“There has been a mighty effort by liberals to present Shirley Sherrod as a victim — even a saint-like figure. However, after revelations that her husband, Charles, is an anti-white bigot and that she adheres to class warfare politics, it’s now being alleged that Ms. Sherrod presided over the crass exploitation of poor black workers on a southwest Georgia agricultural ‘plantation,’” said Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks.

Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and currently host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com, added: “The fellow making the claim is none other than Ron Wilkins, an ex-SNCC organizer, who should know what he’s talking about. Wilkins says he once worked on the Sherrod-managed plantation in the 1970s. I know this guy from the early days of ‘Black Power’ politics in Los Angeles and he’s known to be a straight shooter. If Wilkins claims are proven to be true, Sherrod owes an explanation and an apology — not only to Wilkins but the other black farm workers she misused.”

In an article posted on the left-wing Counterpunch web site on August 2, Ron Wilkins reported that Shirley Sherrod and her husband, Charles, helped manage the New Communities, Inc. farm in Albany, Georgia in the 1970s. Wilkins claimed the Sherrods and other managers “under-paid, mistreated and fired black laborers — many of them less than 16 years of age — in the same fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery.”

Wilkins, a former organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who is now a professor at California State University – Dominguez Hills, says he infiltrated the NCI operation in 1974 on behalf of a group overseeing NCI called the Emergency Land Fund. Wilkins claims his later efforts to organize NCI workers while working there led to his firing, eviction for an NCI-owned “shack” and arrest on “bogus” charges.

Wilkins added:

Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc. store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field. The 6,000-acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse.

In 1974, 67 cents had the purchasing power of $2.91 in 2009 dollars according to the website measuringworth.com. Wilkins claims he made $40 a week ($174 in 2009 dollars) at the time he was fired. His 2010 claims about conditions at the NCI farm and managers’ anti-labor behavior are reported in a September 28, 1974 article in the United Farm Workers newspaper El Malcriado — which specifically cites Charles Sherrod as a manager of the farm.

“It truly is shocking to see someone supposedly dedicated to civil rights now exposed for her involvement in the ugly exploitation of black workers approaching their total abuse in the ante-bellum South,” said Deroy Murdock, a Project 21 member who is also a nationally-syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and media fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “Once again, those on the right are supposed to be the ‘bad guys’ who make life difficult for black Americans. Yet here we have Shirley Sherrod, hailed as a black civil rights leader, allegedly taking advantage of poor black Americans, keeping them poor and firing those who complain about mistreatment.”

Counterpunch is a web site edited by respected leftist journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Wilkins’ article can be found at http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins08022010.html, and a scan of the El Malcriado article can be found at http://tw0.us/MkZ while the entire newspaper in which the article is found is at http://tw0.us/MkU.

Wilkins reports that NCI went out of business in 1985.

Washington, D.C. – The National Center for Public Policy Research has today launched a tongue-in-cheek ‘Most Ethically-Challenged Watchdog Groups’ list.

CREW not only tops our list, it is our list.

The National Center’s list is in response to a “CREW’s Crooked Candidates 2010″ list published by the self-styled ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

“Here’s the thing,” said National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. “CREW is a tax-exempt foundation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. IRS regulations prohibit it from endorsing or rating candidates, even on a ‘non-partisan’ basis. How could publicly listing what CREW calls some of ’2010′s most crooked candidates’ not be rating candidates?”

“Furthermore,” added Ridenour, “the list doesn’t even appear to be non-partisan. Of the 12 candidates rated ‘crooked’ by CREW, eight are Republicans, one is an independent who has been associated with the GOP for most of his career, and only three are Democrats, two of whom are running against Republicans CREW also listed.”

“Raising a further question of whether CREW’s ‘crooked candidates’ rating project was set up to hurt specific candidates and a specific political party is the fact that of the three Democrats rated, none is considered to have even a remote chance of being elected. So no harm done, really, to the Democrats. But of the Republicans, at least five of the eight are locked in very tight races. Three are threatening to take over Democrat seats. The sole independent is also locked in a very tight race.”

David Ridenour added, “CREW also declined to include incumbents on its list of supposedly ‘crooked candidates,’ all of whom appear to be running for federal office. As incumbents are disproportionately from one of the political parties, this action alone could be considered partisan.”

