Friday, July 30, 2010

Sherrod Story Still Smells

I missed the fun of the initial Shirley Sherrod brouhaha, but from a distance was curious to see the Obama administration so quick to remove Ms. Sherrod, and then reverse themselves when it was discovered that Ms. Sherrod only claimed that she used to hold a hatred for white people she didn't even know, but now has gotten quite over it.

The details are placed in perspective over at The DC Trawler where the very talented John Hayward of Doctor Zero fame fills in (thanks for the tip EP).

Of course her subsequent angry screed against Andrew Breitbart on Anderson Cooper 360 rather deflated her claims of maturity and new found tolerance.
Ms. Sherrod: 'I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he would like to see all black people end up again. And that’s why…'

Mr. Cooper: 'You think — you think he’s racist?!'

Ms. Sherrod: 'I think he’s so vicious. Yes, I do.'

Now comes the fleshing out of the background, with this excellent article over at The American Thinker
"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."

My word, the Sherrod's have been in the middle of a huge scheme of grafting money from the Federal government, and who do you think was in the midst of this money trough?
"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"

My, oh my.


  1. One of the things that really pisses me about this is that nearly everyone is still ragging on Breitbart, as though the edited clip he initially posted misrepresents Mrs Sherrod.

    HOW IN THE HECK do conservative expect to battle "liberal" Big Lies when they constantly allow their thinking to be set/controled by "liberal" Little Lies?

  2. Well, certainly everyone on the left is ragging on Andrew Breitbart, with charges of racism. That is the standard procedure, as demonstrated in the recent Jounolist leak April was talking about:

    “…there is no getting around the fact that some of these messages, culled from the members-only discussion group Journolist, are embarrassing. They show liberal commentators appearing to cooperate in an effort to hammer out the shrewdest talking points against the Republicans -- including, in one case, a suggestion for accusing random conservatives of being racist.”

    And of course a number of dupes on the right have jumped up to be first in line to grovel, apologizing for the fact that they had not realized Ms. Sherrod has moved past her racially based hatreds (gold star to her!). But the biggest part of this story is the effort on the left to move away from it.

    As the American Thinker piece points out, the Sherrod’s have been at the center of a number of legal schemes to bilk the US government (read you and me) out of millions of dollars, with multiple lawsuits brought against the USDA. It turns out there are only 40,000 black farmers. Thus the class action lawsuit of 70,000 plaintiffs doesn’t quite work out right. Even if every one of the minority farmers had applied for government loans and other assistance, and each and every one of them had been unfairly denied assistance on the basis of their skin tones, then there still would only be 40,000 people in position to receive award settlements. The whole thing is another boondoggle that the Dems are so familiar with, as they go about their way “spreading the wealth around”. Meanwhile the burden falls to you and me to finance the wealth transfer process.

    The Dems would be better off if dopes like Charles Sherrod would leave the giddy mouthing of ‘fifteen million dollars’ for his time alone in his kitchen with Shirley. For her part, Shirley should not be bringing further scrutiny to her roles in bilking US taxpayers.

    The effort to sue Breitbart is an effort to turn attention away from the Sherrods and their government bilking ilk. The more scrutiny on the Sherrods the better.

    Thanks for commenting.

  3. There were only 26,600 or so in the entire US when the lawsuit was filed. Logic would dictate that the only people that should have been eligible were the individuals working the affected farm. My guess is that number was significantly less than 26,600. Btw, from how the numbers in this case seem to be changing almost daily, I wouldn't be surprised if the final hit to taxpayers was a lot bigger than any number thrown around so far, and the number of beneficiaries much greater. And if a list of names ever hits the papers, I think we might see some of the usual suspects among the "afflicted."

    I still waiting for the Euro royalty to give me fifty hectares and a mule for being a Slav.

  4. HOW IN THE HECK do conservative expect to battle "liberal" Big Lies when they constantly allow their thinking to be set/controled by "liberal" Little Lies?

    I just finished a long argument with a Leftist idiot on another blog that pretended to not understand how two videotapes of the same event could have different sounds recorded. Hint: One was a network feed taken from the candidate's handheld unidirectional mike, and the other was a recording from a consumer videocamera with an omnidirectional microphone. And since right-wing blogs were the only ones to carry the story, the Leftist's conclusion was that the tape was altered--even though the clip was from CNN and nobody on the Left challenged that part. They really are so kind on the Left, letting right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh get away with that when they could prove them liars in seconds with any tape of the actual CNN broadcast.

