Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department Georgia Director of Rural Development, says she is a victim. A victim of poor reporting and, as she contends, clear bias and racist coverage from both Andrew Breitbart and Fox News.

“When you look at their reporting, this is just another way of seeing that they are (racist),” Sherrod told me about Fox in a lengthy interview Tuesday night. “But I have seen that before now. I saw their reporting as biased during the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration.”

How long before they go from “supporting” to attacking her again? Answer: not long.
Breitbart is back at it, again accusing Sherrod of being a racist, using snippets of the very same video, her March 27 speech before a Georgia NAACP chapter, to smear her again.

Sherrod also told Media Matters how her firing unfolded:
But after Breitbart posted the video clip, Sherrod said the lack of context and explanation sparked anger against her. She said she found out about the clip when someone e-mailed a link to her and asked about it.

“I couldn’t believe it. I found this out when someone sent me (a link to) the tape, people who follow him, who put it out there,” Sherrod said about Breitbart. “I got crank calls right away. Someone sent me an e-mail and link and said ‘shame on you’ and other stuff. I was sitting in a meeting and I was really upset.

“I texted back that they were so wrong and that they need to know the message and they got it wrong.” Sherrod said Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary, called her Monday and said she had to be on administrative leave.”

She adds: “People were calling and writing the Department of Agriculture in Athens, Ga., and Washington to tell them about it. That I needed to be fired. That a racist like me had no business working for the department. That is the way they intimidate people and it worked.”

By the end of the day Monday, she was forced to resign.
Sherrod, 62, said her first reaction was shock that, after a career working for civil rights and as the daughter of a father murdered by racists, she would be seen in such a terrible light.

“To have people say that I was such a racist was unbelievable,” she said of the fallout from the video and Fox coverage. “My whole life, if you look into what I have done, my father was murdered in 1965. If you look at all of us, we all hurt with that and we got involved into the movement and channeled our effort into good, instead of hating.

“I am getting hate calls and e-mails at this point. I got one call last night at my house at 12:30 a.m. that said ‘you lost your job, good for you’ and ‘bitch’ There are people out there who will believe that I am a racist person, even though the story is getting out there.”

And she said neither Breitbart (who she’d never heard of) nor anyone at Fox News ever contacted her to get her side of the story before running with Breitbarts smear. But that doesn’t mean they haven’t called at all…

“Not before they reported it,” she said of Fox’s negligence. “They have called me today and initially I had said yes (to an interview), but I thought about it and I did not think they intended to be fair in their reporting. They are going to say what they want to say regardless of what I say.”

She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

Beck is absolutely right that the administration was hasty in forcing her resignation. They were unwilling to listen to Sherrod's side of the story, and as we've detailed throughout the day, it seems that the clips of Sherrod were ripped from context in order to paint her as a racist.

But Beck -- while claiming that "Context matters" -- somehow manages to erase Andrew Breitbart and Fox News from the creation of that image.

All Beck says about Breitbart is that he's "trying to get the full video." In fact, it was Breitbart, without having that full video (the "context" that "matters") who originally posted the clip, claiming that it was "video evidence of racism" by Sherrod, and illustrating his post with an actual "race" card. Breitbart called her a racist without knowing the context of her statements, and has subsequently said that the context doesn't matter, that what he saw in the clip is sufficient to support his claims. Beck doesn't mention that -- in fact, he actively suggests the opposite is true, that Breitbart is engaging in responsible journalism.

Beck does not mention Fox's own horrendous coverage, which certainly did not wait for "context" before declaring Sherrod a racist. FoxNews.com's first report on Sherrod -- the first mainstream report on her speech -- gave no indication that her comment might have been taken out of context. It reported that Fox was "seeking a response from both the NAACP and the USDA," but not that they had attempted to find the full version of the tape or contact Sherrod herself. In the network's first coverage of the comments, Bill O'Reilly said they were "simply unacceptable" and called on Sherrod to "resign immediately." Newt Gingrich said that her comments indicated a "viciously racist attitude," Sean Hannity called them "racially charged," and the Fox and Friends co-hosts agreed they were "Exhibit A" of "what racism looks like."

And yet, in his analysis, Beck slams the administration for judging Sherrod before all the facts were in while completely disappearing Breitbart and Fox.

Beck may have not of said anything.. but he is only an hour of a 24 hour so called news company .. something the cons seem to be forgetting to mention.

