Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[PhilsFan]

It was really simple. Irvine was calling him out for his bizarre comparison of building a mosque in NYC being like hanging a confederate flag in the south. Now he thinks Irvine's talking about a confederate flag on a mosque. What?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Sorry, I didn't read back that far. Lately it's all kind of fuzzy here...

You can be my translator

[Irvine511]

fascinating.

so, Andrew Breitbart thinks he's -- zing! -- caught the NAACP in a double standard. regard:

Breitbart: 'This was not about Shirley Sherrod'
Posted: 07:29 PM ET

Washington (CNN) – Andrew Breitbart, the conservative blogger who published video of a speech by former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, said Tuesday that his decision to release the video was not motivated by wanting to target Sherrod, the African-American woman shown in the footage talking about racially-charged matters at an NAACP event.

Instead, Breitbart told CNN he released the Sherrod video because he believes it shows the NAACP itself tolerates racist behavior within its ranks – a stinging accusation just one week after the civil rights group made a similar charge against the conservative Tea Party movement.

"This was not about Shirley Sherrod," Breitbart said Tuesday in an interview set to air on CNN's John King, USA.

"This was about the NAACP attacking the Tea Party and this [the video of Sherrod] is showing racism at an NAACP event. I did not ask for Shirley Sherrod to be fired. I did not ask for any repercussions for Shirley Sherrod. They were the ones that took the initiative to get rid of her. I – I do not – I think she should have the right to defend herself."

Breitbart also described his decision to publish the Sherrod video as an effort to expose what he sees as the NAACP's hypocrisy when it comes to allegations of racism.

"[R]acism is used by the left and the Democratic Party to shut up opposition," Breitbart told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, "And [by releasing the Sherrod video] I am showing you that people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones."

And Breitbart also sounded off on claims by African-American congressmen that they had been greeted by racial slurs during a Capitol Hill protest earlier this year. The protest included Tea Party activists.

The conservative blogger said the NAACP had "resurrected the false charge" that racial slurs had been directed at the black lawmakers in order to help justify the civil rights organization's recent resolution calling on the leaders of the Tea Party movement to condemn racist elements within their movement's ranks.

"[I]t is a manufactured political hit against the Tea Party because they're fearful that this group of people is going to amass going into November," Breitbart told King.

Editor's Note: Full video coming soon

Sherrod says that she was discussing something that happened 24 -- !!! -- years ago as an example to show how everyone's views can and do change, and she's now great friends with these white farmers.

here's how Breitbart described it:

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind". She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance.

and, lo and behold, what's on that full video? Sherrod's story.

so, based upon withheld/edited footage, Breitbart has attempted to smear and african-american woman of anti-white racism -- the worst kind! -- in order to try to embarrass the NAACP.

has shades of that whole "wise Latina" bru-ha-ha from last summer, when more white people tried to accuse a non-white of racism.

and the NAACP is pissed. rightly so. and they've backed off their original condemnation of Sherrod.

July 20, 2010
Evening Buzz: NAACP: We were 'snookered' by Sherrod tape
Posted: 08:10 PM ET

Maureen Miller
AC360° Writer

Did the Obama Administration and NAACP rush to judge Shirley Sherrod, the U.S. Agriculture Department official, who says she was forced to resign?

Sherrod says yes.

At issue is the video posted online that shows Sherrod delivering a speech in March at a dinner for a Georgia NAACP chapter. In the clip that has a lot of people talking, Sherrod, who is black, described a 1986 encounter with a white farmer before she had the USDA job, when she was working for the nonprofit Federation of the Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund.

The video shows Sherrod telling the audience that the white farmer "took a long time... trying to show me he was superior to me." That led her, she said, to not "give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

Though, Sherrod says the clip originally posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart and picked up by Fox News, doesn't tell the whole story.

"I did not discriminate against him (the farmer). And in fact, I went all out. I had to frantically look for a lawyer at the last minute because the first lawyer we went to was not doing anything to really help him," Sherrod said.

Roger Spooner, told CNN he's the farmer she speaks of in the video. He has nothing but praise for her.

"If it hadn't been for her, we would've never known who to see or what to do," said Spooner. "She led us right to our success."

Tonight on 360°, you'll hear from Spooner. You'll also hear from Sherrod and get to listen to the other part of the tape in question that wasn't posted online - until today.

The USDA isn't backing down. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said her resignation was necessary because it "compromises the director's ability to do her job."

He also said the push for her to step down did not come from the White House.

"I made this decision, it's my decision. Nobody from the White House contacted me about this at all," he said.

Meantime, the NAACP has changed its tune. Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the civil rights' group, released a new statement today after reviewing the entire video.

"With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias," the statement reads.

