My Human Events Op Ed: In Defense Of Andrew Breitbart

Woo Hoo - first in the today's top headlines section on the front page. Heh! I was pleased to have been given an opportunity to write an op ed for Human Events, given the list of worthy pundits they regularly publish. Feisty young gun and friend Jason Mattera is the Editor there, now. Here it is: In Defense Of Andrew Breitbart.

I'd add, the Left has actually manufactured completely false evidence of racism at Tea Party events out here. I have yet to see any outrage over that. So, pardon me if I don't play useful idiot and place a kick me, again, I'm stupid sign on my back as I've seen too many of the usual hand wringers on the Right already do in this matter.

Breitbart demonstrated more racism apparent in one NAACP event, than those charging Republicans and Tea Parties with racism day in and day out now for months on end. Yet, the people making that latter charge include both Sherrod and the NAACP, neither of which has produced any proof. But it is Breitbart who should be convicted for false charges in the court of public opinion? That is totally absurd given the actual facts.

Comments

[Joan of Argghh!]

I don't mind hand-wringing over things that are important. I understand the political realities and what we're up against with the race-mongers. But we are still called to a higher standard of excellence. So, I've wrung my hands and posited and questioned the charges on their own merits, not on what the "other side" has done with racism. No re-directs. Head-on, let's take a look at our own evidence.

So I re-read Breitbart's orignial entry 36 hours after the initial hoopla, firings and rehirings, and I think it stands up to its claims. I know it does. The Left knows it does, too, hence their howling re-directs.

[Lester]

Look, as long as there is affirmative action based on race there is racism. Period. All this hand wringing as you call it is interesting. But let's be on the level. It is factually impossible to end racism or deal with it honestly until we end all racial set asides.

[SenatorMark4]

We may finally have reached the state where the mere hint of making a claim that someone is racist is finally going to require some actual proof. In the past you could get all kinds of goodies by screaming it but now that the bullhorn is facing the opposite direction it is starting to splash back on the hustlers. Good.

[rvastar]

Looking at the unedited video, it's clear that Sherrod regrets her past actions, learned from them, and tried to do better. And that is honorable.

But that isn't the point.

The point is that if this had been video of any white Republican govt official, there would be no amount of penance available to said Republican that would allow them to continue serving in that govt position. They would be excoriated and crucified. And instead of all the gushing coverage we're going to get over the next week about "Sherrie, the Shining Light", we'd be served an endless buffet of "Sherrie, the Dirty Racist".

Well, I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. These aren't our rules Lefties, they're yours. And it's called being "hoisted on one's own petard". You don't like it? Tough.

PS - And edited or unedited, it still doesn't change the NAACP audience's positive reaction to her stating that she discriminated against a white farmer, which was obviously the principle point that Breitbart was making as was evidenced by the title of the first article he wrote about this video: "Video Proof - The NAACP Awards Racism - 2010".

[Gunga]

I'm pleased that Sherrod is an example of a self-aware human being who is capable of objectively evaluating her own foibles in a public forum. I'm also pleased that she is a mirror for her audience members to now reflect on the nature of their parochial/racist responses to the topic of her discussion. Sherrod is shown as a 21st century woman speaking to a crowd with their thought patterns stuck in the mid 20th century. Shame on them for not understanding the real meaning of her speech and cheers to Breitbart for holding them accountable.

[Dennis]

The Race Mongers and Race Baiters are, with a few exceptions, unable to point at real incidents of White-on-Black racism. They make their living finding and exploiting White-on-Black racism. If they can't find any racism, then there must not be enough out there to matter.

White-on-Black racism is dead. We have outgrown it. Hell, we even elected a Black president, mainly because people thought it was "about time."

There is no White-on-Black racism. it is dead.

They are now trying to revive it, so they have something to justify their hateful existence. They may succeed.

It's time to declare a Godwin's Law on racism, and castigate those who play the race card.

[ThomasD]

Solid essay, this will not be getting any better for the left. Sherrod's latest pronouncements on Media Matters are only digger her deeper into her hole of racism. Blaming Fox for something they didn't even report until after she 'resigned' betrays everything you need to know about her standards of judgment.

[Jay]

I thought the original video was poorly edited. The accompanying Breitbart post should have spelled out that we're listening for audience reaction at the time the audience thought this was a story about sticking it to the man. But that's a choice by a blogger.

The facet of this story that I find truly appalling (and I'm not easily appalled) was that someone in a position of official trust and responsibility ordered her to pull over to the side of the road and resign. I don't care if she'd been explicitly racist for the entire 40-odd minutes of unedited video: Nobody deserves to be treated like that.

[salvage]

You morons remind me of an old joke; wingnut listening to Limbaugh on the radio turns to his buddy and says "Rush is right, there's no more racism in America, now the niggers will have to find something else to complain about."

But Dan keep it up, it's fun watching you trying to dig up!