“And finally,” Ridenour said, “lest there be any doubt that this is about partisan politics, the slogan on CREW’s webpage is ‘continuing the culture of corruption.’ Of this phrase, Wikipedia says, ‘Culture of corruption was a political slogan used by the U.S. Democratic Party…’”

“The Internal Revenue Service has said, ‘… in order to violate the political campaign prohibition, an advocacy communication [by a 501(c)(3) organization] should contain some relatively clear directive that enables the recipient to know the organization’s position on a specific candidate or slate of candidates,’” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “When I read CREW’s ‘Crooked Candidates 2010′ webpage, I believed I had a pretty clear indication of what CREW’s position is on these candidates.”

“The rules on intervention in a political campaign are strict,” added Amy Ridenour. “We would not even consider rating candidates as ‘crooked’ or ‘wonderful,’ or even ‘grey-haired’.”

A 2002 IRS publication, “Election Year Issues ” by senior IRS officials John Reilly and Judith Kindell provides further information on IRS electioneering regulations:

The regulations provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written or printed statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii). See also Reg. 53.4945-3(a)(2). Consequently, a written or oral endorsement of a candidate is strictly forbidden. The rating of candidates, even on a non-partisan basis, also is prohibited. See Association of the Bar of the City of New York v. Commissioner, 858 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 (1989)… As is stated in TAM 1999-07-021 (May 20, 1998), in order to violate the political campaign prohibition, an advocacy communication ‘should contain some relatively clear directive that enables the recipient to know the organization’s position on a specific candidate or slate of candidates.’

Kagan participated in and whitewashed unethical ghostwriting and plagiarizing campaigns while Dean of Harvard Law School, as well as a cover up, and inserted her own false information into a report from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) concerning partial birth abortions, that changed the entire view on the practice.

About her decision to vote for Kagan’s appointment, Sen. Collins said she has, “the intellect, experience, temperament and integrity” to serve as Supreme Court Justice. Yesterday, the other Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, said she too would vote to confirm Kagan and gave similar reasons for that decision saying, “with the strong intellect, respect for the rule of law, and understanding of the important but limited role of the Supreme Court that I believe is required.”

As with anyone eager to confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice, we must question even their ability to make rational judgments on others character. Who could look at Kagan’s record and believe she was a person of “integrity” or “respect for the law”, when she has thumbed her nose at the law and worked to cover it up.

Have our own ethics and moral guidelines become so clouded that actions such as those of Elena Kagan should be overlooked? That is certainly one conclusion I would have to make, unless, of course, Snowe and Collins are no different than the other 98 U.S. Senators who fail at their jobs miserably and haven’t spent anytime at all gathering facts about Elena Kagan.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions yesterday made comments attacking Kagan’s nomination saying it would be a “dangerous” appointment. The video (below) is 3:21 long and not once does Sen. Sessions refer to any specific reasons she would be a “dangerous” appointment other than he thinks she is cast in the mold of Barack Obama and specifically hand selected by the President for that purpose. He may be right but why not take the opportunity while addressing the rest of the Senate and specifically lay out all the unethical and law breaking reasons she would be a “dangerous” appointment? Yet, another example of a U.S. Senator failing his constituency by not speaking out with all the facts.

What’s to hide?

Tom Remington

Washington, D.C. – In appearances on the Fox News Channel this week, NAACP executive Hilary Shelton claimed he attended a major tea party event despite having said three days before that he had not attended a tea party, was “afraid” to go to a tea party rally and had only watched media reports about them.

“Did Hilary Shelton lie to me?” asked Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “If he can’t give a simple, straightforward answer about whether he has been to a tea party, that certainly calls the truthfulness of his other claims about the tea party movement into question.”

On the July 16 edition of “America’s Newsroom” on the Fox News Channel, Borelli and Shelton — the NAACP’s senior vice president for advocacy — debated the merits of the NAACP’s resolution decrying alleged instances of racism at tea party events. In this debate, Shelton claimed to have attended the tea party rally at the U.S. Capitol on the weekend of the House of Representative’s vote on health care:

Borelli: “Have you been to a tea party?”

Shelton: “I was. As a matter of fact I was on Capitol Hill at that tea party rally ”

However, on the July 13 edition of “America Live,” he had a different answer when asked the same question by Phil Dennis of the Dallas Tea Party:

Dennis: “Have you been to a tea party event?”

Shelton: “I have watched you on TV. I’m afraid to go I have not.”

Which is it?

“The increasing politicization of the NAACP is putting the reputation of this venerable civil rights institution at risk. For it to be allowed to be used as a weapon to attack the tea party movement calls its credibility into question, and Hilary Shelton telling two tales of his interactions with the tea party is troubling,” added Borelli. “I would suggest he take the time to read the tea party’s Contract from America and attend a tea party rally — for the first or second time — with an open mind.”

