Jennifer Rubin, Human Events, May 2, 2008
{snip}
At issue is almost a billion dollars paid out by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for alleged racial discrimination by local offices administering farm loans under the Farm Service Agency. Dan Glickman, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Agriculture, following public complaints and even a White House demonstration by African American farmers in the 1990’s confessed the USDA’s guilt. He declared in a 1997 publication of the USDA news that local officials had “discriminated against some of the very people we were meant to help.”
What followed was a class action lawsuit (originally named Pigford v. Glickman) and a settlement by the Clinton administration in 1999. The consent decree which ended the lawsuit provided that farmers who had suffered discrimination could come forward to present claims and receive compensation.
However, the seeds of a vast scam were sown: with only a simple affidavit signed by someone who alleged he had applied for a loan or merely that he had “attempted to own or lease farm land,” $50,000 (tax free no less) would be paid out. Upon a slightly greater showing of proof (“a preponderance of the evidence”) even more money could be claimed.
Claimants did not need to prove that they ever actually farmed—or ever applied for a loan, only that they “attempted to farm” explains USDA’s General Counsel Marc Kesselman. {snip}
At the time of the consent decree, attorneys for the government assured concerned legislators that the settlement would be manageable. After all, in 1982 there were only an estimated 33,000 African American farmers. In 1997 there were an estimated 18,500 African American farmers. The total number of potential claimants was estimated at between 2500 and 5000.
{snip} Nearly a half a million dollars was spent to advertise on cable TV and in newspapers, with special attention to African American press. Kesselman says forcefully that USDA “went well beyond the provisions of the consent decree” in alerting potential claimants about the settlement. {snip}
Within the original time period for claimants to come forward some 22,440 claims were made. Only 1420 of these were actual borrowers. Employees of USDA and others privy to the details of the settlement are blunt: they consider the vast majority of the claims to have been fraudulent. They suspect that so-called civil rights activists and by class action lawyers eager to sign up as many potential claimants as possible simply rounded up as many individuals as they could find, even if they never farmed, never applied for a loan and never seriously pursued farming. With the minimal proof needed for a $50,000 settlement 67% of the claims were approved by an independent arbitrator.
{snip}
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement more than $700M in claims were paid out and more than $100M in administrative costs have been rung up, for a total of nearly a billion dollars. But that was not enough.
After the initial time period for the settlement ran out in October 1999 the consent decree provided for another period of eleven months whereby claimants upon “extraordinary circumstances” could still file claims. More than 65,000 additional claimants stepped forward to file claim requests. Another 8000 then came forward with their late claims. (So in a universe of 18,500 farmers in 1997, 96,000 individuals managed to make claims.) But there had been a court-imposed deadline. {snip}
Plaintiffs’ lawyers and activists began the hue and cry, claiming notice to potential class members had been inadequate and there was no remedy for those who missed the deadline. {snip}
Under HR 3073 and a companion bill in the Senate, these activists sought to extend the deadline, in essence overruling the consent decree. Another 75,000 claimants could possibly prevail if new claims could now be brought. (Of those identified only 85 have been confirmed as actual borrowers.) An estimated $3B more could be required to administer and pay out these claims.
The farm bill currently caps the amount for paying out additional Pigford claims at $100M. Kesselman says that “the math doesn’t add up” and we “need to be honest in the accounting.” He also stresses that USDA and the federal courts, which have already weighed in with concerns about the effect on their docket should the legislation pass, need to be given adequate resources if they are expected to administer thousands of new claims. {snip}
{snip}
Although the evidence is plain, the fear of being labeled as “insensitive” or “opposing civil rights remedies” has kept most every legislator from stepping forward to challenge the gravy train of cash give away. After all, it’s only your money.
{snip}
American Renaissance described this spectacular fraud in detail in the Febraury 2001 cover story. Learn the sorry facts here: http://www.amren.com/ar/2001/02/
Original article
(Posted on May 5, 2008)
Comments
“Within the original time period for claimants to come forward some 22,440 claims were made. Only 1420 of these were actual borrowers. Employees of USDA and others privy to the details of the settlement are blunt: they consider the vast majority of the claims to have been fraudulent.”
