14
   

Is Shirley Sherrod A Black Eye For The Obama Administration?

 
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 12:09 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

If my perception of a Protestant viewpoint is correct, perhaps it reflects the fact that Protestantism had a flock that had to be literate to participate.


Hee Hee Ha Ha Woop! Woop! Woop!
dyslexia
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 12:13 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Foofie wrote:

If my perception of a Protestant viewpoint is correct, perhaps it reflects the fact that Protestantism had a flock that had to be literate to participate.


Hee Hee Ha Ha Woop! Woop! Woop!
it's true, it's true, I personally know that both Lash and Eva have read books. It's also true I've know not just a few atheists who collect/display books primarily for display purposes, this can be most easily noted by their arrangement in bookcases specifically designed for visualality and are mostly never read. They usually remind me of the fad back in the 60's of attaching CB radio antennas on their cars but not having an actual CB in their cars. It's the appearance that counts.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 02:23 pm
@dyslexia,
If you say so. . . .

<grumble>
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 03:50 pm
@roger,
Some Medievalists theorize that not every clergyman could read but had memorized enough of the Bible and the writings of the Church fathers to get through the liturgical year.

Certainly, Americans were not universally literate in the 19th C., but many knew the Bible and many hymns.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 06:48 pm
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

Foofie wrote:

And then when Jews marry out, it is often to a person that is Catholic. Go figure?


The only Jews who marry out are Reform and they are not overly observant, to put it mildly. Now as far as the now Jewish partner goes, yes based on the Jewish marriages I've observed , the non-Jewish spouse is often an individual who was baptized a Catholic.

Few Reform Rabbis marry a Jew and a non-Jew. The Rabbi will marry the couple, if and when the non-Jew converts to Judaism. I'm of the opinion that the non-Jewish spouse, who does the converting is usually the male and rarely the female.

A truly Catholic person will never to convert to Judaism, while an observant Jew will certainly never convert to Catholicism.

On the other hand, I've always wondered why a Jew would convert to Islam, as some do.


The Orthodox usually do not marry out, unless the spouse has gone through an Orthodox conversion. If that is what you meant, I agree.

However, I have heard of interfaith marriages where a Rabbi was present with a member of the clergy from the other faith.

If I had another life to live I would want to come back as Rusty, the boy who had Rin Tin Tin as his companion (1950's tv drama). I assume Rusty was some sort of Protestant? Being an orphan, it likely did not matter much. Then again he had a fort full of friendly cavalry soldiers, plus his ever loyal dog, Rin Tin Tin. Those were better times in some ways.
0 Replies
 
Pamela Rosa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 02:50 pm
http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins08022010.html
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 07:36 pm
@Pamela Rosa,
From what I can tell Sherrod was not nice people. Kudos on dredging up the smear. However, I was more interested in her treatment by our government and especially Breitbart's blog manipulations.
Pamela Rosa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 07:03 am
@panzade,
Many people think Breitbart is a genius:
Quote:
Monday, August 9, 2010
Andrew Breitbart is a Media Genius - Facts Here

As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now you know.... the rest of the story." It seems that Shirley Sherrod, the recently fired Dept. of Agriculture employee has some very dirty hands and the truth has been revealed. Coincidentally, she was abetted in her dastardly deed by one Barack Hussein Obama, then a junior Senator from Illinois who introduced legislation to allow thousands of black farmers to be included in a class action lawsuit that the USDA had lost in federal court. The facts are revealed below.

Andrew Breitbart is a media genius.

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 on 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.

Now 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

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.

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.

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!
Posted by PFFV

http://governmentmess.blogspot.com/2010/08/andrew-breitbart-is-media-genius-and.html

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

Quote:
USDA to Pay Black Farmers $1.25 Billion
Feb. 23) -- Some 70,000 black farmers have reached a $1.25 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for years of discrimination in farm loans and subsidies. But after generations of disappointment, this group of farmers knows the fight isn't over until the check arrives.........

........In the 1999 case Pigford v. Glickman, the USDA agreed to pay 16,000 black farmers $1 billion after a judge held the federal government responsible for the decline in black farmers. Critics argued that more than 70,000 farmers were shut out of the lawsuit. In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley got a law passed to reopen the case, and the settlement talks moved forward.

The $1.25 billion settlement, announced Thursday, comes on top of the money paid out a decade ago. The new agreement would provide cash payments and debt relief to farmers who applied too late to participate in the earlier settlement, The Washington Post reported. Authorities say they are not certain how many farmers might apply this time, but analysts say the number could be higher than 70,000........
http://www.aolnews.com/article/usda-to-pay-black-farmers-1-25-billion-in-discrimination-case/19369678

Pigford vs Glickman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman

parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 10:08 am
@Pamela Rosa,
I guess we will see how much of a genius he is when this author states he manipulated the story and he is being sued for doing that.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 10:46 am
@Pamela Rosa,
But it takes a real "genius" to use data from 2007 to show how many blacks farmed from 1983 to 1995.

Are you that kind of a "genius" Pamela?
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 09:48 pm
Breitbart is a cheat and a liar who manipulates people and data. Normally, people like that are called (depending upon how serious their infractions are) despicable or criminal.
0 Replies
 
Pamela Rosa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 09:15 am
@parados,
According to the chart on page 20 of the USDA’s pdf 1998 “Status Report, Minority & Women Farmers In the U.S.”, there were only 18,816 black farmers in 1992:
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/may1998/ao251d.pdf

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/files/2010/07/blackfarmerstats1992.jpg


http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/6/5/650809/1266953849446.JPEG
Robert Binion, a peach and watermelon farmer from Clanton, Ala., speaks last week as a small group of black farmers rally at the Agriculture Department in Washington to urge settlement of a class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination. The federal agency announced Thursday it would pay $1.25 billion to nearly 70,000 farmers.
http://www.aolnews.com/article/usda-to-pay-black-farmers-1-25-billion-in-discrimination-case/19369678
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 09:21 am
@Pamela Rosa,
Pamela Rosa wrote:

Many people think Breitbart is a genius:



Only those who have no clue what the word 'genius' actually means.

