Racism is an ugly thing. Sadly, it's also a fairly common human trait, as anyone who has ever spent time on earth can tell you. But one of the great things about human beings is our ability to overcome our instincts and to act rationally. And in that regard, white America has made tremendous strides in eliminating racism within its ranks. Black America has not, as evidenced (again) by the recent flap surrounding Shirley Sherrod.
Shirley Sherrod resigned from the Department of Agriculture the other day after comments she made surfaced because of the work of Andrew Breitbart. Sherrod was caught on video explaining how she chose not to really help a white farmer because of his race when she worked for the Georgia field office of the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund. Said Sherrod:
Note the “get even” attitude, in which she justifies her misconduct to the white farmer on the basis that black farmers were suffering. There is no more pure expression of racism than to harm an innocent person because of their race. And it gets worse. When the problem moved beyond her ability to handle, she decided to send him to a “white lawyer” for help. Here’s what she said about that:“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough.”
Note the assumptions here. First, the white lawyer is not a person, he’s a “them,” a thing. Secondly, she clearly sees herself apart from “them,” as noted both in her description of the white lawyer as a “them” and as “his own kind.” In other words, in her world, we aren’t all human, we are divided by race and this lawyer isn’t one of her kind. Finally, note the assumption that somehow a white lawyer would take care of a white farmer, because of his race.“So I took him to a white lawyer. . . So I figured if I would take him to one of them, his own kind would take care of him.”
NAACP president and CEO Benjamin Todd was “quick” to condemn her:
Which is nice of him to say, but this is not enough. Indeed, Sherrod’s comments took place at the NAACP’s 20th Annual Freedom Fund Banquet. So why didn’t anyone from the NAACP call her on this before Brietbart made a big deal of it? And she claims to have said this to dozens of other groups, why did none of them ever speak up?"Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race. We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.
Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.”
At least Todd acknowledged that the audience’s reaction was disturbing: “the reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.” We'll see if that means anything, probably not.
Sherrod is now trying to defend herself, and her justifications only show how deeply her racism really goes. Here are her defenses:
This is what the NAACP should have condemned: that she mistreated a person because of his race, that she did so in retaliation for blacks, and that she viewed and continues to view race as the driving factor that motivates people to help each other. They also should have apologized for not uncovering this themselves, and they should have condemned (and hopefully still will) all the people who sat through that banquet and many others without ever realizing that they were listening to the rantings of a black racist.1. “This was 24 years ago, and I'm telling a story to try to unite people with that now.” This is an excuse that is not accepted when it is made by whites, particularly white conservatives. Moreover, she’s given no indication of repentance.
2. “I did say that, but they, for some reason, the stuff that Fox and the Tea Party does is scaring the administration.” In other words, yeah I did it, but it wouldn’t be a big deal if the evil right wingers weren’t making a big deal of it or if Obama covered for me. This defense more than anything puts the lie to the idea that she is repentant: repentant people don't blame those who uncovered their sins.
3. “I went on to work with many more white farmers.” This is the “I have white friends” defense that the race industry won’t accept.
4. “I wasn’t working for USDA at the time.” Funny how this distinction doesn’t seem to matter to the race industry who always demand that current employers fire alleged racists, no matter when the alleged racism happened. Also, this was still a federal grant she was administering and that makes her actions a crime.
5. About the lawyer: “What I meant was, I didn’t know anyone else, but it thought taking — I didn’t know another lawyer at that time who was local, who knew something about chapter 12. But I thought if I took him to a white lawyer, he would definitely do all that he could to help save his farm.” Thus, in trying to defend her actions by asserting how she really did think she was helping him (directly contradicting her incriminating statement), she again repeats the racist idea that she believes that each race looks after their own.
6. The family of the farmer to whom she was racist likes her and doesn't think she should have lost her job. This one never works either. In fact, we're told that it's irrelevant how the "victim of the racism" feels because racism is a bigger crime against us all. Not to mention that this is the only incidence she's admitted to, who knows how many other white farmers she discriminated against? But this claim is apparently enough to get the White House to reconsider her employment today. Pathetic.
It sounds like they need a refresher on what actually constitutes racism.
