Thursday, July 29, 2010


Apparently SHIRLEY SHERROD live is no longer interesting to the media or the Liberals. Where in the World is Shirley Sherrod? asks and answers the question of why this lack of interest. Simply put Shirley is a liability to the Liberal Media, Democrats like Howard Dean and the Obama Administration. A liability because she is not quite so innocent as she was painted.
Recall that she was ousted by the Obama Administration for her now infamous speech at a NAACP event in Georgia where she admits, back in the day, that she “didn’t give the full force” of her resources as a state USDA official to a white farmer because, well, he was white. But then she saw the light and came to realize that it’s not only about white and black (her words), but it’s also about rich and poor. So she helped the guy out.
On the surface, Shirley is a great story of an Innocent Victim. But below this facade, Shirley makes the Liberals, Democrats and Liberal Media look bad. The NAACP reacted without checking facts, even though the NAACP had a FULL copy of the tape. Tom Vilsack and The Obama Administration reacted without checking facts, and without allowing Ms. Sherrod to explain. Howard Dean, DNC chairman, falsely accused Fox News of being raciest. The Liberal Media, who continue to accuse the Conservative Movement in America of racism also looks like a bunch of hypocrites.
After Andrew Breitbart released the video of her remarks, the left’s media race-baiters went into all-out attack mode. From CNN to Newsweek, from CBS to CNBC, those outlets helped to saint Sherrod, claiming that Breitbart was a ‘nut job’ (Ed Shultz from MSNBC said that gem), a “bully” (CNN’s Anderson Cooper) and that Breitbart was engaged in, along with Fox News, a “smear campaign” (Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter). This all before we even heard Mrs. Sherrod’s side of the story.
Up to this point it's great copy for all with a Liberal agenda including the Obama Administration. It's another story to show all Conservatives as racist.

But then Shirley speaks.
Then, she stepped to the podium and confirmed to America what Breitbart’s video conveyed: Shirley Sherrod is a rambling race-hustler. Speaking with Anderson Cooper, she said that Andrew Breitbart would like to “get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.” Uh. What? How can she even come out and imply that this is how Andrew Breitbart feels when she doesn’t even know him and all she does know about him is of a videotape that he released of her own words?
Oops Shirley is beginning to sound very racist herself.
Then, Shirley took her anger out on—who else?—Fox News. Speaking with the Washington Post, Sherrod said she wouldn’t go on Fox because she felt that they considered her a “pawn” and that the network wanted to go “back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”
Suddenly Shirley is no longer news. She has become a liability.
Since Sherrod’s incoherent and racial media blitz, she hasn’t popped up anywhere. Where’s the media’s canonized darling? “Reporters” have been quieter than a church mouse on the whole incident. Granted, our propagandist press probably realized that they fabricated Fox’s and Breitbart’s involvement in Sherrod’s firing (even Jon Stewart acknowledged this!)
So here is the answer to the question "What Happened to Shirley?"
Shirley Sherrod went on a racially tinged rant, this time in the safe confines of the leftist media, and was never heard from since. They’ve given her a pass. Sherrod is now harder to find than Waldo. I don’t blame her. She’s demonstrated that her world view is deeply shaped by race and gender.
Apparently Shirley is no longer useful to the Left.

UPDATE: Here is a link (Race on the Brain) to another race related story. Consider how the Obama Administration uses Race Politics to further the Obama Agenda.
The Obama administration’s race absorption apparently has a shelf life of about three years. Consider the list: Reverend Wright, “typical white person,” the Pennsylvania clingers, Michelle’s campaign editorializing about the U.S., “cowards,” the Professor Gates mess, “wise Latina,” the president’s race-based DNC video, the suing of Arizona, the comments made before the law was read, the sudden characterization of al-Qaeda as racist, the disturbing stories coming out of the Justice Department that some decisions are now race-based — and on and on. Each outburst in isolation is a sort of Macaca moment, a brief news item; in their totality, they have now more or less cemented in the minds of most Americans that Obama and his appointees see race as a sort of wedge issue by which to further an agenda.

Here is another related Link (Left Admits: Racism Charges Against Tea Parties a Tactic, Not a Truth)
Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning the left's false use of the accusation "racist" as a political tactic, saying they recognize the strategy from the teaching of left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky.

Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Mary Frances Berry, a long-time prominent liberal activist, has admitted in an interview with Politico that the left is trying to smear the tea party movement as "racist" for strategic reasons, not out of genuine concern that the movement is itself racist.

Berry called the tactic an "effective strategy" and chose not to denounce it.
Race relations will not get better as long as comments like the following are allowed to go unchallenged by the Left.
Berry, now the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania, was asked, "will branding the tea party 'racist' work?"

Berry replied:

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.
President Obama, The first Black President, has become a Race Polarizing President.

No comments: