In a League of Her Own: Why Governor Palin is a Superstar

Posted on: July 27, 2010

The following article was written by Keith Pickett (aka wilsonpickett) as a guest post for Conservatives4Palin
———-
Part II
Having spent a lot of years around college basketball recruiters and NBA scouts, this writer/editor has observed there are a couple of special attributes – “upside” and “effortlessness” – that those basketball professionals look for at tryout camps and exhibition workouts. Only a few athletes possess that rare combination.

Time and again, Governor Sarah Palin has demonstrated both qualities in the fields of politics and leadership, which is why — as prolific C4P analyst “techno” often writes — she has become a superstar.

Let me explain:

1) “Upside” is important because it means the player (or candidate), although good right now, has the capacity to grow or get stronger and to develop or hone already existing skills. You don’t want to recruit someone who has already reached his or her peak. Remember what the veteran campaign vetter, former Reagan White House legal counsel Arthur Culvahouse, said in his law firm’s conclusion about Governor Palin in 2008. Even though she perhaps wasn’t ready at that moment to become Vice President (few candidates are, he said), she “had the capacity” to become an outstanding VP.

Sure enough, Sarah Palin’s unconventional tactical decision to buck the odds and step away from the Alaska governor’s post enabled her to display her capacity for influential leadership during the past year in a variety of areas – book sales, endorsing political candidates, commenting as an analyst on network television, affecting the national debate on controversial issues. She successfully side-stepped the adversaries who were trying to restrict her movements and to personally bankrupt her and husband Todd. Who could have predicted such developments a year and a half ago?

2) The “appearance of effortlessness” is what the really talented players, the superstars, have. It is what distinguishes them from the normal, good players. One longtime friend who has spent years watching tryout camps said he always looks for the athlete who appears as if he doesn’t have to work as hard physically, yet accomplishes just as much or more as the others…….and does it with smoothness, grace and style. It means when he is surrounded by talented players of similar ilk, he can rise to the occasion and use another gear to soar past the competition. It is what enables those athletes to become superstars. In professional basketball, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and now Kobe Bryant and the young LeBron James possess those qualities.

Look at Governor Palin’s activities the past year (since the beginning of July 2009). She announced her resignation as state governor, causing the “experts” to say she was finished as a player on the national scene, that she had committed political suicide.

Then she proceeded to accelerate the writing of what turned out to be her national-best-selling book “Going Rogue,” while at the same time causing the Congress to delay tackling a potentially damaging “cap and trade” bill with a highly read July 14 Washington Post op-ed (the No. 3 most-read editorial on the newspaper’s Web site for the entire year of 2009) and then stalling the Obama healthcare train with those two mighty words — “death panels” — on her Facebook page August 7.

Before long the multi-faceted, cultural avalanche gathered steam:
- Hugely successful, untraditional book tour in the heartland (resembling a series of campaign stops but avoiding most major cities), accompanied by extensive national media coverage including special interviews with Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey; achievement of being No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller book list for six consecutive weeks, with hard-cover book sales reaching almost 2.7 million in the first six weeks alone (November 17 to December 31, 2009);

- Overnight dinner-guest visit with the legendary Billy Graham and his family at their farm in North Carolina;

- Surprise appearance and humorous putdown of William Shatner on the “Conan
O’Brien Show”;

- “Effortless” stand-up comedy routine on the “Jay Leno Show”;

- Keynote speeches (she has turned down over 1,000 speaking requests) before a wide variety of audiences and organizations across America, including the first Tea Party national meeting and the Southern Leadership Republican Conference; appearances sometimes earned her fees of up to $75,000 or $100,000;

- Status as a “FOX News contributor” on different top-rated network news programs from a TV studio built in her home in Alaska;

- Announcement of her hosting an Alaskan documentary TV series (currently being filmed) on the TLC network and plans to write another book to be published later in 2010;

- Growth of SarahPAC, compiling funds of approximately $1 million at the end of the second quarter 2010 with few concentrated major fund-raising efforts;