If we are ever to move beyond race as a people, then it’s time for groups like the NAACP to stop looking for racism under every rock they don’t like but turning a blind eye to the racism in the black community.
*** Addendum: As an interesting aside, the day before Shirley Sherrod was appointed to her position by Tom Vilsack, who heads the Department of Agriculture, she was awarded $13 million in her lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture for racial discrimination. Interestingly, her award includes $300,000 in “pain and suffering.” By comparison, the average result of all other plaintiffs was only $72,000 (“Track A” plaintiffs are receiving $50,000 each plus debt forgiveness). The cost to the taxpayer from this class action suit has been over $1.15 billion. I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but at the very least is makes her own racism all the more hypocritical.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Racist Resigns At USDA (Maybe)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Update: The White House is now apologizing for the firing and the NAACP claims they've been "snookered." Thus, as usual, the race industry has chosen to protect black racism.
I'm with you 100%. This bothers me to no end. Every time a black person gets caught saying or doing something racist, groups like the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus always try to turn it around and argue that someone we're the bad guys. That's bull.
Do you accept her explanation that this was just part of a story she was using to make the opposite point?
Mega, No I don't accept that. First, she's not disavowing her racism, she's only saying that her anger is now bigger than just race, i.e. it's not all about race. That's not an "I've learned that seeing people according to race is wrong." That's I've added people to my hate list.
Secondly, she continues to make racists assumptions in her defense.
Third, her strategy of attacking Fox and the Tea Party people is not something a repentant person does, it's something that someone who sees the world as "us v. them" does. She is playing politics.
Fourth, the race industry has never accepted her excuse from others before. Let me give you an example. We had a law professor (Jewish guy whose parents died in a concentration camp. Very nice, but also very liberal.) In trying to discuss what kind of speech could constitute a tort, he used the example: "what if the KKK was marching through a neighborhood yelling 'death to all n....'" Only he didn't blank out the word.
Two days later, a black student who wasn't even in the class complained to the Washington Post that he was a racist for using that word. The Post, the NAACP, the black students association, none of them cared about the context -- they wanted him fired. And it's been the same in every other instance I've seen. Only this time are they trying to find "a context" -- and not even a real one at that.
I see no change in her behavior, I see no reason to accept her version that this was meant to bring people together, and I see no reason to think that the NAACP doesn't ignore black racism for political reasons.
because i have a feeling racism is rampant in the NAACP (just look at the footage and the folks response to sending that white farmer to "one of his own kind" ie, another saltine, and you'll see why i think that), this is just more of biznez as usual. it's just they got caught ON FILM bathing in their racism.
pathetic.
YOU RACIST!
Patti, I agree entirely. Those people weren't shocked or booing when she was telling that part of the story, they were quite pleased.
The NAACP and the other groups just like them, need to start disavowing black racism if they ever want credibility in my book. Here is an instance of a woman who should be condemned and sent through the same process they send whites through. They also need to start calling out and condemning groups like the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.
Until they do that, I will never see them as more than a lobby for racial preferences which uses selective claims of racism as a weapon.
I have been fighting this fight all week on HuffPo in regards to the Tea Party. Breitbart didn't do any favors by editing the video, but then the NAACP and WH just stepped right in it by condemning her and firing her without even getting the whole story which, as you point out, isn't any better when you hear the whole story.
It just the hypocrisy of it all.
Andrew: What do you make of the more recent twists and turns in this case? It appears that Breitbart may have shown an edited video that left her later story out. The White House and Vilsack are doing the twist faster than Chubby Checker. She has apparently been offered her job back, and "maybe even a better one." She says she is "considering what I'll do next." Another lawsuit, maybe? I'm really having trouble making head or tail out of this, other than to be sure that with or without the full story, the liberals and race-baiters were willing to throw one of their own under the bus to avoid bad publicity.
Bev, In all truth, I am so used to the hypocrisy that it would only surprise me if they didn't act hypocritically. In fact, a lot of people are saying, "how can an historic organization like the NAACP...." Well, I haven't seen them that way in so long that this is no different to me than hearing "Democratic Party excuses misbehavior by Democrat." Yeah, what's new?
That said, I think it is valuable to point out to people the hypocrisy and the continuing existence of black racism, because that is the one thing that is stoking the race problems in this country.
