Monday, August 16, 2010

Received via email...

The words below are not mine I got this in an email and wanted to share.

"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! --- Andrew 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, Andrew 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*" “

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.

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!

1 comment:

  1. Martin Luther King was a Republican. One of the reasons attributed to his success in the 1960's was that many black businesses had thrived selling to other blacks and thus they had financial resources. The democratic aprty successfully coopted black people in Lyndon Johnson's GReat Society and were told they were owed and thrust into a welfare system that ended up maintaining poverty. The thing that make me sad about it is that they were doing for themselves quite well.

    I find it ironic that Jackie Robinson is the poster child for the breaking of the color boundary in major league baseball. Everyone talks with such pride that this one black man was allowed to play with the whites. I think a true breaking of the color boundary would have instead been the Brooklyn Dodgers agreeing to play the Kansas City Monarchs. The Negro Leagues were a "black" owned business and were doing successfully well. Why did integration have to put those teams out of business. I have heard that many of the greats outshined or equaled the major league players at the time.

    To me this "lawsuit" epitomises the problem that young black people face in this country. They are told that they deserve to have things handed to them yet even though one trillion has been spent on minorities and the poor their plight is no better. That is because they have not been shown that to have something one has to earn it. This is what is so damnably insidious about what is behind these lawsuits. They prop up this failed ideology, it tears people down in a continuous circle of misery.