[bobby b]

"The accompanying Breitbart post should have spelled out that we're listening for audience reaction at the time the audience thought this was a story about sticking it to the man."
- - -

Uh . . . did you read the post?

I mean, it pretty much spelled out that we should be listening for the audience reaction.

But, sadly, it was in English, I guess . . .

[ThomasD]

Jay, it did.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-i-learned-from-shirley-sherrod.html

[Jay]

Here is the headline on the original Breitbart post:

"Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism--2010"

Here is the first mention of Ms. Sherrod, in the lead:

"In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient..."

Then there are 13 paragraphs of background on the NAACP and the Tea Party, and then this:

"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."

Her change of heart comes at the end of the 15th graf, and in the 16th graf, we hear for the first time about the murmurs of approval from the audience.

Mr. Breitbart and his defenders now say he intended this this to be a story about NAACP cheering on racism, and not specifically about Ms. Sherrod. If that's so, I believe he should have spelled that out in the headline and first couple of paragraphs.

I read English well enough to spot a buried lead.

[itsMike2Cents]

Safe to assume Dan got the call after many others declined the opp to pen a Breitbart defense piece.
"Man, there must be some desperate sap out there willing to write a laughably lame piece from that angle..."

[rvastar]

[Mr. Breitbart and his defenders now say he intended this this to be a story about NAACP cheering on racism, and not specifically about Ms. Sherrod. If that's so, I believe he should have spelled that out in the headline and first couple of paragraphs.]

Which name appears in the title of the article? Sherrod's or the NAACP?

Thanks for playing.

[rvastar]

[Safe to assume Dan got the call after many others declined the opp to pen a Breitbart defense piece.]

Two questions:

1) Where in the unedited video does Sherrod retract her story about discriminating against the white farmer, stating something to the effect of "just kidding...that didn't really happen?

2) Where in the unedited video does the NAACP utter any disapproval of her for her discriminatory actions against the farmer?

[itsMike2Cents]

Well rvstar, the phrase 'completely taken out of context' is being used a lot.
That doesn't mean much to folks with an twisted agenda, but to others it makes all the difference.
I get that there will always be folks - like you and Dan - that wanna try to rationalize and defend Breitbart. But Breitbart will now forever be defined by this. It won't stop him or make him go away, but he's been properly sidelined. And even if that's just for a little while, it's nice to stop the noise for a bit.

[rvastar]

[Well rvstar, the phrase 'completely taken out of context' is being used a lot.]

Answer the questions:

1) Where in the unedited video does Sherrod retract her story about discriminating against the white farmer, stating something to the effect of "just kidding...that didn't really happen"?

2) Where in the unedited video does the NAACP utter any disapproval of her for her discriminatory actions against the white farmer?

See, an intellectually honest person would have the courage to answer "nowhere". But you Leftist aren't intellectually honest: rather than answer the two very simple question I posed, you continue to try to deflect attention away from this woman's admitted racist actions, as well as the NAACP audiences approval of her racist actions. The reason you refuse to answer is because you know that once you do, you'll have walked into a trap that you won't be able to get out of.

So come on, mike, give us your next batch of evasive red herrings...since we all know that you lack the courage or moral conviction to answer honestly.

[bertie]

It's not being picky, it's not parsing to distinguish "edited" from "excerpted." Breitbart's piece was NOT edited it was an excerpt. And it included Sherrod's exculpatory, "...that's when it was revealed to me..." moment.

[M. Simon]

It won't stop him or make him go away, but he's been properly sidelined.

Yeah. After he was sidelined for the ACORN videos. And the "bugging a Senator" fiasco. This latest fiasco for sure means no one will pay him any mind. Got ant alternate reality pills to spare? Because I sure could use a change of venue.

[M. Simon]

OK. No html. So here is what I really meant:

"It won't stop him or make him go away, but he's been properly sidelined."

Yeah. After he was sidelined for the ACORN videos. And the "bugging a Senator" fiasco. This latest fiasco for sure means no one will pay him any mind. Got any alternate reality pills to spare? Because I sure could use a change of venue.

[salvage]

Two answers:

1) She never discriminated against the white farmer, both the farmer and his wife have clearly stated that she helped them and at no point did they feel discriminated against.

2) Since there was no discriminatory actions against the farmer the NAACP had no reason to utter disapproval.

Do you understand now?

[tadcf]

According to this video, and others I've seen on the internet, Breitbart claims that the purpose of his display of the Sherrod video was to show that a group like the NAACP, who claimed the Tea Party had racist elements, was themselves racist. He claims that the Sherrod video acts as evidence of this fact, due to their applause and laughter (or at least a lack of “boos and hisses”) during her description of 'discrimination against the farmer'. I suggest it serves as no such evidence because Breitbart makes certain assumptions about what they're laughing at, and it certainly does not exhibit pandemonium. I could just as easily say they were actually laughing at themselves because they could relate her story to their own thoughts at the time--and that could be just as correct an interpretation, probably more so, as Breitbart's.

