Tom Usher wrote or added | I would not endorse this article though without someone actually putting it to Shirley Sherrod as to whether or not she did the things stated but more importantly that if she did, did she, and does she still, repent of them – makes all the difference.
The idea that she necessarily had to rehash a full confessional immediately upon recent events, which confessional the mainstream media would likely have omitted or severely truncated, is another question. I wouldn't come to the same conclusions as the author simply because Shirley didn't address any former sins towards Blacks as well as Whites. She was barely able to get a word in edgewise to begin with over alleged reverse discrimination.
I would reserve judgment until after Shirley had an opportunity to respond.
The article would have carried more weight if the author, Ron Wilkins, had contacted (or attempted) Sherrod and she had refused to comment.
Excellent point Tom - there has already been a rush to judgment against her.
If you're interested some more,has plenty of action on this. I echoed my comment over there.
She has nearly 10 times the number of FB friends I do and a real group of constant commentators, as you're probably no doubt aware.
In response to other commentary, I left the following comments on Terri Lee's post:
I don't say that he should not have written anything. My point is that he's suggesting that she has likely not repented (if his version is correct) and that she should have mentioned her repentance about mistreating Blacks while she was defending herself about being wrongly accused regarding Whites. That's a bit much to expect of her while you're not expecting much of him. He could have contacted her or tried. It seems he didn't. Is it a grudge? She may be very sorry about everything: Whites and Blacks. I hope so.
I'm not blaming you for being cynical about things associated with the Obama administration. You have ample cause.
A great deal of the problem lies with the extremely short news cycle and dead air while people are looking into things and not responding to on-going hyped-up criticism.
Of course the Obama administration should have checked first with Shirley about the full context of her speech. Of course her background should have been checked to see if she had any skeletons in the closet in need of cleaning out before she was given a position. What we don't know is whether or not she came clean on whatever she did wrong vis-a-vis the Black workers before she was given the job. Yes, Ron Wilkins is a primary source and his version is probably a reasonable representation of what went on. Even still, Sherrod should be given an opportunity to address it and offer whatever mitigating circumstances there may have been.
Most importantly is though is that Barack Obama was the wrong choice and John McCain wasn't the right choice.
The youth were duped. So who's up? I don't see a soul.
"It's sad to see Democrats now embracing such tactics...." When didn't they? Not in your lifetime.
True, Tom, but it is especially hypocritical coming on the heels of their intense criticism (rightly so) of the Republicans for having just done it under Bush. And for that reason who will (or should) take them seriously when they again criticize Republicans with a president in the White House the next time around for again going along with everything he/she says or does? Such hypocrisy is indefensible.
I for one would like to see something of good come from the deaths of those innocent Americans on 9/11. How about a renewed commitment to holding our leaders accountable no matter their party affiliation or ours? What better tribute is there than laying the foundation for real hope and change?
How is Wilkens not giving Sherrod and opportunity to respond? The media would jump at any chance to have her say almost anything on the air.
He seems to have "been there"...I dont think he has to ask her to respond in the same article. I agree that the most important point is the way Obama's appointees (in this case Vilsak) respond to any neo-con criticism....another problem is , IMHO, the appointees themselves!~ Who supported Obama that thouight he would make the appointments that he has? Vilsak is useless, but many of the Cabinet are even worse.
Well, of course she has an opportunity to respond if she even comes to know that the article is out there. However, not having asked her for the article makes the article weaker than it would have otherwise been. Had she answered or refused, we wouldn't be left to speculate, at least so much. Furthermore, if she answers somewhere else, who's to say that you'll see it?
My issue here is with people having a lynch-mob mentality. The Shirley Sherrod Black-on-Black discrimination story sounded familiar to me right away. In fact, when I saw her name, I knew I had seen it years and years before and that there was darkness surrounding it. This is not uncommon. The Obama administration is loaded with people with dark clouds hovering over them. Hardly a one has repented much at all. Most try to avoid such things with a passion. "Never admit you're wrong, and never apologize" has been a mantra. It stems from others never letting others live things down. It stems from and inability to get a full hearing and understanding. It stems from the holdover attitude that anyone who falls has to remain there. I could go on, but either one readily grasps this or wants to stay in a zone where tough questions aren't asked or answered, where higher standards aren't expected.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)