Andrew Breitbart lays a trap for Sherrod's fraud.

Well now, WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE?


Andrew Breitbart is a media genius. I don't know who wrote this but this is just terrific. Take the time to read to the end. and then forward to every single person on your email list. Awesome and needs to be seen by the world! --- Sally

He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN ‘hooker’ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups. But Breitbart’s handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod ‘white farmer’ scandal.

It all began last Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his “Big Government” site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she’d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed. As she smirked to the room, she’d sent him instead to a white lawyer – ‘one of his own kind’ – for help. The black woman was Shirley Sherrod – and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country. Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded – and received – Sherrod’s resignation. Breitbart had won.

But then seemingly Breitbart’s actions began to explode in his face. As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP. And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat. Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart. Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he’d endangered their reputations by releasing a ‘doctored’ tape. Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media. I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.

Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart’s release of that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government – a little known legal case called “Pigford v. Glickman”.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true

“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.

But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America.

There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.

Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/110/024/Is_There_More_to_Sherrods_Dismissal.html

Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting. Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Obama.

Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.

But Breitbart knew. And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod – and Obama – stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment. Yes, folks – Breitbart is a genius.

As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she’s discovered too late that her cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself – and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her ‘pigs’, it seems, have come home to roost. Oink!

HELLO, I'M A RACIST, PLEASED TO MEET YOU

By Selwyn Duke
July 23, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

There is such a thing as a conditioned response. Here’s an example: Leftists call conservatives “racists.” Conservatives cower and stutter some defense. Leftists call conservatives “racists” some more. Conservatives cower some more. Question: How do you think you break this pattern?


We’ve seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben Jealous (a fitting last name). Speaking at the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess . . . cue the “Jeopardy!” music . . . “racism.” Just as predictably, many conservatives are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they really are swell guys. No, really. I’m not a racist. I don’t beat my wife. I don’t kick my dog. I eat my organic vegetables and drive a Prius.

Look, why don’t we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a little weaselly voice screeching, “You’re a wacist! You’re a wacist!” (Barney Frank style) followed by a music video featuring The Cowering Conservative — I mean, 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage with the tune and all.

And such conservatives abound. Oh, don’t get me wrong, conservative brethren, I love ya’, man. But, frankly, too many of you are saps. You really don’t get it. People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s were accused of being “racist.” If you’re for border control, you’re “racist.” If you criticize Obama, you’re “racist.” If you oppose quotas, you’re “racist.” If you say that, be it nature or nurture, there are differences among groups, you’re “racist.” If you want English to be the national language, you’re “racist.” The word has become meaningless, only used to stifle and stigmatize opposition. And if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do that. And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.

Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking — and even conceiving of — certain truths. They won’t say that so-called racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal, they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate-crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted for making innocent comments twist in the wind. They won’t speak unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people. Well, all I can say is that if the Truth can be “racist,” then hello, I’m a “racist.” Pleased to meet you.

And this gets at a deeper point. On the O’Reilly Factor recently, Bill O’Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc Lamont Hill. You know, Hill is the fellow with a Cracker-Jack-box Ph.D. who looks like a high-school kid heading to the prom. Anyway, the good professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be “racist” because being so requires one to have “institutional power.” OK, whatever. I accept the definition. Really, I do.

I just reject the word.

What I mean is, I’ve long warned against using the Lexicon of the Left. “Racism” is a term as stupid as “ageism,” only, we’re inured to it. We forget that “ism” refers to a doctrine, system or theory. Thus, of course “racism” will denote doctrine, and is it any surprise that the doctrine is dumb? Leftist doctrine is usually dumb. But what’s even dumber is that we actually embrace the left’s doctrinal terms. This is why I prefer using what simply refers to attitude — “bigotry” — as in Barack Obama is a bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot and Ben Jealous is a bigot. As for “racism,” it was originated by the left. So leave it to them. They can define it. They can whine it. And if they ask me, I’ll tell them where they can stick it.

The point is that you can’t prove you’re not a “racist” to the left, because they’ll just define “racist” as being whatever you are. In fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You’re not going to “prove” anything to the NAACP. You’re not going to prove anything to the mainstream media. You’re not going to prove anything to any dyed-in-the-fool liberal. They are enemies. And enemies aren’t interested in proof; they’re interested in propaganda.

So cultivate the right warrior attitude. Look at it like this: If you were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend over backwards to “prove” to them that their propaganda about you was invalid? Of course not! They know it’s invalid — that’s the nature of evil’s propaganda. And it’s designed to invalidate you. And you don’t respond to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.


You propagandize against them.

Now, this doesn’t mean you have to lie. Note that while “propaganda” generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn’t denote dishonesty. It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, “the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc.” And to damage leftists’ cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.

So what this does mean is that you have to stop being “conservative” and start being bold. The only consistent political definition of a “conservative” — the only ones that holds across time and place — is “one who desires to maintain the status quo.” Well, maintenance men are seldom warriors. Conservatives too often take a conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous. They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight. They too often act like losers — and lose.

I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed). They are wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable children. They deserve your boot. You spit in their eye. For enemies bent on your destruction don’t want compromise; they won’t yield to reason. They are to be fought and, God willing, defeated.

This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at Barack Obama, you respond, “Representative Wilson was wrong. Obama lies a lot.” It means that when the left bristles at a satirical letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity will always hate satire. And, personally, do I really care that some Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a billboard? Not really. I’m just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler’s reputation.

And what of civility? Be wary. When the left is civil — or calls for civility — it’s usually a ruse. It’s simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here’s how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, “You’re mean! You’re intolerant! What happened to civility! [Translation: You called our lies lies! How dare you!]” Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.

And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It means doing what’s fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse, and they’ll fold like a tent.
So free yourself. Laugh at the “racism” shtick. Make it a badge of honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and, worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK. I’m a racist, sexist homophobe, and I’m in your face. What’s it to ya’?

© 2010 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserve