#Obamiac smoking gun alert: Shirley Sherrod vs. Just.Another.Politician.™

Dear Obamiacs —

Don't mean to further dampen already dampened spirts, what with Howard Dean saying this weekend that Dear Leader has taken Hispanic votes for granted, but ..

A "smoking gun" in the case of summarily fired U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod indicates that Just.Another.Politician.™ also apparently was taking African American votes for granted in 2010.

To refresh your memory, Sherrod had, earlier in 2010, made a speech at an NAACP event in which she condemned past racial bias in USDA lending practices and other things. After Andrew Breitbart posted a selectively edited version of the video to try to make her look like a racist, the NAACP headquarters "bit" on the Breitbart theme. That led to Team Obama pressure, and her eventual resignation, as described on Wikipedia.

The first three grafs from that smoking gun are worth quoting in full:

A 2010 email from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says his department was "waiting for the go-ahead" from the White House before accepting the resignation of employee Shirley Sherrod, according to newly released documents, despite Obama administration assertions that her ouster was Vilsack's decision alone. 

The email, which was made public Friday in an ongoing federal court case over the matter, shed more light on the evening of July 19, 2010, when the USDA hastily asked Sherrod to resign after a video showing her making supposed racist remarks surfaced on a conservative website. Her dismissal turned into a racial firestorm after it became clear that the video had been edited and her remarks were meant to tell a story of reconciliation. 

Both the White House and Vilsack have repeatedly said the agriculture secretary made the decision to ask for Sherrod's resignation without White House input. The emails, along with earlier emails obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010 and 2012, make it apparent that Vilsack wanted Sherrod to leave the department and ordered her resignation. But a newly-released email sent by Vilsack himself suggests he was awaiting a decision from White House officials on how to proceed.

In short, Tom Vilsack lied on behalf of top minions of Barack Obama, who were almost certainly directly doing his bidding.

We also have further proof that Obama meets Teddy Roosevelt's description of William McKinley and has the backbone of a chocolate eclair. We also see that the NAACP is little different than most liberal interest groups.

Unfortunately, though, the tawdry sewage of Breitbart is behind this latest story, too.

Sherrod filed a defamation suit against Breitbart, with his wife named as defendant in his place after his death. The emails are being touted by her legal team as proof against defamation.

Let's hope this doesn't hold up in court. Obama's a coward and Vilsack's a toady par excellence, but they both acted that way because Andrew Breitbart, already then having a known reputation for slime, deliberately edited a video in a way so as to defame Shirley Sherrod.

Shirley Sherrod is suiing Breitbart

It's more than about damn time for this to have happened. Lauwsuits (assuming they're won) is the only way to put a dent in the Breitbarts of the world.

Of course, he's already blathering about his free speech being infringed, and apparently Sherrod's middle name is "institutional left." What a loon.

ACORN punker O'Keefe goes after CNN

With an even more disgusting scheme; fortunately, the CNN reporter sniffed something out in advance. Some of my con friends probably will still defend Breitbart as a "newsman."

Brietbart's nuttery detailed

The New Yorker has a long profile on Brietbart. Here's some of his choicer nuttery.

He seems a familiar bicoastal type until he starts explaining his conviction that President Barack Obama’s election was the culmination of a plot, set in place in the nineteen-thirties by émigré members of the Frankfurt School, to take over Hollywood, the media, the academy, and the government, with the aim of imposing socialism.

Yep, this is a 70-year-old plot!

Breitbart also described the congressmen’s walk through the crowd, “in and of itself,” as an “act of racism meant to create a contrast between the Tea Party crowd and themselves.”

That's right, nobody using racial epithets (which B. still denies) is a racist. Black Congressmen are racist.

As for B's actual claim?

Two days later, an A.P. story revealed that the much viewed video of the congressmen passing through the crowd had, in fact, been shot at least an hour after the slurs were allegedly uttered.

Is Breitbart a criminal?

Conservative agent provacateur Andrew Breitbart still refuses to release full, unedited tapes of his staffers various "punkings" of ACORN offices, despite yet another prosecutor's office finding yet another ACORN office innocent of all criminal allegations.

The prosecutors found, in part, the tapes presented as "evidence" were heavily edited.

A law enforcement source ... : "(James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles) edited the tape to meet their agenda."

Does such editing approach the level of giving a false statement to police, which is itself a criminal offense in every state in the nation?

Perhaps that's why Breitbart, at the same link, refuses to say why he won't release unedited tapes, and stumbles over the entire question.

Or, a lawsuit worry might be on Breitbart's mind. I can see an action against him, for authorizing O'Keefe/Giles, and the two of them, of course, for defamation.