- Endorsing “Mama Grizzlies” and other Conservative political candidates across the country, sometimes with personal appearances, showing leadership as the 2010 mid-term elections approach and accelerating – even rocketing – the status of those candidates in primaries or general-election races;

- Production of a first-rate “Mama Grizzlies” video, campaign-like but different, unveiled to wide critical acclaim from friends and foes alike;

- Writing effective, educational, sometimes policy-oriented Facebook posts which have a rapidly-growing following of almost two million people (that milestone may be surpassed this week);

- Composing creative, pithy tweets on Twitter, now with over 200,000 online followers (impressive total considering that she had to abandon her earlier list of 150,000 because the State of Alaska said it owned the first Twitter account);

- Gaining recent momentum in political polls as one of the top two or three favorite GOP candidates for President in 2012 (No. 1 in some of those polls);

- Adding a new word to the lexicon: “refudiate”;

- Etc., etc., etc.

Governor Palin has done all this in the past 12 months while raising a family of five (including a Down Syndrome baby) with her husband, living hours from the Lower 48 and constantly fighting off attacks on her family, her feminism, her words, her accomplishments and her very existence.

At this time, we don’t know whether or not Sarah Palin will actually run for President of the United States.

Whatever happens, it is interesting to watch her perform in a seemingly effortless manner, always with a smile on her face. Her political instincts and her ability to connect with people are special. She hasn’t needed a title “to make a difference.”

That is why she is a superstar!

Palin TV

Dienhart: Our nation's welfare may depend on the 'Saracuda'

By George Dienhart
 07/26/2010

Swing is more than just a dance, or a playground activity. Georgians saw an unprecedented swing during the Republican gubernatorial primary. Fifteen points of swing for Karen Handel, mostly at the expense of state insurance commissioner John Oxendine. According to a Mason-Dixon poll released on July 11th, Commissioner Oxendine held an eight point lead. Then something happened. The next poll showed Ms. Handel up by seven points.

That is a surge that would make General David Petraeus proud. In fact, the Handel surge was far less likely than our success in Iraq. As a former political consultant, I would first ask what Oxendine did to drop in the polls like that. A 15 point electoral swing doesn't occur very often, and certainly not without scandal. So what did "Ox" do?

Nothing. He worked the election as he had every other election. He kissed babies and shook hands. He made friends and was careful to make no new enemies. He was the consummate candidate. All was going well. So, if Ox didn't mess up, what did Ms. Handel do? She also kissed babies and shook hands, but that doesn't get you 15 points. Frankly, she could have pulled Falcons QB Matt Ryan out of a burning building and not picked up 15 points amongst Falcon fans, let alone likely voters.

Don't get me wrong -- I didn't vote for Oxendine. I actually voted for Handel. I'm a conservative, and I like Handel's stance on just about everything. My intent is not to belittle her achievement. My intent is to give credit where credit is due, but there is more to it than that.

I also want to tweak some liberal noses. The tweak comes with a message, and the message is beware of the dog. The swing occurred after the self-affirmed pit bull in lipstick, Sarah Palin, endorsed Ms. Handel. After the endorsement, Handel was the beneficiary of a 15 point bump in the polls. The 'Saracuda' struck again, this time leaving Oxendine gutted and bleeding out in Lake Lanier. There have been Saracuda attacks all across the nation, but none as bloody or important as this one.

While Commissioner Oxendine ponders his job options, Nathan Deal waits for the inevitable defeat. This may well be a done deal at this point. Former Governor Roy Barnes is not worrying about Nathan Deal right now. He may not even be worrying about Handel. I assure he is watching Sarah Palin's travel itinerary. When will she be back in Georgia? Will it be in November?

It's bad enough he is a Democrat trying to weather one of the angriest anti-liberal swells in recent times, but now he has to deal with a movement and it's default leader.

Movements are not something politicians want to be on the wrong side of, and Barnes is on the wrong side of the Tea Party. Angry conservatives are lining up their opponents and taking no prisoners.