I agree that Breitbart didn't do anyone any favors by editing the video. They should have released the whole thing -- nothing this woman says can be justified. But in truth, it didn't really matter what she said or what he produced, it was only a matter of time before the race industry circled the wagons. In fact, Jesse Jackson said it perfectly today when he said (paraphrase) that they can't let something like this divide them and let us evil conservatives accuse a black person of racism. This is all about public relations, not right and wrong.
Bev, P.S. Thanks for fighting the good fight at Huffpo. . . even though I don't think you can get through to those mouth-breathing commies no matter what you say. Still, I'm glad you're over there trying! :-)
Lawhawk, I mention that above (in the article and the comments -- particularly in response to Mega). My take is that her story doesn't hold water, and isn't relevant -- there is no repentance in her story. Also, her defense has shown a nasty, racist streak that itself is troubling. Moreover, since when has the race industry ever let someone off for this kind of excuse? In other words, it makes no difference to me. . . I'm not buying it.
As for Breitbart editing the video, that was probably a mistake, but I don't think it ultimately matters (in fact, all of these tapes are always edited). The race industry groups were going to find a way to excuse Sherrod to protect their industry no matter what they had to "discover" to do it. Jesse Jackson basically said that this morning when he said it would be disasterous if they admitted that a black person could be racist. Their whole industry depends people believing that blacks are victims of whites and the reverse never happens.
As for Obama, I was surprised they "fired" her initially. So I wasn't too surprised when they backtracked. Nor am I surprised that they have tried to turn this into an attack on Fox, the Tea Party and Breitbart -- they're just going down their enemies list and trying to turn this political disaster into a positive.
Andrew: That makes a lot of sense. They're trying to turn a racist who had one small moment of clarity into a saint. The administration is in such disarray that they just strike out without any thinking, analysis or human decency. In less than 24 hours Sherrod went from Satan to the Virgin Mary in the administration's mind without any change in the facts.
Now we have to wonder whether this not very bright functionary will get a $300,000 (my guess) a year federal job, or simply live off the proceeds of her next lawsuit. What is wrong with these people? (rhetorical question)
Lawhawk, Rhetorical though it may be, it is a great question. I'm thinking she'll do both. I'm thinking they'll "offer her a settlement" that include some chunk of change and a new job with a big pay check. And you and I will pay for it in our taxes.
And you're description is absolutely right -- one minute she was Satan. Then the race lobby started howling that Obama was giving ammo to their enemies at Fox News. Suddenly she's the Virgin Mary without a single new fact.
It's despicable. And it's par for the course.
Lawhawk, Speaking of the race lobby, here is the first story questioning whether there even is such a thing as black racism or whether it's being manufactured by white conservatives who are trying to stoke racial fears. Note the quote from Sherrod who accuses Breitbart of trying to "unite racists" using her.
article
Andrew,
From what I know, Breitbart had only part of the video and not the part that "exculpates" Sherrod. It doesn't matter anyway because the full video is almost as bad.
The real problem is that this is endemic in a majority of blacks. The attitude that whites always talk down to blacks. That we take care of our "own kind", that all things can be related to race.
been out all day so I'm late to the party. I am with you, Andrew. I am so sick to death of current reliance on race baiting by the left, I am no longer willing to respond with civility. My general thought process (although usually not voiced quite this harshly) is to reply (f/u AND the horse you rode in on.)
I laughed out loud at Mara Liason on Brett Baier tonight. She tried to make it "both sides race bait" by claiming the right is constantly bringing up every possible case of reverse discrimination. I say "well yeah . . . the difference being generalizations without concrete examples and down right lies,the kind of tactics favored on journo-list are used by the left while we on the right just feed back the unending examples of hypocrisy.
Andrew: She didn't waste any time, did she?
Lawhawk, No she didn't. And that makes this all the more suspicious. If she was truly repentant, she wouldn't be out there trying to blast the people she can't stand.
Joel, You're right. There is nothing that exculpates her in the longer video. All it does is show that she is comfortable talking about how racist she was in the past, but now she's expanded the people she can't stand from whites to anyone who isn't poor.
