When Shirley lost her job

louixo

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Please take time to read all, it is very interesting.

Remember Shirley Sherrod, the dept. of Agriculture gal, who seemed to be 'racist' and lost her job??? Well as Paul Harvey used to say, "here is the rest of the story".... and it is not pretty. The surprise ending has not been shared nor reported upon by the media, but it is a whopper!! Thanks to the Wall Street Journal for bringing this to light.. It takes some reading below, to the 6th paragraph for sure, before you will realize what happened here.

You can 'google' the word Pigford and it pops up, then click on The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit.... and check this information out for yourself.

Begin forwarded message:

You thought you knew what happened with the Shirley Sherrod story, but you may have missed the twist and big ending. The hook was baited, the fish bit hard, then you found out you were playing an entirely different game. Please read it all. Any of you banging your head yet? How in the hell does this crap keep happening, and why do we let it be ignored. Cover up after cover up, plain corruption at it's best, and it is costing us dearly folks.

83 DAYS

Pigford vs. Glickman

This came in this morning in response to the WSJ article
published yesterday on Obama dividing America on race. There is no need to make any other comment other than pass along this mind boggling information...all comments that follow are from this article:

Andrew Breitbart is a media genius. He 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 Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in
horror, 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's 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!
Yes, but when will Obama answer for this?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Snopes doesn't comment on this yet but it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. I hope if it's true it goes viral and everyone knows about the thief in chief.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
It's from a story from the American Thinker. As usual, there's some truth to it, but it's wildly played up with distortions, half-truths and sometimes outright lies to get people all frothy. This is exactly the kind of stuff that costs the GOP elections, stooping to the level of the kind of distortions and lies that liberals are famous for.

For example, what the USDA did to these small farmers (in collusion with the area’s influential white farmers segregationist Governor Lester Maddox (D)), was a disgrace. A crime, in fact, Thus, the USDA payout. The court found that they basically denied the land trust the same grants and loans afforded the areas white farmers and corporate agribusiness farms which resulted in the demise of the farming operations. But the claim that Sherrod’s family was paid $13 million is just a load of crap. The $12.8 million settlement was paid to a community land trust of over a dozen family farms, one of which were the Sherrods, and the Sherrods got very little of it.

While there may have been 89,000-plus “claims,” over 70,000 were not allowed to proceed. The claims actually considered by the court, only 13,343 were found to be genuine and were paid the $50k.

Shirley Sherrod only got involved with the USDA in 2009.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
It's from a story from the American Thinker. As usual, there's some truth to it, but it's wildly played up with distortions, half-truths and sometimes outright lies to get people all frothy. This is exactly the kind of stuff that costs the GOP elections, stooping to the level of the kind of distortions and lies that liberals are famous for.

For example, what the USDA did to these small farmers (in collusion with the area’s influential white farmers segregationist Governor Lester Maddox (D)), was a disgrace. A crime, in fact, Thus, the USDA payout. The court found that they basically denied the land trust the same grants and loans afforded the areas white farmers and corporate agribusiness farms which resulted in the demise of the farming operations. But the claim that Sherrod’s family was paid $13 million is just a load of crap. The $12.8 million settlement was paid to a community land trust of over a dozen family farms, one of which were the Sherrods, and the Sherrods got very little of it.

While there may have been 89,000-plus “claims,” over 70,000 were not allowed to proceed. The claims actually considered by the court, only 13,343 were found to be genuine and were paid the $50k.

Shirley Sherrod only got involved with the USDA in 2009.

Links please....
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Googling American Thinker should be easy enough. It's also easy enough to Google Pigford vs. Glickman and find the court rulings on the case.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Googling American Thinker should be easy enough. It's also easy enough to Google Pigford vs. Glickman and find the court rulings on the case.

You're the one that made the claims and should include links to your information, otherwise, folks might just think you're talking out yer....
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm not going to get into it with you. Do your own homework.

This is about the issues, but as usual you want to make it about who posted it rather than what was posted. Everything I stated is 100% verifiable. If you want to verify it, you doing it independently is far preferable to my serving it up to you on a silver platter, because you won't believe that, either. If you don't want to verify it, fine, I really don't care. If you want to discuss the issues, great, but if you want to level allegations about claims you are unwilling to take the time to verify, I'm not interested.
 
Last edited:

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
I'm not going to get into it with you. Do your own homework.

This is about the issues, but as usual you want to make it about who posted it rather than what was posted. Everything I stated is 100% verifiable. If you want to verify it, you doing it independently is far preferable to my serving it up to you on a silver platter, because you won't believe that, either. If you don't want to verify it, fine, I really don't care. If you want to discuss the issues, great, but if you want to level allegations about claims you are unwilling to take the time to verify, I'm not interested.