Sara Palin knows this, and is happy to speak to the nascent movement. One sentence at a Tea Party event calling Handel a "pro-life, pro-constitutionalist with a can-do attitude" swung a primary. What is next?

Tea Partiers love Sarah Palin, but liberals loathe her. Barnes will likely now start attacking Handel and Palin. Not himself, at least not at first. His intermediaries will start making the same tired anti-Palin arguments, and then try linking them to Handel. Don't buy it. They are acting out of fear.

Liberals loathe Palin because she represents the things that they hate -- the vast part of this country that is not New York City or Los Angeles. States like Georgia, Texas, Kansas and Montana value life, liberty and small government. People here want low taxes and sensible immigration. People here understand that an unborn baby is still a baby. These beliefs are all shared by Sarah Palin. On top of that she, can clearly articulate these facts, and connect with the American people in a way that has not been seen since Ronald Reagan.

Sarah Palin actually has an advantage over Ronald Reagan -- the Tea Party movement. There was a clear conservative lurch to right in the 80s, but it was unorganized. Sarah Palin has an opportunity that has never before presented itself in American politics. She is not only the right person, in the right place at the right time. She also has the advantage of a ready made and organized army of volunteers ready to take up her cause -- so long as she stays true to their cause.

It's a two way street, but she is in the drivers seat.

I did a previous piece for this paper stating that I was leery of the tea partiers. Not for what they stand for, but for the damage they could conceivably do if they work outside the Republican Party. A third party movement would guarantee a second Obama term as President.
I can't support that. I can support a tea party movement that takes back our Republican Party and our country from destructive liberal politicians.

For now, the Tea Party movement seems to be heading in the right direction. They are working with, and winning elections for conservative Republicans. This makes it easy for me to throw my support to the tea partiers. We support the same low tax, pro-life, business friendly policies that will redirect this nation back to its roots. The tea party also supports the God-given freedoms we are in danger of losing. Most importantly, it supports the right candidates.

This is all important to a political movement. Palin is a great standard bearer -- if she takes on the role. Let's hope she does. The welfare of our nation may depend on it.


Dienhart is a Peachtree City resident. He is the current Commandant of the Marine Corps League's local detachment. He can be reached at george.dienhart@gmail.com, or follow him on twitter at http://www.twitter.com/ResidentHack.

Fayette County News

The Cartel Corridor

July 27, 2010 - 11:22 AM | by: William La Jeunesse

Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu is raising money to privately outfit his officers with body armor and more powerful weapons because he and his deputies say they can’t compete with the cartels, especially when it comes to weapons.  He even has a website asking for donations. Babeu says the Obama Administration needs to help the state of Arizona, not sue it.

“ I'd like to invite President Obama to come here, to Pinal County, to come here and see this drug and human smuggling corridor, to see for himself, 80 miles, 70 miles, 90 miles deep into our state, into America, what's going on,” says Babeu.

The area north of the Interstate 8 in Pinal County, Arizona is a lay up point in a well-known smuggling corridor. It’s more than 70 miles from the Mexican border and yet, when you look around it’s littered with evidence of human and drug smugglers.
Millions of dollars of cargo come through this valley. In fact, the cartels have lookouts at the high points, so they know when police are coming and they'll stop the load from coming through by radio.

"Our normal patrol deputy is out manned and outgunned in the area,” says Deputy Matt Thomas.  “They're coming from Mexico with AK-47s, with AR-15- style rifles."

And once they come in, the illegal immigrants hike a short distance to the interstate to be picked up. On their feet they wear “magic shoes”, pieces of carpet to disguise their footprints. Some bring bundles of marijuana to the freeway.

The drugs are then loaded into waiting vans. Deputy Marc Miller recently had a big bust after a high-speed chase.

“In the back seat was a bundle of marijuana and on the floor board where the passenger in the back seat ran from was two fully-loaded AK-47s, two 9 millimeters,” says Miller.

Fox News

The Anti-Drilling Commission

July 26, 2010 
 By Jeffrey Folks

 

The commission appointed by President Obama to investigate the Gulf oil spill (the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling) does not include a single member with specialized knowledge of petroleum engineering. This is akin to performing a heart transplant with a surgical team that has never set foot in an operating room.