As for the black racism angle, having spent a lot of time in places like Washington DC, Baltimore and various jails (to see clients), I can tell you that black racism is rampant in the black community. Whites are constantly blamed for everything that goes wrong and it is not at all uncommon to hear rants like the guy from the Black Panthers video where he is yelling about killing whites, or the Nation of Islam guys ranting about getting rid of Jews.
And it's not just whites who are the target of this. Asians are hated just as much (if not more), and Hispanics are also tossed in for good measure.
When I was in DC, they were openly debating whether the guy running for mayor was "black enough" for them to support him. Could you imagine us arguing about whether a candidate is "white enough"?
Until that element is purged, so that the black community starts looking at themselves instead of blaming whites and others for their problems, nothing is ever going to change for blacks. And groups like the NAACP have become part of the problem, not the solution.
Andrew: BTW, I really loved the closing remarks by the Princeton professor. She suggests the concept that white racism is on the fringes, while black racism continues apace. But then, she manages to make a statement, seemingly unrelated to the rest of it, that justified black racism without having the courage to say so:
"Perry, the Princeton professor, pointed out that blacks have 10 cents of wealth for every dollar possessed by whites.
"We can hardly say whites as a group are suffering under the weight of racial discrimination. That said, we do have to find ways of talking about race with more openness but also with greater sensitivity," she said.
So rich white people have nothing to complain about, while it's understandable that poor, oppressed, starving blacks do. Get it, you racist?
Jed, I agree. They've abused and exploited racism for so long that "racist" now means little more than "someone the left doesn't like." And I don't accept it anymore, nor do I respond kindly to people making the allegation.
Regarding Liason, isn't it funny how she's found a way to blame the right for her own obsession? If the left screams racism, then the right are racists, no further proof needed. If the right tries to defend itself and proves that there was no racism, then the right is still wrong for denying the existence of racism. If the right points out that the left are a bunch of racists, then the right is racist for trying to exploit racism. And thus, the reason she and other leftists need to constantly obsess and write about race is because the right is either racist or exploiting racism.
Indeed, no matter what, the right always seems to be to blame in her world.
Lawhawk, I saw that, and let me say that this is not the first time I've heard that. In fact, I heard that for the first time in law school -- (actual quote): "Blacks can't be racist because they are a powerless minority." Huh?
So a black manager who doesn't hire whites is not racist because his race is not as rich or powerful as the race of the whites he doesn't hire? And black teens who target whites for violence aren't racists because blacks are a minority?
Gee, that's not racist to see the world in terms of racial rights rather than individual rights.
Andrew: That's a prime example of how things have gone horribly wrong. I had to fight the civil rights battles because of white racism. By the time I got to law school, our instructors were rabidly equality-oriented (they were highly critical of the then-new Bakke decision, using the expression "reverse racism" for the earliest time I had heard it). The angriest critic of Bakke and reverse discrimination/affirmative action was my constitutional law instructor. His name was Oliver Wendell Holmes (no cracks, please), and he was black.
By the time you got to law school, the tide had already turned the other way, obviously. It's going to take more years than I have left to reverse that trend and get back to the original thoughts of Martin Luther King, Jr.
NOTE TO ERIC HOLDER: We discuss racism and race all the time on this site. So we are not the cowards you claim we are, but then we're not the liars, race-baiters and cowards that you hire either.
Lawhawk, LOL! I like your statement to Holder, though I suspect he would conclude that we aren't really "discussing" race because we're saying the wrong things.
Yeah, by the time I got to law school, the whole victim industry was already there. They were determined to see EVERYTHING as a result of sexism or racism or whateverism and they were SURE that nothing could ever be done about it except "affirmative action," "reparations" and basically everyone else keeping their hands off their cult-members, i.e. it was racist/sexist/whateverist to try to convince people that they weren't victims.
Heck, there was even a woman making the rounds at the time who had written a book claiming that "all sex is rape." Maybe at her house....
Andrew: I'm guessing that the author you're referring to was Andrea Dworkin. She was nuttier than a fruitcake, uglier than a warthog, and fatter than an overfed cow. I always wondered how she would know that "all sex is rape," since there was no question in my mind that she never experienced sex, at least with a human being.
