The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Shirley Sherrod Story Gets More Hilarious

First, the NAACP purports to release the “full” speech by Shirley Sherrod.  Oh, except watch it.  There are edits there.  So its not the full speech, it’s the NAACP cut.  And even that cut doesn’t exonerate her or the NAACP.  She never condemned her own racism.  And the audience, contrary to my stalker’s opinion, showed approval of the discrimination without knowing she would go back and fix it.

Second, now Ben Jealous is claiming that the video is out of context, that in context it exonerates her.  He then gets all indignant:

“We were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias,” said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.”

But as Gateway Pundit points out, there is one problem with that story (I mean besides the fact that it doesn’t actually exonerate her or the NAACP):

Mr. Jealous was there.
Go and listen at about the 45 second mark on the “full” tape.  She thanks Ben Jealous and the NAACP’s board of directors for being there.

And let’s pretend that somehow the video exonerated her (it doesn’t).  And let’s pretend that somehow they would be excused for forgetting about something they witnessed.  Still, why didn’t they question its authenticity sooner, supposing all of that?

I think the fact they assumed it was true is very telling.

See for instance, when I came home from the D.C. Tea Party protest and read on Althouse where some people claimed that they had called a congressman the n-word and spat on him, I immediately doubted it.  I hadn’t been there at that exact moment, but I had been around those people for a good 5 hours and it just struck me as out of character.  These people were positive, overflowing with patriotism, talking substantively about serious issues of government power and I might add, generally not rowdy enough to do that sort of thing even if so inclined.  And I might add there was no sign of any bigotry there, and there was a surprising amount of diversity there giving lie to Olbermann’s claim that only white people supported the movement.  In other words, the allegations struck me as out of character.  So I immediately said I didn’t think it happened, and these days I am sure it didn’t happen.

But the powers that be at the NAACP didn’t have that reaction, now, did they?  They believed very readily that there was racism in their organization.  Why would that be the case, unless they already knew that there was racism in the NAACP, and figured that this was just but one example of it?

And that is assuming the tape exonerates her or the NAACP (it doesn’t), or excuses them from not remembering.

By the way, while Mr. Jealous was suffering from his amnesia and being fooled by that mean Andrew Brietbart, here is what he wrote:

Since our founding in 1909, the NAACP has been a multi-racial, multi-faith organization that– while generally rooted in African American communities– fights to end racial discrimination against all Americans.

Now let me stop right there, because my bullshit detector just redlined.  Mind you, I fully agree with the sentiment, but its pretty obvious today that the NAACP doesn’t believe in that.  When have they condemned either the New Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam?  And really, wasn’t what those New Black Panthers did in that voter intimidation case a particularly ugly thing?  Forget legalisms, here was the election of our first black president and these idiots are telling us now we will be ruled by the black man.  Shouldn’t the NAACP condemn that if only because it confirms the propaganda of the KKK?  Shouldn’t that have been a moment of unity, you know, and yes, even cutting down on black racists would be a chance to unify with the great majority of people who longed for a day when racism was dead and buried?

As for the Nation of Islam do you guys know what they actually believe?  Its racism is only matched by its sheer insanity.  Seriously, it’s like scientology levels of crazy stupidity, but with racism mixed in.  I mean I have long said that all religions look ridiculous to non-adherants but some are more ridiculous than others.

Going on with the “pre-bamboozled” Ben Jelous:

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

Notice that they are nodding toward that “new” definition of racism that has suddenly become popular.  They obviously aren’t going as far as to say that black people can’t be racist, but it is very often asserted they cannot be with this logic.  First they redefine racism as “racial bigotry + power.”  Then they said, “since black people have no power, they can’t be racists.”  Which is itself racist and stupid.  First, it has become really popular since Obama became president, despite the fact that the fact Obama is president makes it ludicrous to claim that black people have no power, never.  Second, black people have never had no power.  Now, the obvious retort to my assertion is to say, “okay, what about slaves?  Did they have power?”  And the answer actually is, yes.  Now obviously they did not have a lot but Jeffrey Roger Hummel demonstrates in his book “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men” that during the Civil War slaves brought the Southern economy to its knees by passive resistance.  They called it “fooling old master” and it was pretty much the slaves’ version of the old soviet maxim “they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.”  So when the overseer wasn’t looking they worked slow, they intentionally broke their tools, etc. all in the name of intentionally slowing down work.  So even in chains, black Americans were not fully powerless.

But more fundamentally I disagree with their definition of racism.  For me, racism is the opposite of Martin Luther King’s dream: to judge a person not by the content of their character but the color of their skin.  And let me be clear that I don’t say that to condemn all affirmative action either.  There is a way to reconcile affirmative action with that ideal, but that is another discussion for another day.

Back to Jealous’ “pre-snookered” statement:

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

That would be them.  They would be looking into their own behavior.

We thank those who brought this to our national office’s attention.

Now despite my light fisking that is actually a pretty good statement.  There’s a little bullshit, but they are at least saying the right things, mostly.

And now they are taking it back.  Because they were tricked, about the contents of a speech... they heard live.


So what is really happening, here?  Here’s my guess.  When they heard she resigned they figured she would go skulking off into the shadows.  So they felt safe putting out that mostly nice statement.  Then she decided to claim this was all unfair and they decided they should support her, and tried to ridiculously take back what they had said.

And thus hilarity ensues.