Glenn Beck: Why Was Shirley Sherrod Ousted?





Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

Let me show you the comments from Shirley Sherrod, the USDA's director of rural development in Georgia. Back in March, while addressing the NAACP, she said this about helping a white farmer:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER USDA OFFICIAL: I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland 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. So that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Those are obviously racist comments that deserved to be condemned. But Sherrod was forced to resign before even being allowed to give her side of the story which, allegedly, is that she was just telling a story of an event that took place 24 years ago and, in fact, she is now friends with that farmer and she was only telling the story to show that she's learned her lesson that it's not about race, it's about who has and who has not.

Lending credibility to her side of the story, let me play her comments right after stating that she turned the white farmer over to "one of his own kind":

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERROD: That's when it was revealed to me that it's about the poor versus those who have, not so much about white — it is about white and black, it's not, you know — it opened my eyes. Because I took him to one of his own.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now, I'm inclined to believe her, based on what she said right there. But the NAACP was quick to release a statement supporting her forced resignation. But, strangely, the NAACP won't release the rest of the tape so we can corroborate her claim.

Then on Tuesday, the NAACP released this updated statement: "The NAACP is conducting an investigation into the recent revelations about the situation with Ms. Shirley Sherrod including attempting to speak with Ms. Sherrod, the farmer in question and viewing the full video. Following a full and comprehensive process we will issue an updated statement."

When was the last time the NAACP didn't give someone the benefit of the doubt right away?

This much I can say, if she was simply relating an anecdotal story from 1986 to make a point about how her racial perceptions have changed, give her back her job.

Something is definitely wrong here. Yes, the Obama administration has a history of acting without all the facts:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think it's fair to say number one, that any of us would be angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And they appear to have done the same thing to Shirley Sherrod that they did to that police officer.

How and why would you force the resignation of someone who is just relating a story of 24-year-old incident to make a point? How many times when a controversy comes up have we heard that someone was "misquoted" or they "misspoke" or we're told that "the only point they were simply making was that..." and then some point that bears no resemblance to the one they made; or they were just "taken out of context?"

Now here's a possible actual example of someone taken completely out of context and they immediately get rid of her.

All during the Jeremiah Wright fiasco with then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, still a member of his church, we continually heard, you're smearing the poor man with sound bites! You're taking him out of context! Until finally we discovered that the only context for Reverend Wright was anti-American racism.

But now, on the day the video becomes public, Sherrod is harassed into resigning. Here's her description:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERROD: Why am I out? They asked me to resign. And, in fact, they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia, yesterday. I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign.

TONY HARRIS, CNN: So the pressure came from the White House?

SHERROD: And the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.

She said, "Well, Shirley, they want you to pull over to the side of the road and do it because you're going to be on Glenn Beck tonight."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Well, now that she is on Glenn Beck.

Here's my take on Shirley Sherrod: She should not have been fired or forced to resign. Again, based on the facts we have right now. And clearly, there's something else going on here. First of all, she said herself that it isn't about pitting the races against each other, it's about pitting the classes against each other:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERROD: That's when it was revealed to me that it's about the poor versus those who have not...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

So, it's about rich vs. poor. Based on that belief, Shirley shouldn't be fired, she should be promoted in this administration. Make her green jobs "czar." Make her the regulatory "czar" or manufacturing "czar" or the energy "czar" or director of Medicare/Medicaid. She fits right in with nearly all of Obama's appointments. Why didn't the USDA and Barack Obama wait until they knew all of the facts?

Something's not right here.

There are several things to consider:

There is a possibility that they know how bad this is and they want to let the air out of the tire, because they knew they couldn't survive it. If this became a big deal and gained traction, it could have ended them. So, they wanted to take the air out before it gained traction.

What's happening here is she is guilty until proven innocent. They fired her and now they are back-pedaling. There's no due process here. Doesn't an American have a right to a fair trial? They have politically assassinated this woman. No one has heard the case for or against her; they just took her out. When did we stop having the right to face our accusers?