Of the seven members appointed to the commission, not one is a petroleum engineer, and all have long-standing ties to the environmental movement. This is certainly the case with Frances Beinecke, Donald Boesch, Terry Garcia, and Frances Ulmer, all of whom have close ties to environmentalist research and policy groups. Beinecke, in fact, is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, while Ulmer is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. How's that for an unbiased commission on drilling?

If the president's intention was to prevent future leaks, why would he appoint a commission with no knowledge of drilling? The answer, it would seem, is that this commission was never meant to perform the task it was officially charged with. It was never really intended to be a commission on drilling safety, but rather a group of environmental activists intent on regulating and taxing the oil and gas companies out of business. Its report is unlikely to focus on improved safely measures with the intent of increasing oil and gas exploration and production. It will more likely issue a blueprint on how to restrict drilling while extorting profits from oil companies by way of new fees and regulation.

Even as the commission hears impassioned testimony from Gulf Coast residents about the economic devastation of Obama's ban on deep-water drilling (his second ban, the first having been ruled illegal by a federal court), its members continue to register their opposition to drilling of any sort. Following recent testimony in New Orleans, during which prominent Gulf leaders pleaded for a resumption of offshore drilling, the commission's directors, William Reilly and Bob Graham, offered lip service to the resumption of drilling. But where were Ms. Beinecke and the commission's other environmental activists during these hearings? From all accounts, they have been silent about the economic damage caused by Obama's drilling ban.

There are two crucial lessons to be learned from the Deepwater Horizon accident, but it is doubtful whether the commission will comprehend either of them. The first is that "best practices" exist which, had they been strictly adhered to, may have prevented the Deepwater Horizon accident. It is for the commission to determine whether they were followed in that case, but it is incontrovertible that best practices have prevented significant accidents on all of the other 40,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. These practices, with continual improvement, should prevent spills in the future as well.

The second lesson, and one that no one in government or the mainstream media seems to have considered, is that the Deepwater Horizon, however flawed its management might have been, had the capacity to produce a great deal of oil and gas. Based on the enormous flow of oil from the Deepwater Horizon and others among the 33 deep-water rigs operating in the Gulf,  it is clear that vast reserves of oil and gas exist off America's shores. These reserves are enough to make the United States energy-independent. They are enough to revive our flagging economy, enough to produce jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers and to create secondary and tertiary jobs for millions of others.

Estimates of oil flow from the Deepwater Horizon have come in at between 40,000 and 100,000 barrels. Taking a mean estimate of 70,000 barrels, the annual production from the well, not counting natural gas and condensates, would have amounted to 25,555,000 barrels per year. One hundred such deep-water wells in the Gulf, producing equal quantities of oil, would produce over 2.5 billion barrels per year, enough to supply one-third of the petroleum needs of the United States. This new production alone would add over $175 billion to annual GDP, and it would cut America's annual trade deficit by the same amount. Combined with increased onshore drilling, conservation measures, and increased production of natural gas made possible by advances in drilling technology, offshore drilling would render the United States energy-independent for the first time in a half-century.

Moreover, deep-water drilling has the potential to transform America from the slow-growth, high-unemployment welfare state that President Obama envisages into a prosperous, full-employment economy. This new economy would not only be energy independent, but it might well become an exporter of oil and gas -- as it is now an exporter of coal.

Expansion from the current 33 wells to 100 is a realistic goal, since it would not be necessary to drill 100 deep-water wells annually. Oil flow from wells such as the Deepwater Horizon continues for ten to thirty years, or even more (as it has in the North Sea). Ten additional deepwater wells per year, combined with fracking for natural gas on shore, would soon move the country toward energy independence.

For most Americans, new drilling and the energy independence that comes with it seem like a good thing, but that is the very reason why the president has appointed a commission hostile to increased drilling. The success of the free market in the United States depends to a great extent on the availability of cheap energy. By cutting off the supply of oil, natural gas, and coal, Obama ensures a continuation of high unemployment and an extended period of slow growth, and with these, the expansion of the socialist welfare state.