Have you guys ever wondered why a good portion of the companies give to DNC and the liberal causes? To be sure, yes for self-protection, but it doesn't explain all of it.
You would think that a corporation would give more to a party which is on their side, less regulation, less taxes, less government intrusion?
For that matter, did it ever occur to you that some companies are so drenched with liberals from liberal colleges that they make bad decisions because of it?
I wonder if anyone has really thought things out. Take the news organizations. Almost everyone is a liberal, from the accountants to the CEO. Almost never are the conservatives promoted, except when there is no other choice. Or more like the token conservative or the "so-called" conservative?
This idea of your "kind" got me to thinking about who is in these companies. Mostly people with a degree. This is a form of discrimination that is hidden. Far more endemic and pervasive than racism. Harder to detect too.
Here is a thought, could it be when a company starts to lose money is when it has more liberals than conservatives on it's payroll?
For the record, I don't think this is a conspiracy. I just think that most jobs don't need a pedigree degree from LIBERAL COLLEGES. They have just been given the jobs because of the diploma and not thought out about the ability for each to earn nor understand how to earn money nor make money.
Lawhawk, She was the one who came up with the theory all right, but a good many campus feminists were believing it at that point. And that was the kind of garbage that passed for enlightened thought at the time.
Joel, I don't agree with your statement of facts. Most of the business people I've met are conservatives. Also, pretty much every job in management or any sort of support position -- legal, accounting, etc., does require a degree because you need the technical training to understand the concepts. Similarly, engineers and scientists need degrees. The people who don't need degrees are the workers, most of whom don't have degrees. In fact, the vast majority of people working for corporations today do not have degrees.
Also it's not discrimination in any meaningful sense because it is simply looking for people who can do the job. In fact, that's like saying basketball discriminates because it doesn't hire short people.
Also, despite what you hear in the press, colleges are not uniformly liberal. What tends to be liberal (and not always) are the liberal arts departments and the administrations. That's where the whackos reside. But science, math, economics, and business schools are packed with conservatives. There are also colleges that as a whole are very conservative -- even law schools (and I'm not just talking about religious schools).
The reasons corporations give to liberal causes are (1) because it's good public relations and (2) most corporate giving is handled by dead-end departments where liberals naturally gravitate.
Finally, when it comes to making money, even liberals become remarkably capitalist, i.e. they don't bring sappy liberalism to their jobs, they save that for their politics.
Andrew,
PR to whom? For me? Or for the MSM to tout how nice it is for the big bad corporation to do something nice? For good press?
I think I am on to something here.
Colleges are uniformly liberal. All have requirements to round out the person's education which just happens to be in the liberal fuzzy subjects. Students are required to attend these courses in order to graduate. They are requirements.
My wife needed the liberal subjects even though she already was a nurse. She passed those courses by regurgitating the liberal line.
Joel, PR = public relations. You may not like it, but the vast majority of the public likes corporations to "do good things." That's why local businesses sponsor children's sports leagues, that's why companies give to save the polar bear, that's why Boeing runs ads on television touting the latest jet fighter they're making -- they're all hoping to build up a reservoir of good will with the public that will lead either to sales, to the forgiveness of future mistakes, or to the power to get people to call their governments to protect them from bad legislation.
Colleges are not uniformly liberal. I went to a very conservative college and a very liberal college -- where I still found an abundance of conservative professors. And yes, they do require you to take courses that are usually taught by liberals (though not necessarily), but the reasoning is that college is about exposing you to new ideas. If all they did was teach you already believed, then there would be no point in going to college. And if all they did was teach you technical matters, then they would be trade schools.
Moreover, it's simply wrong to believe that liberal colleges turn out liberal students. Did your wife suddenly become a liberal because she took those course? No one I know suddenly changed their politics because they had a liberal professor. And even if my experience was somehow unique, then how do you explain how the number of people identifying themselves as liberal has been dropping year after year, when the liberals supposedly have a death grip on colleges -- which more than half of all Americans have attended? Shouldn't liberals dominate today if this were true?
Andrew,
This IS something new. So far you have not said anything that dispells my thought.
Oh, and trade schools used to be the rage, now? For multiculturalism?