He is a penny-rate agitator and race-baiter. That's about it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 09:35 am
@Foofie,
How do you rationalize that fact that during the Wars of Religion, following the Reformation in France, gangs of Protestants -- much like members of the Red Guard during the Chinese Cultural Revolution -- defaced architectural treasures?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 10:03 am
@Pamela Rosa,
Quote:
According to the chart on page 20 of the USDA’s pdf 1998 “Status Report, Minority & Women Farmers In the U.S.”, there were only 18,816 black farmers in 1992:

Oh, you are one of those "geniuses" that uses 1992 data to tell us how many black farmers there were from 1983 to 1995.

If you had bothered to read your source you would see that the number of black run farms were cut in half in that time period. And that still doesn't tell us how many of the 1995 farmers were farming in 1983. There is turn over as well Pamela. But being the "genius" you are, you wouldn't know that.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2011 03:29 am
http://wonkette.com/437998/breitbart-gets-served-with-shirley-sherrod-lawsuit-at-cpac

Quote:
Look what’s buried at the bottom of the New York Times CPAC straw-poll story:

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”


NY Times: Lawsuit Over Video
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2011 03:58 am
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
prevented her from continuing her work.

Considering that she was offered a better job than the one she lost, and that Omama himself said that she should not have lost her job I assume she is kidding....
Pamela Rosa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2011 08:01 am
Quote:
EDITORIAL: USDA’s Pigford fraud
Obama initiative ignores corruption to redistribute wealth
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-
The Washington Times
7:25 p.m., Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Race hustlers are shaking down taxpayers for payoffs, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is falling for the scam. The controversy involves a discrimination claim against the USDA for allegedly denying loans because of race. A federal judge approved payments of $50,000 or more based on low levels of proof. This encouraged a mad scramble for cash based on false claims.

The “Pigford Settlement,” an agreement that came out of the original 1997 lawsuit by Timothy Pigford and 400 southern black farmers, resulted from some apparently legitimate instances of discrimination. However, plaintiffs’ lawyers got involved, and the number of supposedly aggrieved farmers grew exponentially. Eventually, more than 94,000 claims were filed even though the U.S. Census Bureau never counted more than 33,000 black farmers in America during the years in question.

In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama began working to pass legislation providing even more money for a whole new class of claimants via “Pigford II.” This push ignored fraud in and several convictions over the original settlement, but Mr. Obama was advised his legislation could help him in a Democratic presidential primary fight against then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. As president, Mr. Obama rammed this new, $4.6 billion boondoggle through Congress during last year’s post-election, lame-duck session.

For months, the liberal Huffington Post and Andrew Breitbart’s libertarian BigGovernment.com have reported growing numbers of Pigford fraud allegations. Numerous black farmers have complained they get short shrift while grifters and lawyers get the loot. In January, these websites posted videos of black farmers saying they brought fraud concerns to Rep. Sanford Bishop, Georgia Democrat, but he advised them to stay quiet “as long as the money was flowing” because otherwise “they’ll shut this thing down.” Three men - including Eddie Slaughter, vice president of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association - agree Mr. Bishop said this in his Columbus, Ga., office.

“Yes, I am aware that there is fraud in the program, that’s why anti-fraud provisions were written into the settlement,” Mr. Bishop stated, according to the Jan. 20 Albany (Ga.) Herald. “It’s not my job to monitor fraud in the program.”

New legislation has USDA‘s inspector general conduct audits of disbursements, but it’s not clear why there is a Pigford II when the original settlement was hampered by fraud.
The Washington Times tried to get answers about ongoing or future investigations of fraud from Pearlie Reed, USDA assistant secretary for administration, but was given the run-around by department spokesman Justin Dejong. All questionable Pigford payments should be suspended until Congress can conduct a full investigation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/2/usda-s-pigford-fraud/
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2011 01:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Losing her job in the first case is evidence that she was harmed as a result of Brietbart.
That she was later offered a better job only supports the contention that Briebart's claim was false. It doesn't absolve him from his defamation. It only shows that his defamation was defamation. Arguing she got a better job later is conceding that Brietbart's statement was factually incorrect.

Brietbart released the video and the statement.
This directly lead to Sherrod being fired. (It shows harm as required by law.)
Sherrod was offered a better job. (It shows Brietbart lied as required by law.)


The only defense Brietbart has is that he was duped by the video. It isn't a strong defense and would require revealing his sources and methods of confirming it's accuracy. His lack of due diligence is what is going to sway the court if it makes it that far. While being a public employee, Sherrod was not a public figure so he can't argue malice is required.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2011 02:56 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Losing her job in the first case is evidence that she was harmed as a result of Brietbart.
That she was later offered a better job only supports the contention that Briebart's claim was false.
That is possible that her reputation was harmed, although her ability to practice her chosen profession and the earn an income was clearly not harmed, so I dont see how she wins compensation on the claim that she was not able to work. Given that she now gets to add "victim" to her resume I dont think that she can claim damage to reputation either.

Something was said about her that was not true and which was clearly intended to cast her in a bad light. It is a huge jump between that and showing damage however.
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 03:19:26