I don't think asking for a link is trying to "get into it" with someone. There are a lot of accusations that get thrown around in these "discussions" and I think it's a good idea, regardless of which side you're on and what forum you're posting in, to include a link to back up your claim.

Anyone that has paid any attention to anything I've posted here would know that I often ask for links......probably more so from the right than the left so your accusation that I'm trying to mess with you merely because of "who you are" (whoever that's supposed to be) is baseless.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
It's not entirely baseless, as I've just posted in two Soapbox threads and you immediately responded to me with a contradiction in one thread, and asking for a link to prove what I'm saying in this thread. Then there's your history, which speaks for itself.

"You're the one that made the claims and should include links to your information, otherwise, folks might just think you're talking out yer.... " is absolutely "getting into it" with someone, as it's an offensive challenge directed at me personally rather than the issues.

The fact is that the information I posted here did not immediately come from links that I went out and got in order to post them, and therefore are not immediately at hand. It's from following the story at American Thinker (and other places) and the court case and the USDA actions for a long time. It also comes from personally knowing three farmers who this mess has directly affected. If you think my facts are fabricated, then refute them with facts, rather than have me take the time and trouble that I'm not willing to do in order to go out and find the links for you. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but I don't exactly have a history here of posting lies and fabrications.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
It's not entirely baseless, as I've just posted in two Soapbox threads and you immediately responded to me with a contradiction in one thread, and asking for a link to prove what I'm saying in this thread. Then there's your history, which speaks for itself.

"You're the one that made the claims and should include links to your information, otherwise, folks might just think you're talking out yer.... " is absolutely "getting into it" with someone, as it's an offensive challenge directed at me personally rather than the issues.

The fact is that the information I posted here did not immediately come from links that I went out and got in order to post them, and therefore are not immediately at hand. It's from following the story at American Thinker (and other places) and the court case and the USDA actions for a long time. It also comes from personally knowing three farmers who this mess has directly affected. If you think my facts are fabricated, then refute them with facts, rather than have me take the time and trouble that I'm not willing to do in order to go out and find the links for you. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but I don't exactly have a history here of posting lies and fabrications.

Posting a link, IMHO, is not to show that your posts came from that link but more to back up what you are saying. The burden of proof for one's claims falls on the one making those claims and if you can't do that then you discredit yourself and that should be duly noted as a disclaimer to your posts that do not contain said links.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yeah, I'm like, totally discredited. <snort>

If you don't want to believe anything I say, fine.
But I still won't do your homework for you.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yup. The corruption on this one is likely to go long and deep. We'll likely never get the real story, but it'll be a whopper when it's all said and done. There's just a snotload of money that's been paid out to farmer who don't exist. I wonder where it really went?
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Posting a link, IMHO, is not to show that your posts came from that link but more to back up what you are saying. The burden of proof for one's claims falls on the one making those claims and if you can't do that then you discredit yourself and that should be duly noted as a disclaimer to your posts that do not contain said links.

Substantiation of one's claims is a reasonable request. I would have to agree with someone who once said that the first reaction to reading an assertion from an individual on the internet is "what a load of cr*p". It simply doesn't wash that one should make a claim that the earth is flat and leave it up to everyone else to prove otherwise.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
But the above aren't claims that require proof or substantiating. They are a statement of facts that anyone can obtain by doing their own cursory research. The only reason they would require substantiation would be if I have a history of making unsubstantiated claims and fabrications. Asking for links to substantiate court findings and other facts that were in the news and which are brain-dead easily verifiable is an unreasonable request. It's either an accusation that I'm making it up, or an illustration of abject laziness on the part of someone who doesn't want to take the time to look things up on their own. Either way, it's an unreasonable request. When I read something that strikes me as a load of crap, the first thing I do is conduct my own research into the facts. So for those who think my "claims" above are a load of crap, go do your own research.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Here is your link. If the money did NOT go to this program look at Obama's campain funds, maybe it when there. ....... You really need to go see an ENT doctor there Turtle, that <snort> is getting much worse. Most of the time things like that can be fixed now.
Oh, I think that you might have misunderstood his comment - he really wasn't asking for a link ..... just merely making a comment himself :D
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Oh, I think that you might have misunderstood his comment - he really wasn't asking for a link ..... just merely making a comment himself :D


No, I did NOT misunderstand. I was just joining in on the
"smart off" session. You guys can't hog all the fun you know!! :p
 
Top