    It was this one, btw.

  5. You're really pushing it when you confront ideology with reality. It's a mind bender.

    Hey Darrell, did you catch the dust up over at Haemet over Jessica Valenti and the Pro-abortion camp that happened while I was away? Whew, that Roxanna de Luca!! She's not afraid to be mixing it up with those feminista babes.

  6. Wow. I saw the original post, but I hadn't been back to see all the comments.

    I loved Joy McCann weighing in with a little reality lesson for the pro-choicers who think that having "choice" means everybody gets what they want.

  7. I generally stay with my old haunts, Nicholas, so I didn't see it. I don't know if I would present that argument myself. You wind up losing the crowd in the first sentence and there is no one left but the choir for the "teaching" moment.
    But I don't know if any mind has ever by changed by what we do here. It all just seems like an endless contest of punches and counterpunches most times. Pointless. Among like minds, however, the web helps refine opinions and arguments and points out data and links. Or just lets us vent.

  8. "... And of course a number of dupes on the right have jumped up to be first in line to grovel, apologizing for the fact that they had not realized Ms. Sherrod has moved past her racially based hatreds (gold star to her!)."

    Except, of course, that she hasn't. What she had done ... as is clear in both the edited video and the full ... was to decide to exempt some whites from her animus. If they're "poor" enough.

  9. @ Ilion

    Exactly! So the whole idea that she has been wrongly characterized, that she in fact is the emblem of racial healing, and that those rascally right wingers have been at it again is wholly hogwash. The fact is, she is a part of the governmental machine, and has benefited greatly from it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and it is possible, as the American Thinker article suggested, that Brietbart was looking to expose the whole thing.

    @ Darrell

    "Why doesn’t the pregnant Jessica Valenti have an abortion? She can use the opportunity to join the sisterhood in their loud, proud abortions, and then just make another baby blob of cells whenever the mood strikes her."

    She was making a point for her own audience, but seems to have been linked by the pro-abortion feministas somewhere, and though the back and forth was rather heated, I like the fact that Roxeanna is not pushed off her point, and her point was a good one.

    If the object of the argument is to change the other person’s mind, than yes, that is a very difficult thing to accomplish. But to argue well is to define your position and point out the inconsistencies in the opposition, which I thought she did well.

    She brought it a bit further on her follow-up post:

    "I Guess The Liberal Hypocricy Tag Wasn't Enough To Clue Them In"

    found here. Good stuff.

    I first noticed Roxeanna de Luca commenting now and again at The Other McCain and also over at Bob Belvedere's, and have come to really enjoy her.

  10. Ilion, I enjoy her, too, based on her comments I read on sites I do visit. But the vast majority of people that will hear about her post won't even visit her site--they'll read a couple of quotes taken out of context. From that they will judge that she isn't worth reading. That is a shame because she has a lot to offer.

    I'm no better, btw, and I know it. I don't exactly keep my opinions hidden or my replies exactly civil. I've been labeled an "extremist" more times than I can recall. I don't care. I think that Ann Coulter has presented some of the best arguments on the web and she has certainly tackled areas with original research and opinions and arguments that most bloggers can't touch. Yet I see many on the right saying that they never read her, having bought the Leftist labeling and lies and half-truths about her work. That is a real shame. And she doesn't get half the credit she deserves. The Left certainly knows how to cow right-wing bloggers. Their current Alinsky campaign "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" against Breitbart is just another attempt to stifle an effective voice.

  11. "The Left certainly knows how to cow right-wing bloggers. Their current Alinsky campaign "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" against Breitbart is just another attempt to stifle an effective voice."

    Yes, but he's not cowed, and neither are you. None of us should be. Look, it's the same old game with these guys, and their argument's are based on distorted views of reality, spiced with a fair amount of vitriol. It's too laugh! Keep cool and make your case.

    Roxeanna's got one quick blade and she doesn't suffer fools easily, but what I enjoy more is just her toughness and solid reasoning.

  12. It seems to me that "not suffering fools easily" and "toughness (non-sentimentality??) and solid reasoning" tend to go together.