Great parody of Olbermann

http://vodpod.com/watch/1130871-keith-olbermann-spoof-on-snl

Keith Olbermann
Olbermann's Production Staff Jumping Ship, JournoListers Hate Him
By Noel Sheppard | Fri, 07/23/2010 - 10:39

While on a much-needed vacation, things for Keith Olbermann have gone from bad to worse.

News is coming out almost daily concerning members of his production staff jumping ship to work for Lawrence O'Donnell's new program.

On top of that, the Daily Caller has published e-mail messages of liberal JournoList members expressing their disgust for the "Countdown" host.

As lefties hating on Olbermann is guaranteed to brighten a conservative's day, let's start there:

"He's become O'Reilly on the left- completely predictable, unfunny, and arrogant," said Georgetown University Professor Michael Kazin in May 2009. "To my mind, what they do is no different form Hannity and O'Reilly," said the New America Foundation's Michael Cohen, "At least Hannity and O'Reilly engage with the other side (if mainly just to yell at them). Olbermann is just an echo chamber."

The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman said a brutal parody of Olbermann reflected his true nature. "I hate both Ben Affleck and Saturday Night Live, but this should end all debate about the merits of Olbermann," he said, linking to the parody.

For those that have forgotten, Affleck absolutely skewered Olbermann with his November 1, 2008 parody:



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/23/olbermanns-production-staff-jumping-ship-journolisters-hate-him#ixzz0uXStavgs

Jim Dandy:  I just listened to the tape.  Thanks for proof that Oberman is a moron.

Jim Dandy:  Oberman?  Even the far left can't stand him.  lol   They call him the far left O'Reilly.   lol

I told you knuckle heads that race is in the forefront of the news.  When will you learn?

Neither cockroaches or progressives cannot stand the light of day.

Beware if you make an FOIA request of Homeland Security
Andrew Thomas
For the Department of Homeland Security, "the system worked." Over the past year, the Department has tried to protect itself from annoying and unwanted requests for information that they were legally required to provide through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to a report by AP:

"For at least a year, the report states, 'the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive...' That's according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by AP."

Most disturbingly, the requesters themselves became targets of government investigation. FOIA documents are intended by law to be freely accessible to all American citizens upon request. The intent of the law is subverted if one becomes too intimidated to ask for the information due to the potential for government retribution. The AP story also reports that Career employees "were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records..." The information could include where they lived, whether they were reporters, even about the organizations where they worked.

DHS management also wanted to know if a member of Congress was making the request, whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

Coincidentally, this policy was immediately rescinded just as the AP got their hands on the DHS internal e-mails.

Ferris Bueller:  You clearly don't know what you are talking about.  Why do you go on about a situation where you have not even investigated?  You're the blowhard here.

Ferris Bueller: Aye.. if the tapes were really a big deal then they would have 'come to light' in March. N' when it came to certain questions regarding the 'tapes' he did everything (including filibustering) to run from simple questions.

I hope she does sue him... seeing as he is 'protecting' his source!!

(V):  When you have no ethical standards, its very hard to take responsibility.

Ferris Bueller: He denies all responsibility. He knew of the 'tapes' since march (by the link I just posted.. CNN interview included).. he decided to go back to the person who sent them and use the videos to discredit the NAACP. To him it's all about the NAACP accusing the tea party being racist. That's all he cares about from the interview.

A right wing blowhard intentionally distorts the context of her statements.  And the NAACP & Admin. throw her under the bus with kneejerk swiftnest, giving credence to the lie.  NO ONE remotely checks the facts.  Everyone from O'Rielly to the Pres. line up with apologies when the lies are exposed, but no one really addresses the character assination.  Its time for someone to take the cronic liars to task.  There is someone missing from the parade of apologies - Brietbart.  Yess!!  She ought to sue him.

Artful Dodger: Breitbart (a tea party activist) was trying to divert attention from claims of and actual knowledge that the tea party contains a racist element.

Breitbart was playing as you say.. "the race card".

Bernice: From what I know now of Vietnam we should never have been in there. And even when the war was a lost cause, Johnson committed thousands more. He knew he was sending them to their deaths (it's on tape) but the US had to save face. For that reason alone I'd support a "bring our boys home." But not just because they keep getting killed. The enemy has the stomach for death and so should we. But if the cause is wrong in the first place, then we shouldn't even be there.

It's too late for Iraq. And Obama feels we have to be in Iraq so we'll likely stay.

