RUSH: Erie, Pennsylvania. Valerie you’re up first today. Nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. Shirley Sherrod’s reconciliation statement that she made was laudable, but then she realized that her real discrimination was for those who ‘have’ versus those who ‘have not.’ Doesn’t that mean she’s the perfect employee for this administration —
CALLER: — of redistribution?
RUSH: Exactly right.
CALLER: She should have a seat on Obama’s cabinet!
RUSH: That’s right. That’s Obamunism. That’s exactly right. She finally figured it out: It’s haves versus have-nots. That’s what Obamunism is; that’s the route to redistribution.
CALLER: That’s what nobody’s talking about. That’s what her discriminations are.
RUSH: Well, they are talking about it in a way because ‘the haves versus the have-nots’ is a great moral crusade for the left. The haves versus have-nots, class warfare, is a great moral crusade. So she’s now a moral crusader. She has fully rehabbed herself in that regard. You know, something that some people are talking about — very few, but — when she was going through on that videotape that Breitbart put on his website, when she’s talking about not helping the white farmer because of what had happened to her only people (you know, she’d slough the white farmer off onto ‘one of his own,’ a white lawyer), the people in the NAACP audience were applauding and nodding in support of her comments about the white farmer. And the ‘context’ of that is irrelevant.
Why was the audience of the NAALCP meeting doing that, when they presumably did not know the end of what she was going to say before she said it? When they thought she was talking about getting even with the man (clapping), they were all nodding their heads and applauding. I simply mentioned this because the NAACP and the media cannot explain this and they won’t explain it. The applause and the approving nods are not taken out of context, as best I can tell. How would you take those out of context? When the audience thought this woman was into her full-fledged, let’s-get-at-the-man routine, they were all up for it, applauding and nodding. Just like the people at the NAACP audience who were applauding and laughing when Reverend Wright mocked and attacked white people.
Let’s not kid ourselves here. The effort here now is to say that Shirley Sherrod, there was no racism there! There’s no racism at the NAACP. That’s what’s going on. That was the objective in the first place. The objective in getting rid of her summarily, without examining what she had said, was to make sure, ‘Hey, there’s no racism here. We are the victims of racism. It ain’t possible for any of us to be racist; we don’t have the power to be racist,’ and then they thought that Shirley Sherrod had done something and said something that was racially oriented or racist oriented so, bam! She gets thrown under the bus because they have to have the mirage.
They have to have the image that when it comes to racism they’re not guilty. They are innocent, clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. So that’s why she was thrown overboard. The idea that the conservatives made this happen? You know, you people in the media, so-called media, you’re just apparatchiks. You know, apparatchik, by the way, is the right term. ‘Apparatchik’ is a Russian colloquial term. It stands for full-time professional functionary of the party or government. So rather than call them ‘media people,’ they’re apparatchiks. They were just eager as they could be to make sure that they were not tarred and feathered with the racism that they were accusing people of having, because they knew it would undermine their own credibility.