He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN â€˜hookerâ€™ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obamaâ€™s most powerful political support groups. But Breitbartâ€™s handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod â€˜white farmerâ€™ scandal.
It all began last Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his â€œBig Governmentâ€ site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how sheâ€™d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed. As she smirked to the room, sheâ€™d sent him instead to a white lawyer â€“ â€˜one of his own kindâ€™ â€“ for help. The black woman was Shirley Sherrod â€“ 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 â€“ and received â€“ Sherrodâ€™s resignation. Breitbart had won.
But then seemingly Breitbartâ€™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 heâ€™d endangered their reputations by releasing a â€˜doctoredâ€™ 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 in â€˜doctoringâ€™ 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 Breitbartâ€™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 â€“ a little known legal case called â€œPigford v. Glickmanâ€.
â€œIn 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.â€ The case was entitled â€œPigford v. Glickmanâ€ 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 â€œPigfordâ€. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs â€“ 400 black farmers â€“ 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 doesnâ€™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 â€“ how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, youâ€™ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the â€œRural Development Leadership Networkâ€ but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action â€“ 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 â€“ 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 â€œPigford v. Glickmanâ€ 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 â€“ and Obama â€“ stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment.
Yes, folks â€“ Breitbart is a genius.
As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, sheâ€™s discovered too late that her cry of â€˜racismâ€™ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself â€“ and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her â€˜pigsâ€™, it seems, have come home to roost. Oink!
But the perpetrator of that law passed in dead silence leading to unlawful claims & corruption….. is still trying to fool all of US.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
Apr 23, 2010 10:31 AM, By David Bennett, Farm Press Editorial Staff
Pigford v Glickman â€” more commonly known as â€œthe black farmersâ€™ lawsuitâ€ â€” was brought up during Wednesdayâ€™s House Agriculture Committee hearing. Despite a $1.25 billion settlement between the USDA (which was accused of entrenched racism in the case) and claimants being announced in February, those eligible for payment have yet to see a penny.
â€œWhatâ€™s the status on the Pigford case?â€ asked Georgia Rep. David Scott of USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.
â€œMy understanding is that Congress, under the settlement, is required to appropriate the money to satisfy the agreed upon amount,â€ replied Vilsack. â€œUnder the system youâ€™ve engaged under pay-go, thereâ€™s a responsibility to identify offsets or designate that settlement as an emergency, which would supersede pay-go responsibilities.
â€œThe challenge is that when Pigford was reopened by activity in the 2008 farm bill, you made the determination not to make the judgment fund available for payment. If you were trying to reverse that â€” say, â€˜now that we think about it, weâ€™d like to use the judgment fundâ€™ â€” our understanding of your rules is that legislative action triggers pay-go.
â€œSo, weâ€™re working â€¦ to identify precisely the course of action that will allow Congress to move forward and appropriate the money.â€