Of course they are not, since the blood sacrifice of a white woman, or better still a young virgin white girl, has not been made!
On the question of “farming,” only one country must be considered as a model, and that country is Zimbabwe, the former “racist” factory farm that was Rhodesia until the USA and the UK (among many other accomplices and fashionable Euro enablers) saw to it that the white minority and farmers there, got what they deserved. Thus the “discriminated” against black farmer there has achieved a zenith of harvest, that only the West in its lethargic sickness, could find as acceptably worth importing if not in wholesale, at least in “retail.”
And so we do, as a mythologized black “farming” class in the USA is “bloodlessly” allowed to rape the white American taxpayer, through governmental fiats. A “comfortable” redistribution of land and produce reaped at midnight in a hypocritical garden of “good” and evil.
“After all, it’s only your money,” and not your buttocks “whitey.”
What more to say?
Well, of course…
As always, God help us all!
Posted by John PM at 8:48 PM on May 5
I’ve said it before I’ll say it again. Once people in a democracy figure out they can vote themselves money it is doomed to fail. This why our wise founders gave us a republic, which we have sadly basically undermined. We have gone from a populist, protectionist country, to a democratic fascist socialist,one worlder, and I see no relief in sight.
Posted by at 10:57 PM on May 5
Pigford seems an apt name for someone who wants so much from the public trough.
It makes me feel really good for having had to save up for a $1000 dental crown while paying taxes to support this travsty.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 3:16 AM on May 6
here is the NYT in 2003.
“As part of a settlement for the case in 1997, the Agriculture Department agreed to let farmers seek $50,000 settlements in cases where the government determined that it had discriminated. Washington has paid $634 million in 12,690 cases and denied 8,540 cases.”
Rubin doesn’t actually cite any figures for how many were paid out since then………..
So 12,690 claims were honored, and there were 33,000 black farnmers when the settlement was reached (it is irrelevant what was going on 15 years later).
So about a third of black farmers successfuly claimed discrimination in loaning practices.
There may or may not have been fraudulent claims, but there is nothing extraordinary about these figures.
There should have been a higher burden of proof, then we woudn’t be having this pointless discussion now.
Just how alert are AMREN readers?
Posted by elitist at 4:15 AM on May 6
The government did a good job of keeping this from the public. Our money being wasted because of White guilt.
Posted by at 8:02 AM on May 6
A running joke in Chicago is that after a Chicago Transit Authority accident, there are blacks running up to and getting on the bus in order to get in on any civil settlement resulting from the accident. So blacks have simply translated this “free money” behavior to other areas of legal endeavor.
Posted by at 10:49 AM on May 6
“Pursuant to the terms of the settlement more than $700M in claims were paid out and more than $100M in administrative costs have been rung up, for a total of nearly a billion dollars. But that was not enough.”
When will this massive payout for white guilt stop? Is it black farmers that feed the nation? Do we even import food from any majority black nations? Isn’t the flow of food completely in the other direction?
Posted by Sardonicus at 4:02 PM on May 6
It is not only government paying out bigtime, corporations are losing billions due to fraud and corruption by blacks, and that is why the dollar is losing value daily. The smart money knows this and are moving investments to nations with fewer “problems”.
Posted by Lars at 7:25 PM on May 6
Is it possible that Gov’t charity payments to blacks exceed the amount blacks “earn” each year in the private sector?
Posted by at 11:19 PM on May 7
“Is it possible that Gov’t charity payments to blacks exceed the amount blacks “earn” each year in the private sector?”
No.
http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/recip.shtml
Blacks get around $718 (1999) EACH more than they pay to government. This means that Blacks are essentially parasites on Asians (-$1730) and Whites (-$651) when it comes to government goods and services. Any you wonder why Blacks are the core support of the Democratic party and why Democrats continually promote gun control to keep their felon base alive?
Posted by at 11:05 AM on May 8