Nothing could be further from the interests of the modern-day Democratic Party than the transformation of the American economy into a flourishing free-market economy powered by cheap and reliable fossil fuels. The fight over drilling, in this sense, is nothing less than a struggle for the future of capitalism in America.

Dr. Jeffrey Folks taught for thirty years in universities in Europe, America, and Japan. He has published many books and articles on American culture and politics.

 

American Thinker 

Journey into the Media’s Heart of Darkness

How ironic that on a day when we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The Daily Caller released 15 pages of JournoListers’ email exchanges about a dark and demented conspiracy regarding my son, Trig.

It’s tough to fittingly describe these numerous members of the mainstream media who actively engaged in the debate about this conspiracy back when I was first introduced as John McCain’s running mate, and it’s impossible to legitimize any “prominent” media publication that continues to traffic in this bizarre narrative today. It wasn’t just a few fringe characters in that JournoList discussion. It included writers for major newspapers, magazines, and online news publications. Those participating in this immature exchange in attempts to plant seeds of doubt and falsely accuse even included a famous historian.

This JournoList exchange exposes the warped nature of today’s media, thus explaining why many of us are forced, in fairness to the public, to utilize other mediums to communicate until the mainstream media wakes up and begins respecting the public’s intelligence and desire for truth in reporting. There is a sickness and darkness in today’s liberal media. With revelations like the JournoList exchanges, may the light keep shining to expose the problem.

It’s always darkest before the dawn. My hope, therefore, is that today, marking the anniversary of our nation’s attempt to show respect for our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters with special needs, will also mark the beginning of a new, more respectful discourse among members of our media who at least aspire to be fair and objective.

- Sarah Palin

July 25, 2010 OPINION: The truth behind the mosque at Ground Zero

 By Kristin Davis 
Published: 1:36 PM 07/25/2010

Last weekend, I went on the record opposing the mosque at Ground Zero. I wanted to bring attention to this issue at my birthday party at 49 Grove, however, one reporter interrupted my speech to call me a racist and say that I was against freedom of religion and scream obscenities at my friends. Funny, I guess this same reporter is against freedom of speech since I wasn’t even able to finish a sentence before he tried to assault my campaign manager.

I am not a racist. Supporters of the mosque would have you believe that anyone against it is denying Muslims their constitutional right to freedom of religion and are racists in their beliefs. The issue of the mosque is not about race nor is it about religion.

Freedom of religion is one of our constitutional rights. This also means that we have freedom FROM religion; we can choose what we want to believe. This is not the case for Muslims under Islamic law.

According to Islamic law, a person who leaves Islam is to be killed. Death for apostasy is sanctioned in Sharia law and is required according to the Koran. Not only is submission to Sharia law required of all Muslims according to Islamic doctrine and law, it is also required of all non-Muslims.

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them (Koran, 4:89)

The leader of the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, has failed to respond to letters requesting a pledge to respect the Bill of Rights and to repudiate the Islamic obligation of killing those who leave Islam. To the contrary, in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Rauf issued numerous anti-American statements and stated that the “United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened” and that “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”
Article 6 of the US Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Since Rauf upholds Islamic law, which is in direct opposition to our Constitution, how can we afford him constitutional rights?

The very law he lives his life by and his ideology is the archenemy of the freedoms our country is built on. The Ground Zero mosque cannot then be built anywhere within the United States as the ideology promulgated in mosques is in opposition to the Constitution.

Imam Rauf says that New York Muslims provided nearly $5 million in cash to buy the Ground Zero location. Yet in fiscal year 2009, Rauf received large international donations. In the year ended June 30, 2009 — days before Feisal closed the purchase — he received at least $1.3 million. The largest donation, $576,312, came from Qatar – a country long known for harboring terror financiers and even the government stands accused of funding international terrorism.

I say – Show us the money Imam Rauf! Where is your funding really coming from?