Video of both interviews can be seen at http://tw0.us/Jho.

President Barack Obama has nominated Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and now Solicitor General under Obama, to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I have written a few articles on Kagan’s nomination mostly in regard to Second Amendment issues. Find those here, here, here, and here, here.

Like with any Supreme Court nominee, there is more to the person than simply how they stand on Second Amendment. Isn’t it just as important to know about a person’s character, maybe even to know whether they find little problem with lying, cheating and stealing?

A reader tipped me off the other day to events that have been taking place for some time at Harvard Law School, especially during the time that Elena Kagan was the Dean. It appears there is nothing short of an epidemic (at least by using Barack Obama’s standards for what entails an epidemic) of plagiarism by some of Harvard Law’s well-known associates – Alan Dershowitz, Charles Ogletree and Laurence Tribe.

The history is long and sordid dating back several years. You can find much information about this from the links given to me by a reader who claims to have been following this story for several years and puzzles over why nobody is talking about this during the Kagan hearings. The Harvard Plagiarism Archive is a good place to start and the below video I’ve posted can be found at the Harvard Parody.

Personally I have little, if anything, at stake if Harvard Law School wants to pump out liars, cheaters and stealers. They only stand to ruin their name and reputation, resulting a continued “dumbing down”, if you will, of the quality of student wanting to attend. This of course will lead to nowhere in a hurry. However, all Americans have a stake in this because as Dean of Harvard Law School, according to documents provided in these links, Elena Kagan was aware of copying and pasting of other scholars’ work into books and other documents claimed by Dershowitz, Ogletree and Tribe and essentially did nothing about it. Even more troubling is that Kagan, as Dean, investigated accusations against Laurence Tribe about his using students to ghostwrite and plagiarizing for his book and other works. A real conflict of interest exists here in that Kagan used to ghostwrite for Tribe.

Plagiarism is a serious offense. Caught in the act, a student will be bounced out on their ear but evidently it is an acceptable practice at Harvard Law School for professors and staff; at least under Kagan’s watch. The ramifications of stealing another person’s scholarship goes far beyond the obvious dishonesty and threatens the very foundation of academic scholarship, much as Climategate has rattled and cracked the scientific world leaving millions not knowing who to believe or trust.

I have to concur with the person who tipped me off about this Harvard plagiarism affair and ask much the same question: Why isn’t this being discussed during the Kagan nomination process? This knowledge challenges the very core of a person’s character; the very ethos no American should desire to see of a person sitting on the highest court in this land.

Surely members of the Senate must be aware of this……aren’t they? Do they want to know? How deeply tied are these Senators to Dershowitz, Ogletree and Tribe? Is this all just Washington “business as usual/politics as usual”?

For Elena Kagan, as dean of any college, to show such disregard for obvious plagiarism is an abomination but to take it upon herself to investigate the person she used to ghostwrite for, simply reeks of dishonesty and a cover-up or better yet a good, old-fashioned Washington, D.C. whitewash.

The video that follows is a parody of the entire Harvard plagiarism fiasco. It is about 30 minutes long and covers an array of plagiarism and ghostwriting accusations, who knew about them and when, and what if anything was done about them. It’s all quite disgusting to be honest.

While Kagan’s dishonesty and track record on Second Amendment issues tells me this woman should never sit on any court and should never have been allowed to hold the position as Solicitor General, the character of this woman shown in this information, degrades her to that of a common criminal, one who can’t excel in life without the assistance of lying, cheating and stealing and covering it up for herself and others.

Shame on the Senate for not getting to the bottom of this in their vetting process. If you think this information is important in selecting a Justice to sit on the Supreme Court, pass it on to everyone you know and most importantly, send it to your Senator.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

The questions came from David Ridenour, Dr. Tom Borelli and Deneen Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who inquired about:

* extreme attacks on conservatives by the GE-owned MSNBC,

* GE’s extensive lobbying for cap-and-trade,

* the possibility of a conservative/Republican backlash against GE,

* how much the adoption of ObamaCare will cost GE;

* any GE lobbying for ObamaCare.

The National Center for Public Policy Research owns GE stock.