Andrew,
We are dominated by liberalism. We have a government that is just this side of socialism. People are waking up to how damaging liberalism is, but they aren't there yet because we have blue states and enclaves that perpetually elect the Nancy Pelosi types. Now, how did this happen when over half of the american populace has attended college?
The answer is over half the american populace has attended college. You said it yourself.
Joel, You've offered nothing to support your theory except your own dislike for the educated and a few assertions that are contradicted by a vast array of facts. That does not a theory make. I could use your identical arguments to assert that the nation's colleges are turning out extreme conservatives.
Moreover, I hate to tell you this, but the biggest supporters of liberalism are not the college educated, they are the "working poor" and the "non-working poor." And if things were left up to them, the US would be a socialist country.
I can only speak anecdotally, but I think somewhat tellingly. Until I closed up shop for good at the end of 2009, and using only those employees I hired since 2005, the political leanings of the young people were surprising. All my college hires attended San Francisco State, UC Berkeley, Stanford, and a few of the lesser-known Bay Area colleges and universities. With one single exception, all were outspokenly conservative. Clearly I know better than to ask any political questions during the hiring process, or to voice my own opinions in the workplace. But they talked to each other, and from years in trial courts, I've learned to hear what others think I'm not hearing. The first time I heard one of them call Bush a "fake conservative" because he wouldn't stop Democratic big, expensive government programs, I nearly hyperventilated.
If that's any indication of what's going on among young people at the colleges in the Bay Area, then I can imagine it must be even stronger elsewhere. Either the professors are not as good at indoctrination as we are led to believe, or the students are getting better at thinking for themselves. The most conservative of them all was a young lady who was a fine arts major and who has since moved to L.A. to become an actress. Can't wait to hear reports back about how Hollywood is a lot worse for conservatives than college ever was.
Lawhawk, There are many schools around the country with noted conservative faculty (and not just one or two professors) and there are many schools that I can name where the students are overwhelmingly conservatives. My law school was one such example. Even the college I attended in the northeast had a huge Republican Student's Association, but NO Democratic Student's Association. . . because there just weren't enough of them.
When I transferred to Boulder (U. of Colorado), I ran into a wall of liberals. But it didn't take long to see that the liberals flocked to some programs and the conservatives to the others, and everyone had to take mandatory classes from both sets, i.e. some conservative, some liberal.
As for indoctrination, the liberals certainly tried, but it was never successful. All they got was contempt and more forceful conservatives.
Also, let me add to this idea that college causes liberalism: the liberal things that people complain about in the US were all put in place in the 1930s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s -- back when few Americans went to college. In fact, by the time Reagan came to office, only 27% of Americans had attended college. That's now over 50% and yet country has become less "socialist" than it was in 1980.
Full Tape
Andrew this is the full tape as alleged by the NAACP at around the 21 minute mark you can see that she is cut off in mid sentence and begins immediately speaking another sentence. You will also note that here body posture teleports from one position to another with out moving.
Has anyone esle noted that the Full Tape as explained by the NAACP seems to be "edited". I really don't like what is going on.
Individualist, The NAACP claims that there was nothing suspicious there, that gap was just when they changed the tapes. Sure.
I've learned a long time ago not to trust groups like the NAACP to be truthful or accurate in discussions of these matters. Their truth is their agenda.
And that edit would be one heck of a coincidence.
Also, (1) The NAACP had the tape the whole time and yet didn't reveal the tape when Breitbart released the segment he got, instead, they played games with it before releasing it.
(2) The NAACP is trying hard to avoid talking about the approving response by the NAACP audience when she says she discriminated against a white person.
(3) Her story is not "oh and I gave up thinking in terms of race," it's "oh and now I know to hate rich people."
(4) They have been leading a coordinated attack against Fox and the Tea Party, and that discredits anything they say. Innocent people don't do that.
I know I'm late to the party (again) but I had not heard about the lawsuit at all, Andrew. Wow. Just wow...
Crispy, I know. I'm not sure how the lawsuit fits into this, but it sure strikes me as an "interesting" piece of information to add to this puzzle!
The woman is a racist. Sorry for skipping around on your articles, but I've been out all week.
DocWhoa, Don't worry about being late to the game. We do check old articles.
I agree, she is a racist, and so are many of the people defending her.
Post a Comment