The White House is watching today because they think I will be celebrating this as some kind of victory. Well, I'm not and I won't.

Fact is, I never asked for the resignation of Van Jones. I asked for an explanation. I wanted to know how a revolutionary communist wound up in the White House. We never got that explanation.

I think Shirley Sherrod is asking the same thing: How did she get ousted out of the USDA and the NAACP without any explanation?

Something isn't right here. Stop the character assassination without due process. This is related to what we talked about yesterday. This is how this administration does almost everything. They make Congress irrelevant. They make fair trials irrelevant. They announce plans to execute Americans without due process. That's how they got health care done. That's how they put another Marxist in as director of Medicare/Medicaid. It's how they do everything.

Why are they getting rid of Shirley? Why is she being made an example of? Where are the journalists on this? There are a million questions here. Moms, dads, aunts, uncles of journalists — ask them: What the hell is wrong with you? If you see a journalist, ask them politely, what are you doing? Are you not curious? Do you know something we don't know, besides what Lindsay Lohan wore to jail today? Journalists are supposed to ask questions, what is going on with this story?

I suppose they could just be afraid of the Tea Party, you and Fox News. Maybe the Van Jones syndrome really kicked in at the White House and they just didn't want to deal with yet another one?

But that certainly hasn't stopped them on other issues — like the health care bill, the stimulus package, the financial regulations, plowing forward on cap-and-trade and illegal immigration amnesty. They certainly haven't made any strong statements about the controversies surrounding the Black Panthers or the NAACP. So what is it?

They could be just trying to minimize the damage — just like they did with Van Jones. Remember how the Mao-loving communications director, Anita Dunn talked about controlling the media? They know information is power.

Since the NAACP hasn't released the tape in its entirety yet, maybe there are things that are even more incriminating on it? Maybe they believe that with her gone, the whole thing goes away?

It's possible that Shirley Sherrod is just a sacrificial lamb to placate Americans who are growing concerned over the obvious reverse racism we're seeing now.

It could be that with the elections coming up and all the polls going south, they didn't want another racist problem on their hands. It could be that their shoes were too tight. It could be perhaps that their heads aren't screwed on just right?

Or maybe the most likely reason of all was that their hearts are two sizes too small. Dr. Suess aside, maybe they decided they couldn't count on their usual cover from the mainstream media this time — that this tape was just so over the top and their media allies couldn't fight this losing battle for them?

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

Legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz has a message for partisans dividing America: "A plague on both your houses." He voted for Hillary Clinton. He endorsed Joe Biden. He's a man who is basically the Forrest Gump of American judicial history.

Look up a big court case over the past few decades, and you'll probably see him standing in the background. He's represented notorious clients like Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and yes, Donald Trump. It's made him a target for both the left and right.

Alan also describes himself as a "civil libertarian," and that's probably why he and Glenn Beck get along despite their opposing political views. His story is like a history lesson, spanning half a century, and it just might be the key to bridging the political divide.

On this week's podcast, Alan explained that while he's a strong defender of the Constitution, he's never been a big fan of the Second Amendment. In the past he's called it absurd and outdated, and even today, he admits that he wouldn't have ingrained it into our Constitution if he was a framer. However, with the whole Bill of Rights under attack, he's now fully in defense of our right to bear arms. Because if the Second Amendment changes, any amendment could be next.

"I'm now a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don't want to change it. I don't want to change one word of it, because I'm afraid that if I get to change the Second Amendment, other people will get to change the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment," Alan said. "So, I am committed to preserving the Bill of Rights, every single word, every comma, and every space between the words."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Alan Dershowitz below:

Watch the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel, or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Investigative reporter David Steinberg joined the radio program Monday, to explain how a new video may provide enough evidence to begin a FBI investigation into alleged illegal practices by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's campaign.