Artful Dodger: who said that? "bring our boys etc? war is war. It is expected that some will die. Death is part of military conflict isn't it? (oops you already said that)

We lost another couple the other day in Afghanistan and while it is sad, it is also part and parcel of being in the military. I am just so pleased that they are given Military funerals, and then get another great send off when they are taken back to their home towns....so touching.

Just a perspective on this sort of thinking. You don't abandon a military conflict just because soldiers die. That's what happens in armed conflict - people die. We kill them, they kill us.

IF the sole reason to "bring our boys home" is that they are being killed, the we ought to look at all issues where people die, and eliminate those situations. Start with driving cars. 115 people die each day in America from car accidents. By comparison, fewer die in military conflict.

That is not to diminish the service of those in the military nor is it meant to diminish the loss of life. Anytime someone dies in the military it's a sad loss. But we don't pull out of conflicts because of deaths. It's bad policy.

In the same way, we don't close down police stations just because officers are killed in the line of duty. We know that is a likely possibility and we accept that as the cost of freedom.

Regardless of soldiers dying, the reason for pulling our troops out of a military conflict are rather simple:

Is it a noble cause? Is it necessary and will it bring about a greater good? Should we have been there in the first place? Are we fighting in a way that just sustains conflict or are we trying to defeat the enemy? Do those for whom we fight (like those in Afghanistan) do their share of fighting for their own freedoms?

If the cause isn't noble, or if the conflict is simply unnecessary and we should never have been there in the first place, we should leave.

If we are fighting a conflict that only keeps the enemy at bay, perhaps we should not be there.

If those that live in the country where our soldiers are fighting won't participate in their own "freedom fight" it might be a worthless cause in the long run.

No one likes to see soldiers die. But death is part of the picture of military conflict. As any military commander or for that matter, ask any soldier. They understand this fact in the business of "war."

"I'm sorry"

House Panel Charges Rangel with Ethics Misdeeds

go Charlie goAnd the spin starts, NOW!

Ahhhh the President just is just playing politics.

to: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrosd before going on-air? Let's make sure we do this right."

So hard news didn't cover it only the commentators. And like the NAACP and the WH, O'Reilly jumped to conclusions. Kinda nice when they can admit a mistake.

hahaha O'Reilly just admitted he jumped to conclusions on the Sharrod story. lol Well, well, well.

Artful Dodger: How many brains is it worth to ya?

let's make a deal

Jim Dandy:

Answer my questions cuz I won't go away. A simple "I don't have a clue" will do.

Artful Dodger: 'my wife" is actually a euphemism for the right side of my brain.I'm not married

Jim Dandy: I don't mind that we disagree. YOu're one of the few on here that actually makes a case and produces a rational argument. But, you are wrong in this case and the fact that you are running when challenged tells me you really don't know what you're talking about. I suspect you have simply listened to the left wing talking points on the Sharrod matter.

Is your wife a conservative?

Congressman: Sherrod’s Hiring Should Be Investigated
by Ben Shapiro
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to interview Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) for my radio show, “The Ben Shapiro Show,” which broadcasts every Sunday 1-4 PM ET in Orlando, FL. The topic of Shirley Sherrod came up, and in particular, the topic of the so-called Pigford Farms settlement.

For background, the Pigford Farms case is a class-action lawsuit filed against the federal government on behalf of black farmers and black wannabe farmers, who say they were discriminated against in loan proceedings. The federal government settled Pigford Farms for an unbelievable $1.15 billion. An incredibly high percentage of those receiving awards under this settlement have done so fraudulently.

Popout

Shirley Sherrod was not only an initiator of the Pigford Farms case, she received a chunk of change for her company, New Communities, Inc. To be accurate, she received the largest chunk of change for New Communities — $13 million. New Communities was a bankrupt commune-type land trust held by Sherrod and her husband. She and her husband personally received $150,000 each to compensate them for “pain and suffering.”


I asked Congressman King about this, because he is on the House Agriculture Committee. He pledged that if Republicans won the House back in November, he would initiate an investigation into Sherrod’s hiring, which is deeply suspicious at best. Why would the USDA, which had been shaken down by Sherrod, hire her?

Artful Dodger: I want a divorce

Jim Dandy: When challenged, most liberals tuck and run too so you're not alone.

Jim Dandy: I'll take that as you don't know the facts, can't answer my questions, and yet you have come to a conclusion without those necessary facts before you.

Do you always make decisions without the facts?

Artful Dodger: You're like a dog with a bone, and starting to remind me of my wife

Jim Dandy: It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of you don't know the facts of this case. Answer my questions. Or admit you don't know.