Breitbart, and the rest of the reactionary community doesn't know what real proof is!

[Johann Amadeus Metesky]

"It won't stop him or make him go away, but he's been properly sidelined. And even if that's just for a little while, it's nice to stop the noise for a bit.
itsMike2Cents"

What's more important, Mike, free speech or your political agenda?

Far from transcending race, taking Sherrod's speech in its entirety and context, plus looking at her most recent remarks, Sherrod is a racialist.

She obviously believes that there are conspirators (Fox News, Republicans, rich white folks) that are trying to keep black folks down, plus create division between poor blacks and poor whites so they can be exploited.

It's interesting how these views, which are commonplace among today's Democrats black and white, are considered acceptable, when in fact while they are not overtly racist, they're still crackpot conspiracy theories and heavily invested with racialism.

It's interesting that the same folks who believe in such conspiracies is that they simultaneously think that Jews should make peace with the Arabs and let bygones be bygones when it comes to Germans.

[rvastar]

Actually, it's good to see the resident Lefties voicing so much concern about out-of-context video footage being used to smear a person or group.

In fact, I'm sure that with a simple Google search, both Jay and Mike will be able to provide us with links to posts they made expressing their outrage at MSNBC last year for running a story on racism at healthcare meetings and using footage of a gun-carrying protestor as proof of said racism...but failing to mention that the protestor carrying the gun was black...and in fact, in going so far as to edit the video so that viewers couldn't see that the protester was black.

We can count on you guys to get those links to us pretty quickly, right Jay and Mike?

[JorgXMcKie]

Maybe the trolls could produce some evidence of Tea Party racism as claimed by the NAACP that wasn't fabricated by MediaMatters or some race baiter? Looks to me like it may be the NAACP that will be sidelined.

[rvastar]

[Do you understand now?]

Yeah, I understand. I understand that like the other dishonest coward Mike, you're unable to answer honestly.

From Sherrod's own lips:

So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And, uh, he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer….so I figured that if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.

Where - in the unedited video - does she recant and say that this incident didn't happen?

[bandit]

That doesn't mean much to folks with an twisted agenda, but to others it makes all the difference.

It makes all the difference to those who want to lie about the incident. Before this ignorant racist fool is rehired to her 'job' maybe she can explain where in federal statute or USDA regulations she's supposed to (paraphrase) "help those have nots against those that have". Maybe she could try to enforce the rules and regulations evenhandedly as they are intended. Obviously she's incapable of that.

[itsMike2Cents]

"this ignorant racist fool" (Shirley Sherrod)

Dan...you see, Bandit is what you invite...what you get.
Maybe it is indeed who you are...I don't know.

[rvastar]

[Dan...you see, Bandit is what you invite...what you get.]

Nice ad hominem "argument". We'll just throw it in the pile with your red herrings.

[Ritchie The Riveter]

Sorry, salvage et. al., but the Exclusionary Rule does not apply here ...

1> For many years conservatives have been browbeaten with the assumption that those who defend civil rights ... especially within our government ... by definition, lack racist tendencies. Ms. Sherrod's tale of "redemption" is prima facie evidence that this assumption is false, as race shouldn't have had any part in her decision-making at that time. Should she get fired for it now, in light of her "repentance"? NO!

2> However, her "redemption" is anything but complete, for she continues to this day to reinforce the accusations of racist motives on the part of conservatives who oppose the Obama agenda.

3> The lack of disgust on the part of the NAACP audience reinforces the perception that there still is a double standard on race in this nation ... and that the ends justify the means when it comes to "getting what you deserve".

Of course, you trolls will never acknowledge the above, because like your Congressional Clown Posse, you lack the intellectual honesty to do so.

Breitbart (again) pwns you ...

[Rob Crawford]

"Looking at the unedited video, it's clear that Sherrod regrets her past actions, learned from them, and tried to do better. And that is honorable. "

Really?

What about this part:

"You know. I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. [Mumurs of agreement.] Some of the racism we thought was buried — [someone in the audience says, "It surfaced!"] Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black president."

Sounds like she's still got a bit of a problem with bigotry.

[rvastar]

[Sounds like she's still got a bit of a problem with bigotry.]

Maybe so, but that in no way means that she didn't regret her past actions toward the white farmer, learned (at least a little) from her shameful actions, and underwent some amount of soul-searching and growth. It's a lesson the likes of Jay, Mike, and salvage should consider in light of their intellectual dishonesty and mental rigor mortis.

Speaking of those three: how's that Google search coming for those links to your condemnation of MSNBC for it's blatant dishonesty and race-baiting during the healthcare debate? Any luck?

[salvage]

Amazing.

She wasn't racist, her "victims" both on the record have stated with no ambiguity that Sherrod was not racist, that she helped them out, that is a fact that you twits are simply choosing to ignore rather than admit that you're wrong.

Such deep retardation but is it deliberate or natural? The mystery I can never figure out.