Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Breitbart (and PJ Media) vs. Shirley Sherrod

July 9th, 2014 - 2:54 pm

Imagine if a white government official with the Alabama Department of Agriculture stood before a Tea Party crowd and said words to this effect:

The first time I was faced with having to help a black farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter from Tea Party audience.] So many white farmers were having a hard time, and I was faced with having to help a black person. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I took him to a black lawyer, one of his own kind, to take care of him.

Imagine if a white government official admitted on camera that he initially didn’t help a black farmer as much as he could have helped him, and that the official took the farmer to “one of his own kind to take care of him.” Imagine what would happen next.

We all know exactly what would happen. The New York Times, NAACP, establishment media, civil rights lawyers and community organizers would unleash a coordinated hurricane at the Alabama official. They would wreck his reputation and leave him lucky to retire in peace, unharmed. As for the Tea Party, it would endure weeks of scorn and racial accusations.

But what if the official included a story of redemption in his Tea Party speech? What if he said he came to understand race shouldn’t matter, but instead poverty should be the focus, not race? Would that redemptive statement provide the Alabama official any sanctuary from the hurricane?

Do I need to even ask?

But when the speaker is former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod, and her audience is the NAACP, reporting on events similar to these might get you sued for defamation. Just ask Andrew Breitbart. Sadly, you’ll have to ask his widow Suzy because Shirley Sherrod is now suing her.  (See, “Vampires: Shirley Sherrod’s Lawyers Seek to Sue Widow of Andrew Breitbart.”)

sherrodNot content to enjoy any portion of a $13,000,000 settlement Sherrod’s husband Charles’ group earned in a lawsuit against the Agriculture Department for government racial discrimination against black farmers (including a $150,000 award for “pain and suffering”), Sherrod is still entangled in years-long defamation litigation with Andrew Breitbart’s widow and Larry O’Connor.

Now, Shirley Sherrod has served a subpoena on me, your author, to testify in a deposition in the litigation and turn over documents and emails between Andrew Brietbart and me. We’ll return to my subpoena in a moment.

In the meantime, savor Sherrod’s shameless irony: Plaintiff’s family receives money from a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture; plaintiff later admits on video being motivated by racially discriminatory intent while employed by very same Department of Agriculture and sues journalist who publishes the video.

Do the lawyers who took Sherrod’s case not recognize a laugh line when they see it?

Here are some other facts from the full Sherrod video. Sherrod’s tale is certainly one of redemption. But every redemption requires prior misbehavior or dark motives, and Sherrod says she once had, even but for a moment, a racialist approach to her life.

In a lesser reported portion of the famous video, Sherrod speaks of prayerfully seeking discernment about her future, ultimately deciding to commit to helping people. But it was a commitment with a twist. “When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only.”

Those who knew Andrew Breitbart knew how repugnant he considered such racial exclusivity.

Let’s hope that the federal government isn’t filled with many other employees who share Sherrod’s old (and unconstitutional) attitude about helping Americans based on skin color. Let’s hope they hold the views of the redeemed Sherrod, not the racialist Sherrod.

Back to my subpoena.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
She should be in jail after admitting what she did. That's a fraud on her employer and on white people. Oh that's right, white privilege doesn't extend quite that far does it?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
pro malo masquerading as pro bono.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why on Gaia would a law firm take a case pro bono for a client with assets apparently in the low eight figures at minimum? Could it be that the law firm is part of the lawfare that the left has been waging against the right for decades, a way to contribute to the cause of despotism without having to worry about declaring it as a political donation?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (34)
All Comments   (34)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Let me see if I get this straight: Shirley wants millions from Breitbart and PJmedia for pointing out what she has done is illegal. Why it MUST be RACISM. After all, both Jesse and Al have profited greatly by doing the same, why shouldn't she? It beats the Hell out of working.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Isn't Sherrod's case a lot like George Zimmerman's suit against NBC, which was thrown out. Public figure; selective editing, etc.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
No. Breitbart committed no selective editing, and Zimmerman was no public figure in any sense before the MSM began to spread deliberate lies about him.
22 weeks ago
22 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let’s hope that the federal government isn’t filled with many other employees who share Sherrod’s old (and unconstitutional) attitude about helping Americans based on skin color. Let’s hope they hold the views of the redeemed Sherrod, not the racialist Sherrod.

A forlorn hope at best. And I'm not at all convinced that Sherrod has changed her stripes.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Sherrod’s law firm once represented a Nazi slave labor camp guard from Treblinka." -Well there's plenty of evidence the guy was innocent. http://youtu.be/4OhMxPFaZVM
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
And plenty of evidence he was not, including the findings of a court of law:

Despite Kairys' protests, the record supports the district court's findings.10 There is sufficient testimony and other evidence for the trial court to have found that the Personalbogen correctly identified the defendant as a Nazi labor camp guard at Treblinka. The district court relied primarily on the fact that defendant's thumbprint appears on the identity card, supported by expert testimony that the signature on the card was the defendant's. 600 F.Supp. at 1262. In addition, other camp guards placed a Kairys at Treblinka, some of whom identified the defendant's picture. A witness testified that he observed Kairys in a German SS uniform in late 1943 or early 1944. Promotion and other personnel records indicate that a Kairys trained at Trawniki, was transferred to Treblinka, and was promoted to Oberwachmann. Finally, personal records, such as a baptismal certificate and a newspaper citizenship notice, fix the defendant's birth date as December 24, 1920, and birthplace as Svilionys (then under Polish sovereignty), rather than December 20, 1924, in Kuanas, Lithuania. These were all credibility determinations for the trier of fact to make. We cannot say that the district court was clearly erroneous in deciding the facts as it did.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I highly recommend reading the entire response letter at the link Mr Adams provided. Truly, it is a gem.

I had to deal with some response to Discovery several times over the years due to the obsession that my wife’s ex-husband has for her, and his seven year running use of lawfare to harass her. We won some and lost some, and once after we lost big we figured we could lose big for free, and started handling lesser complexity motions In Pro Per. I believe that is an abbreviation for the Latin In propria persona,, which when translated means “we don’t have no lawyer.”

I would have loved to have written a response to Discovery letter such as the one Mr Driscoll wrote, such as when they demanded 20 years of all bank statements, etc... The best I got to do was to respond, line by line, “Unable to comply because the request is ambiguous, incomprehensible and/or unintelligible.” The knuckleheads had copied and pasted their verbiage from the dissolution proceedings and had not bothered to update the language. We didn’t get any further Discovery after that.

Back to the issue at hand, I believe Mr Adams has it right, to publicize and personalize the thuggish actions of the leftist tyrants. We may not win every battle, but like the old fighter pilot mantra we can make sure they work damn hard for it. And if we fight back, rather than complaining about their bullying tactics, we will start winning.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
We've missed your posts. Are there any updates on the situation in Mississippi?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Now, Shirley Sherrod has served a subpoena on me, your author, to testify in a deposition in the litigation and turn over documents and emails between Andrew Brietbart and me. We’ll return to my subpoena in a moment."

Wasn't your computer manufactured by the same company as Lois Lerner's computer? Problem solved.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Poster child for gaming the system, hypocrisy, and accepted forms of racism.

And a parasitical ingrate of the highest order.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
she will serve as a "model" to blacks everywhere...
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's very nice to see you joining Mark Steyn in active resistance to this disgusting type of lawfare.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Tell them your hard drive crashed and all the emails they want have been lost.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All