Supporters of the Ground Zero mosque claim that since only a few Muslims are involved in terrorism that we should therefore encourage the majority non-violent/non-jihadist “moderate” Muslims by supporting their mosque building. However in 2008, a survey deemed “Mapping Sharia in America Project,” by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, infiltrated mosques and Islamic Centers throughout the United States in an effort to bring to attention those that posed a threat to the national security of the country.  Agents — consisting of former FBI, CIA, and U.S. military counterintelligence and counterterrorism personnel — discovered that out of the initial 100 (mosques and Islamic centers) mapped, 75 were preaching sermons calling for insurrection and jihad. Such places also had Saudi-trained Imams.

The site of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is hallowed ground — it is 600 feet from Ground Zero (less than 2 football fields) — directly on top of the bodies of the men and women who were murdered there. We are in an ideological war and the ideology that motivated the atrocities of 9/11 is Islam and its perpetual war against non-Muslims. It is self-deceiving and self-destructive to pretend that this is not so.
This is not my opinion, this is fact – said by Osama bin Laden himself:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.

Our history is replete with examples of ideological fanatics running wars and committing atrocities. A center dedicated to glorifying and spreading the very same ideology that motivated the heinous murders of 9/11, built on the site of those murders, is offensive to the victims and would be testimony to our moral and ethical weakness as a society.

We are in a war with an opposing ideology whose purpose, through jihad, is to cause our destruction. There is nothing at stake in this but everything we stand for.

Kristin Davis, formerly known as the Manhattan Madame, is a candidate for Governor of New York on the Anti-Prohibition Party ticket.

Daily Caller

Forty Acres & a Mule -- Sherrod Style?

Rosslyn Smith

 

Shirley Sherrod's quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named Pigford case, a class action against the US government on behalf of black farmers alleging that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against black farmers during the period from 1983 through 1997.  According to Wikipedia: 

The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a "virtually automatic" US$50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets. This process was called "Track A".^[2]

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence - the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages....

At the time the case was settled, it was estimated there would be in the area of 2,000 to 3,000 claims.  As with most estimates involving government handouts that number was woefully short of the mark.  Again, according to Wikipedia:

22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. US$995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009, including US$760 million disbursed as US$50,000 cash awards. Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.

Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers' attorneys for "the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement." A provision in the 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits

In other words, according to Agri-Pulse.com the number of total claims filed not only exceeded the original estimate by almost 40 to 50 times, it is close to four times the USDA's estimate of 26,785 total black owned farms in 1977!   One reason for this is that the settlement applied to farmers and those who "attempted to farm" and did not receive assistance from the USDA.  Getting the latest round of Pigford cases from the 2008 farm bill settled is said to be a high priority for the Obama administration.

So where does Sherrod come into this picture?  In a special to the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explains  that Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under Pigford.

 ... New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

What makes this even more interesting to me is that Charles appears to be Charles Sherrod, who was a big player in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s.  The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away.

Blumer has some questions about this settlement and about Sherrod's rapid departure from the USDA 

• Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement?
• How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities?
• Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?
• Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are a few bigger-picture questions:

• Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?
• Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?
• Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

I second his conclusion that the media and bloggers shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Shirley Sherrod.  Let me start by adding another question to the list.  In her position at not for profit, Rural Development Leadership Network, a network of activists and community builder, was Sherrod involved in any way in encouraging people to submit fraudulent claims under Pigford?  Did she put black people who owned rural land in touch with lawyers who would file the paperwork claiming attempts to farm had been prevented by the non cooperation of the local USDA? 

I ask because there are a multitude of small parcels of non productive rural land all across the south, land unsuitable for mechanized agriculture that was once owned by subsistence farmers, black and white alike.  Many of these parcels continue to be owned by family members who moved elsewhere out of sentimental reasons. The property taxes and other carrying costs are cheap and often ancestors are buried there in family plots.  A drive on any country road in the South may turn up several carefully maintained postage stamp sized family cemeteries.  As I read Blumer, I wondered how many of the owners claimed they had attempted to farm just such acreage to score a fast $50,000 from Uncle Sam? 

American Thinker