"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."

Later in the statement, Jealous writes, "While we understand why Secretary Vilsack believes this false controversy will impede her ability to function in the role, we urge him to reconsider."

This is in sharp contrast to the NAACP's first news release issued late Monday when the organization backed Vilsack's decision.

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

Anderson will also talk with Jealous tonight about the controversy.

You’ll also hear from Breitbart, who told CNN, “This was not about Shirley Sherrod.”

“This was about the NAACP attacking the Tea Party and this [the video of Sherrod] is showing racism at an NAACP event. I did not ask for Shirley Sherrod to be fired. I did not ask for any repercussions for Shirley Sherrod,” he added.

yeah, no racism in the Tea Party, their leaders, or their mainstream media cheerleaders.

Fox News should just drop the whole "news" pretense and be honest.

look! it's a Black Panther!

[Harry Vest]

Originally Posted by YBORCITYOBL

I'll ask you again, who the hell are you people and how did you guys hijack the Republican Party?


Whats that I hear? Reagan must be rolling over in his grave I can just imagine what he would think of all of these idiots.....

Sorry, Reagan started this whole mess. Well, there were others who wrote the plan but Reagan ushered it in.

[A stor]

I'm an Independent and would like to know why not allowing persons to enter the United States illegally, is considered to be racist? Every country has laws against this. Look at what happened to the folks who were hiking, accidently crossing the Iranian border.. They're in prison. Charged with espionage.

European, Russian and Egyptian friends of mine, legally live and work in America, paying all state and federal taxes BTW. They were not given "card blanche" nor did they run over the border. The United States government knows they are here.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by A stor

I'm an Independent and would like to know why not allowing persons to enter the United States illegally, is considered to be racist? Every country has laws against this. Look at what happened to the folks who were hiking, accidently crossing the Iranian border.. They're in prison. Charged with espionage.

European, Russian and Egyptian friends of mine, legally live and work in America, paying all state and federal taxes BTW. They were not given "card blanche" nor did they run over the border. The United States government knows they are here.

I don't think a person objecting to illegal immigration is automatically a racist. And like you I'm puzzled sometimes by arguments that suggest that. I personally support strong anti-illegal immigration measures. However, I DO object to the tone and attitude of many of those who support these measures. There is often a thinly veiled racism to these objections--you get the sense that this really about a fear of the "Brown Hordes" streaming across the border rather than just a sensible desire for secure borders. This not new--our nation has always been hostile to certain groups entering the country legally or otherwise, going all the way back to the Irish back in the mid-19th century.

Personally, I feel that the best way to stem illegal immigration is to crack down HARD on those who employ them. These are the real "bad guys" if you ask me. These employers knowingly break the law, are able to pay the workers crap wages and even mistreat or abuse them because they know as illegal immigrants they can't complain. If you have strong measures against those that knowingly employ illegal immigrants (and put the onus on the employer to verify the status of those they employ) then you'll see fewer illegals because they won't be able to find the work they're coming here for. But you rarely hear that emphasis from the most vocal illegal-immigrant opponents. They'd rather paint the illegals as the bad guys and often that depiction stinks of racism.

[A stor]

Well said, I agree 100%.

Same for me. It has always been about safety and human rights. No deserves to be forced to live like that. Coyotes, Illegal employment sounds like modern day slavery to me. I have a question though. Will legal immigration be easier to obtain? I certainly, hope so. I love, multi-cultural America!

[BVS]

Originally Posted by A stor

I'm an Independent and would like to know why not allowing persons to enter the United States illegally, is considered to be racist?

It's not so much the being opposed to them being here illegally, it's the means and the arguments to which they use.

Like "they're all drug smugglers".

"They'll turn our neighborhoods into mini-Mexico."

"I don't want my child going to kindergarten where it's 75% hispanic." Yes, this argument was actually used in here.

Terms like "anchor babies".

Really look hard at the arguments folks use, and you can tell which ones are the racists and which one's aren't.

[A stor]

I see what you mean and I agree anyone who says that is racist. Sadly, I'm not Native America. Wish I was. Beautiful culture and people. All of my ancestors came from Ireland during the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Fortunately for me. I live in a nice, working class, multi-cultural neighborhood. My neighbors are from all over the globe. The only time I have seen a rare disagreement was because of "your kid did this to mine." It was never about ethnic group or religion.

To be honest. I don't think it is fair to pay anyone less wages for the same job, because of status. I do believe it should be easier to get a work visa for the U.S. This hopefully would get rid of some of the criminal activity, Coyotes and etc. But, pay these employees the same as a citizen. Tax out the proper taxes and offer health care.

If I moved to Ireland for work and retained U.S. citizenship. I would still be entitled to health care and the same wages as an Irish citizen.

