don't have - AS WELL AS as black and white.

I'm sure Sherrod will do very well in the future. I'm glad that at least for the moment, she seems to be most resentful towards the NAACP for condemning her without looking further into the facts. The NAACP could've gained access to the entire video from the chapter who held the function, but instead jumped to condemn her. Their effort to prove how irreproachable they are has only reflected on their lack of credibility and quickness to condemn others. It would be nice now if others began to have the temerity to question the word of the NAACP. Maybe others will be found innocent or entitled to second chances.

Perhaps now that Shirley Sherrod, has experienced the repercussions of being labeled racist by the NAACP, she will begin to have questions about others they have labeled racist. Perhaps the NAACP will question it's own behavior. Maybe Sherrod and the media have learned how vile it is to make and repeat accusations about people without looking into the facts and offering some substantial evidence. Hopefully, they've learned the importance of putting things in context and not wrongfully condemning individuals or large groups just to assert their own sense of superiority. :rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

Smokescreens. What is important is the legislation that is being passed.

[Bruno]

Since when does the media run to an accused racist and give them 20 or 30 minutes to explain their version of the facts uninterrupted (with supportive and sympathetic comments), track down witnesses from 24 years ago to back her up, and then air her rebuttals all day long? CNN interviewed these 3 people repeatedly, from morning till night. It's somewhat investigative!

The interview with the elderly couple indicates that they only became aware of this story through television, suggesting they do not use the internet and may not have even seen the video. They are extremely grateful that they managed to hold on to their farm and can't imagine how the charge of racism came about. Would the Spooners still feel Sherrod was a good friend if they heard how she repeatedly denigrated him for trying to "prove he was superior" to her? Why does she feel such resentment after 24 years? How would they feel about the laughter, approval and applause coming from the audience, especially over Sherrod's smugness at having the power to either help him or let him be destroyed?. Are the Spooners aware that she quickly pawned them off on an incompetent lawyer when she had the ability to help them more effectively? Later she had second thoughts about it - good for her. She learns that it's about poor and those that don't have - AS WELL AS as black and white.

I'm sure Sherrod will do very well in the future. I'm glad that at least for the moment, she seems to be most resentful towards the NAACP for condemning her without looking further into the facts. The NAACP could've gained access to the entire video from the chapter who held the function, but instead jumped to condemn her. Their effort to prove how irreproachable they are has only reflected on their lack of credibility and quickness to condemn others. It would be nice now if others began to have the temerity to question the word of the NAACP. Maybe others will be found innocent or entitled to second chances.

Perhaps now that Shirley Sherrod, has experienced the repercussions of being labeled racist by the NAACP, she will begin to have questions about others they have labeled racist. Perhaps the NAACP will question it's own behavior. Maybe Sherrod and the media have learned how vile it is to make and repeat accusations about people without looking into the facts and offering some substantial evidence. Hopefully, they've learned the importance of putting things in context and not wrongfully condemning individuals or large groups just to assert their own sense of superiority. :rolleyes:

Good post

[Romulus]

Since when does the media run to an accused racist and give them 20 or 30 minutes to explain their version of the facts uninterrupted (with supportive and sympathetic comments), track down witnesses from 24 years ago to back her up, and then air her rebuttals all day long? CNN interviewed these 3 people repeatedly, from morning till night. It's somewhat investigative!

The interview with the elderly couple indicates that they only became aware of this story through television, suggesting they do not use the internet and may not have even seen the video. They are extremely grateful that they managed to hold on to their farm and can't imagine how the charge of racism came about. Would the Spooners still feel Sherrod was a good friend if they heard how she repeatedly denigrated him for trying to "prove he was superior" to her? Why does she feel such resentment after 24 years? How would they feel about the laughter, approval and applause coming from the audience, especially over Sherrod's smugness at having the power to either help him or let him be destroyed?. Are the Spooners aware that she quickly pawned them off on an incompetent lawyer when she had the ability to help them more effectively? Later she had second thoughts about it - good for her. She learns that it's about poor and those that don't have - AS WELL AS as black and white.

I'm sure Sherrod will do very well in the future. I'm glad that at least for the moment, she seems to be most resentful towards the NAACP for condemning her without looking further into the facts. The NAACP could've gained access to the entire video from the chapter who held the function, but instead jumped to condemn her. Their effort to prove how irreproachable they are has only reflected on their lack of credibility and quickness to condemn others. It would be nice now if others began to have the temerity to question the word of the NAACP. Maybe others will be found innocent or entitled to second chances.

Perhaps now that Shirley Sherrod, has experienced the repercussions of being labeled racist by the NAACP, she will begin to have questions about others they have labeled racist. Perhaps the NAACP will question it's own behavior. Maybe Sherrod and the media have learned how vile it is to make and repeat accusations about people without looking into the facts and offering some substantial evidence. Hopefully, they've learned the importance of putting things in context and not wrongfully condemning individuals or large groups just to assert their own sense of superiority. :rolleyes:

Well said.