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.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Next Shoe Drops for Shirley Sherrod

The Washington Examiner has an excellent new article on Shirley Sherrod.  That would be the person seen in this video yucking it up about how she didn’t help a white farmer.  And it turns how she has an interesting relationship with the Department of Agriculture.

Well, you see she used to be head of a cooperative called “New Communities.”  They sued on behalf of black farmers who alleged discrimination on the part of the DOA.  The case was “Pigford v. Vilsack.”  Okay, lets get all the laugher about how it sounds like about Pig v. Sack out of the way, because shit is about to get real.

Okay, so Vilsack is the named party.  That would be the same Vilsack who appointed her to a cushy federal job.  He would also be the one to decide specifically what to do about this suit.

So look at this line from the Examiner article: “New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering).”
Shirley is Shirley Sherrod.  And Charles?  That would be her husband.  So all told she made $300,000 because as leaders of this organization they suffered “pain and suffering.”  You got that?  She suffered pain and suffering as the head of the organization.  Well, crap, let’s give her $300K and a cushy federal job to boot.

Sorry, um, color me skeptical about this payment.

Tell me if that does not seem fishy as hell.

By the way, there are some claiming that the video is taken out of context and later she repents.  Well to be blunt, that doesn’t fit with the tone of what we see.  Like imagine she said this:

“I have a confession to make. There was a time when a white farmer came to me for aid. And yeah, maybe he was pretending to be superior to me, but he needed my help. And because he was white and because he was being uppity, I didn’t do all I could. Yeah eventually I got him to a white lawyer and I hope that lawyer gave him all the help he needed, but I could have done more and I didn’t because of his race.”

If she said that, I wouldn’t have come down on her.

But instead she is like, “oh it was so funny when I screwed over this farmer…” yeah later she vaguely, maybe, dials it back. But there was no sense she actually felt the least bit bad about it.

(much cross posted at Patterico)