[maycocksean]

I agree that is unfair to pay immigrants less than citizens and a company could not do that to a legal immigrant. But businesses or individuals who hire illegal immigrants aren't concerned with being fair in the first place. Since they are hiring them outside of the law to begin with they can also ignore minimum wage laws, fair and safe treatment etc. Since illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be working in the U.S. in the first place, the businesses can treat them however they want with impunity.

Re: legal immigration. My understanding is that it is harder for people from certain countries to get visas to enter the country to work and live. It may be an issue of high demand i.e. lots of people from that country would migrate to the United States if they could and so we tend to try to manage what might be an overwhelming tide of immigrants. It may also be a security issue if the U.S. has a thorny relationship with the country of origin. I would guess it would be easier for people from countries that are quite developed and have a high standard of living already (thus people would be less eager to leave just to have a "better life" and so there would be fewer potential emigrants) and who are friendly with the U.S. than from those that aren't. But I don't really know.

[A stor]

I want to thank everyone for their post. Immigration is a very tough issue. So is health care reform. Good discussion, both pro and con, gave me a better perspective. I learned quite a bit from all of you.

The compassionate side of me says "yes, let them in." I know they are looking for a chance at a better life. Some of the places they are coming from, there is nothing. Living in a shanty, limited food and no work opportunities at all. The practical side.....Are we still able to offer that dream? With high unemployment and a very bad economy, right now. I don't want to see even more people homeless and begging in the streets for food. This hurts my soul, very deeply. I wish there was an easy answer.

[Bluer White]

YouTube - Gibbs: White House Apologizes to Sherrod

A teachable moment?

[BVS]

It's very much a teachable moment from people on all sides.

To those that distorted. To those that believed the distortion and yet still follow the distorter's ways.

To those that jumped the gun because of how it might look...

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by BVS

It's very much a teachable moment from people on all sides.

To those that distorted. To those that believed the distortion and yet still follow the distorter's ways.

You mean like

"I don't want my child going to kindergarten where it's 75% hispanic." Yes, this argument was actually used in here.

Talk about distortion and taking something out of context.

[BVS]

I didn't want to bother looking for the quote. So yes, I may have not got the quote exactly but I didn't distort, I even asked for a clarification because I was floored from such a comment.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

A teachable moment?

yup. we learn that,

1. the White House -- so sensitive to charges of "reverse racism," like most of the mainstream media -- has done screwed this up but good, and has rightly apologized and reinstated Sherrod.

2. there is no lengths that the right wing media -- especially Fox News -- won't go to in order to stoke up a sense of white victimization. it's good for ratings, and it massages the beating heart of the Tea Party movement.

3. we learn that, yes, there is absolutely an enormous racial component to the Tea Party, and indeed to much resistance to anything this president has to do. if there's anything -- anything -- that Fox or Breitbart or Rush can do to increase the feeling that older, white voters are being fleeced by this black president. Limbaugh calls health care access to the working poor "reparations." Bretibart is left sputtering that, heck, those white farmers who became friends with Sherrod might be plants for all we know because who can say what is true or not?


right wing: stop being racist.
White House: stop overreacting and don't listen to them.


the NAACP got it right.

[Irvine511]

oh, and i hope Sherrod sues the shit out of Breitbart.

wait, would that be just another example of blacks liberals freeloading and expecting a handout and that's really just reparations and we don't want to pay their mortgages?

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by A stor

I want to thank everyone for their post. Immigration is a very tough issue. So is health care reform. Good discussion, both pro and con, gave me a better perspective. I learned quite a bit from all of you.

The compassionate side of me says "yes, let them in." I know they are looking for a chance at a better life. Some of the places they are coming from, there is nothing. Living in a shanty, limited food and no work opportunities at all. The practical side.....Are we still able to offer that dream? With high unemployment and a very bad economy, right now. I don't want to see even more people homeless and begging in the streets for food. This hurts my soul, very deeply. I wish there was an easy answer.

It's true there are no easy answers. I don't know that the issue regarding illegal immigration is over whether we should "let them in" or "not let them in" but more how we should go about stopping illegal immigration and how illegal immigrants should be treated and what measures should be taken to apprehend them.

I don't know that any but a few extremists would make the argument for completely open borders.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

oh, and i hope Sherrod sues the shit out of Breitbart.

wait, would that be just another example of blacks liberals freeloading and expecting a handout and that's really just reparations and we don't want to pay their mortgages?

Wouldn't be the first time she sued and won a big settlement.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

oh, and i hope Sherrod sues the shit out of Breitbart.

Good luck with that suit.


On the other hand, she has yet another case against the federal government. You know, the folks who actually fired her.