“MSNBC, part of GE’s NBC Universal, runs programming that is offensive to a substantial portion of the population. Keith Olbermann has called the Tea Party movement the ‘Tea Klux Klan’ and has said the Republican Party wants to re-impose Jim Crow Laws,” said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center. “Whatever your political outlook, I said [to Immelt], this doesn’t make sense for GE… I also asked what he was doing to address the perception — especially among conservatives — that GE stands against them. Quite a bit of applause followed. Immelt didn’t answer but went to the next question.”

Later, Ridenour asked the same question, noting he never received a reply the first time. Immelt said GE has never attempted to influence the programming of its news or public affairs programs. Immelt repeated that when specifically asked about an April 16, 2009 New York Post Page Six story reporting that a three-hour meeting took place between Immelt and top CNBC executives and on-air talent for the purpose of making sure CNBC had not become “too conservative.”

“I asked Immelt about GE’s support of cap-and-trade and the letter from its political action committee that stated Waxman-Markey would good for its business,” said Tom Borelli, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “I specifically asked how much money GE was going to make if cap-and-trade passes. Immelt responded that he did not know, and I told him that was a joke. My second question was focused on the political risk of GE/Immelt being so closely associated with the Obama Administration. I added that stopping cap-and-trade is highly ranked on the Tea Party’s ‘Contract for America,’ and by pushing against the movement the company could experience reputational and political risk. Finally, I mentioned there could be a backlash against GE if the House flips to Republicans. I asked Immelt if he is concerned about or measures political risk. He didn’t acknowledge a political risk.”

In light of John Deere and Caterpillar having to write off expenses against their earnings because of ObamaCare, Deneen Borelli of Project 21 asked Immelt how much ObamaCare will cost GE. “Immelt had Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman Keith Sherin respond, and he said the amount was $15 million for first quarter 2010 and additional costs going forward… My final question was did GE lobby for ObamaCare? Immelt said they did not individually lobby on health care and that their position was covered through the Business Roundtable,” said Deneen Borelli.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has questioned Mr. Immelt in the past. Go here for a video of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly interviewing Tom Borelli about the 2008 GE stockholder meeting and here for information about news reports detailing Jeff Immelt’s alleged retaliation.

Let’s face it. We now have Obamacare because we voted for him to be president out of hatred toward George W. Bush. However, electing Barack Hussein Obama only expedited the inevitable. You and I have sat on our hands for so long now, allowing laws to be passed in this land that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution. I know of nobody in Washington that evens considers the Constitution a worthy document.

This may be our last chance to reverse the tide. If we continue to elect representatives who view our Constitution as nothing but old, worthless history, our future is doomed and will be short lived. We can turn this around but it can’t happen on its own.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, DC: Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is condemning President Barack Obama’s decision to urge Senate leaders to employ controversial reconciliation rules to force a government takeover of health care.

“The people have spoken, and they have said no to Obama’s radical brand of health care reform,” said Project 21′s Massie. “Putting his seal of approval on usurping regular Senate procedure showcases not just an extraordinary arrogance and a willingness to abuse legislative power, but it also unambiguously indicates his contempt and disregard for the will of the American people.”

In an address from the White House today, Obama expressed a willingness to work with Republicans to pass health care reform. But Obama also suggested that the Senate leadership might instead employ reconciliation rules to limit debate and lower the vote threshold normally needed to pass legislation in that chamber. This would allow the plan’s more unpopular provisions to be enacted.

“During the judicial battles of the Bush years, when there was talk of the employing the ‘nuclear option’ to overcome filibusters, there was great respect among liberals for Senate the procedure of cloture,” noted Massie. “Ultimately, conservative legislators agreed with them and the option was never used. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, liberals are quick to do the very thing that once horrified them. They are refusing to hear the pleas from their colleagues and the American people to scrap their plan and start over.”

Massie continued: “The question to be answered is why are these senators willing to risk their careers and Obama his legacy to force such a miserable piece of legislation? Trying to obfuscate and confuse the use of reconciliation to pass a fundamental overhaul of such a substantial portion of the American economy is dishonest on a level likely never before imagined in the history of the legislative branch. Misrepresenting it as cost-cutting is morally opprobrious and fraudulent. But this is apparently not out of character for those determined to make a free citizenry dependent upon government from cradle to the grave.”

In a February 25 Wall Street Journal commentary, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare “a total affront to the legislative process.” He noted that the process had previously been used only for incremental budget issues or those with wide bipartisan support.

Feld Entertainment and the Ringling Brothers circus are suing the Humane Society of the United States, its lawyers and other animal rights groups. Bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering are some of the charges being leveled against HSUS, its attorneys and other animal rights groups.

“America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely.”

Could it be HSUS will get some of what it deserves?