In the video, which was produced and released by Project Veritas, residents of Omar's community describe campaign teams that not only conduct illegal ballot harvesting practices but also pay people for their blank absentee ballots.

Steinberg told Glenn that, if these charges prove to be true, the federal government could bypass Omar's friend and protector, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Could 2020 be the beginning of the end for Omar's political career?

Watch the video below to catch Glenn's conversation with David Steinberg:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Mike Fratantuono is the manager of Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland. He wrote in the Washington Post's COVID-19 series about the recent, heartbreaking loss of his business, a restaurant that has been in his family for "four generations and counting."

"I know this virus is real, okay? It's real and it's awful. I'm not disputing any of that," Mike wrote. "But our national hysteria is worse. We allowed the virus to take over our economy, our small businesses, our schools, our social lives, our whole quality of life. We surrendered, and now everything is infected."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck reacted to Mike's letter, which he shared in full, adding his hope that those in government are ultimately held responsible for what he called the biggest theft of the Western world.

"This is the biggest theft of, not only money, but of heritage and of hope," Glenn said. "The United States government and many of the states are responsible for this, not you. And hopefully someday soon, we'll return to some semblance of sanity, and those responsible for this theft, this rape of the Western world, will be held responsible."

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

We did our homework over the weekend; we did the research so we can tell you what is likely coming from Senate Democrats regarding President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Based on our research and the anonymous people who have already come forward to talk about Coney Barrett's youth, these are the main shocking things you can expect Senate Democrats to seize on during the confirmation process…

A man has come forward under the banner of "#MenToo," to say that in second grade, Amy Coney Barrett and her best friend at the time, cornered him at a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese and "injected him with a full dose of cooties." Which, if true, would obviously be disqualifying for serving on the highest court in the land.

Then there's a woman who says when she was nine-years-old, she lived on the same street as Amy Coney Barrett. She alleges that Coney-Barrett borrowed her VHS tape of Herbie Goes Bananas and did not return it for at least six months. And then when she did finally get the tape back, the woman says Coney Barrett did not even bother to rewind it. The FBI has interviewed at least two witnesses so far who say the tape was indeed not rewound and that it was very upsetting to the owner of the tape. Again, if true, this is troubling – clearly not the kind of integrity you want to see in a Supreme Court justice.

Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it.

The same neighbor also dropped a bombshell allegation about the drinking problem of Amy Coney Barrett and her closest friends. Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it. The neighbor says she "frequently" witnessed Coney-Barrett and her friends chugging entire cartons of milk – often Whole Milk, sometimes Chocolate Milk, occasionally both at the same time through a funnel.

Unfortunately, shooting-up cooties, injurious rewinding, and potential calcium-abuse are not even the worst of it.

A third person has now come forward, another man, and this is just reprehensible, it's hard to even fathom. But he alleges that in fourth grade, when they were around ten-years-old, Amy Coney Barrett and a group of "four or five of her friends" gang-GRAPED him on the playground during recess. He alleges the group of friends snuck uneaten grapes out of the cafeteria and gang-GRAPED him repeatedly in broad daylight. In other words, and I hate to have to spell this out because it's kind of graphic, but the group led by ten-year-old Amy Coney Barrett pelted this poor defenseless boy with whole grapes. He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

Obviously, even if just one of these allegations is half-true, no Senator with a conscience could possibly vote to confirm Coney Barrett. When there is a clear pattern of destructive childhood behavior, it always continues into adulthood. Because people do not change. Ever.

Fortunately, for the sake of the Republic, Democrats plan to subpoena Coney Barrett's childhood diary, to see what, if any, insights it may provide into her calcium habits, as well as her abuse of illicit cooties and the gang-GRAPING incident.

We will keep you posted on the latest, but for now, it looks like Democrats will find plenty in the reckless pre-teen life of Amy Coney Barrett to cast doubt on her nomination. And if not, they can always fall back on her deranged preference for letting babies be born.

[NOTE: The preceding was a parody written by MRA writer Nathan Nipper.]