If you’ve been following this story and you’re only focused on whether Shirley Sherrod should have been fired for her comments about race or not – or whether Andrew Breitbart is guilty of misinforming the public or not – despite the fact there’s a whole lot more context surrounding the hiring of Sherrod in the first place – then this video, from the same NAACP speech Sherrod got herself in trouble for in the first place, is for you.

It seems ol’ Shirley, who claims not to have any hatred or racism in her heart, might have dropped more than just a couple of hints about how she really feels.

(Hat tip to Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit)

Of course, after this ramble torched her career as a USDA wealth redistributor, Sherrod was quoted in saying of Fox News, “they are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to . . . where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.” It’s probably not an over-the-top inference that by Fox News she meant “conservative media” and the fact that, not dissimilar to the left-wing legacy media, it’s dominated by persons of pallor. This is, of course, in line with her accusations in the video.

The long and short of this is that Sherrod is plainly someone who perceives people based on the color of their skins, and it’s quite clear she favors the people who look more like her than not. That actually doesn’t concern us; we’re of the opinion that while we’d all be better off if everybody was color-blind that’s simply not realistic, and human nature tends toward the “birds of a feather” axiom. And it sounds like Sherrod has reasons to distrust white folks based on her personal history.

Nor should she necessarily be fired for having said what she said. If there’s no proof that at USDA Sherrod has discriminated against white people, she could go home and burn effigies of Jefferson Davis or Pat Boone every night and it’s none of our business. We think she was a terrible, if unfortunately typical, hire in a federal position much more because of something nobody has disputed; namely, that she’s all about stealing money from people who earned it so as to give it away to people who haven’t. Her career prior to federal office indicates such a disposition and the NAACP speech makes it manifest to anyone.

But even without the video above, it’s fairly obvious that the winner in this week’s controversy is Andrew Breitbart, who generated an enormous amount of heat and light with the original video and used that attention to discredit the NAACP in the wake of its rather null charge that the Tea Party movement contains racist elements. Pick virtually any segment of Sherrod’s speech and you’ll see that without a doubt the NAACP audience she was addressing was perfectly happy with her taking a strong stand against people from different backgrounds than hers, to be interpreted quite obviously along racial lines. Nobody gets upset when she talks about giving the white farmer the runaround before sending him to “one of his own;” quite the contrary, it’s a hit.

And when she accuses those who disagree with her politically of doing so because the current president is black, which is one of the most scurrillous, offensive and self-discrediting statements anyone can make, nobody in that crowd appears to object. Quite the contrary, again, it’s a hit.

Throw in this new clip, in which Sherrod makes more racially-charged remarks which are indefensible in any context, and we can see that she is precisely what she was advertised to be initially, suspect editing in the initial video or not.

In any case, whether your evidence is Sherrod herself or the audience to whom she spoke, the very same NAACP which attempted to castigate the Tea Party movement for its purported “racist elements” is thus shown on video to contain racist elements of its own. Which was Breitbart’s aim in the first place. That in the bargain Breitbart was able to tie the White House in knots, bring to light the quality of people being hired for federal jobs in this administration and highlight the gross abuses going on with respect to the Pigford cases Sherrod factored so heavily in before she was given (in corrupt fashion?) a position at the USDA, well – sometimes you catch your limit of fish and sometimes you catch just a few more.