USDA Official Featured In Previous Post Fired and Ignored by Media

On Monday, Andrew Breitbart, on his blog Big Government, revealed video of a Department of Agriculture official making racially charged comments at an NAACP meeting in March. While the media were quick to jump on the civil rights organization accusing the tea party of racism last week, they have failed to provide any coverage of this controversy.

The comments were made by the USDA's Georgia Director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod at a NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia on March 27 (see post below). As the video clearly shows, Sherrod's description of discriminating against white farmers was well received by the audience. The comments, which were reported throughout the day Monday on Fox News, stirred so much controversy that Sherrod resigned Monday night and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was forced to issue a statement on the matter: "“There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person.”

As NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard earlier reported, none of the network evening news broadcasts touched the story on Monday . On Tuesday, the CBS Early Show, NBC's Today, and ABC's Good Morning America were all silent on the controversy and resignation. However, all three morning shows did manage to focus on a recent verbal gaffe made by Sarah Palin.

— Courtesy of Kyle Drennen, Media Research Center

NAACP Bigotry In Their Ranks

While the "civil rights" leadership and Mainstream Media continue to denounce Tea Partiers as racists and bigots, no evidence is ever produced to prove their point.  This was most noticable when the Left tried going after those who publicly opposed the passage of ObamaCare earlier this year.  Member after member reported that they were spit upon and cursed enroute to the final vote, yet no one as ever produced one trace of evidence in audio or video form.  Every major television network was there plus everyone with their cell phones, BlackBerries, and iPhones, which could have captured all the hatred spewed toward African American members of the House and Senate. 

Take a look at the video below of obvious racism and see how much television coverage this incident will receive -- hypocracy at the highest level!  Someday all Americans, regardless of race, are going to say, "enough is enough!" and stop supporting and giving in to advocacy groups like the NAACP, which spends more time, money, and energy supressing the black community and inciting racial tensions than doing good.

Washington Post Finally Admits to Ignoring Black Panther Story

Thumbs up to the gutsy Ombudsman of the Washington Post, Andrew Alexander, for owning up to the obvious -- the Post did not give proper attention to shanagans going on at the Justice Department regarding the lawsuit related to the New Black Panther Party 2008 election day incidents in Philadelphia.  Here is Mr. Alexander's piece from yesterday's Post:

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?

By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010

Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent.

The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.

Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn't contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.

Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama's pick to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department's career lawyers. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post's circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has "aggressively" sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.

The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors' decision to reduce its scope was "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." Some in the department believe "the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation," he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.

The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.

That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, "Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months."

To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because "her revelations leave Left steaming."

The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.

But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore.

Walker Continues to Lead Barrett In Wisconsin Polling for Governor

Here's the latest from Real Clear Politics in terms of this year's governor race in Wisconsin.  RC Blog's favorite Scott Walker continues to lead in all the recent polls by an average of nearly nine points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/wi/wisconsin_governor_walker_vs_barrett-1184.html

Finance Reform Bill Does Everything but Reform Finance

Patrice Hill of the Washington Times wrote an excellent article on the recently passed financial reform bill (soon to be signed by the President) and all the non-financial elements it contains. It is truly remarkable that very few members of the media are reporting on this issue.

Here is a sample of what America has to look forward to:

Proxy Access Provision -- The bill includes a measure to make it easier for unions, environmental groups and other activist organizations that hold shares to put their representatives on the boards of directors of every corporation in the United States. Activist groups say they will use to try to improve oversight of corporate financial practices, has provoked a backlash from the Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other major non-Wall Street business groups.

New Federal Offices – The bill creates more than 20 "offices of minority and women inclusion" at the Treasury, Federal Reserve and other government agencies, to ensure they employ more women and minorities and grant more federal contracts to more women- and minority-owned businesses. The agencies also would apply "fair employment tests" to the banks and other financial institutions they regulate, though their hiring and contracting practices had little or nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis.

New Consumer Protection Agency – This is the centerpiece of the reform bill and would provide substantial employment opportunities and funding for Democratic and social-activist groups.