U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination

Sharon LaFraniere, New York Times, April 25, 2013

In the winter of 2010, after a decade of defending the government against bias claims by Hispanic and female farmers, Justice Department lawyers seemed to have victory within their grasp.

Ever since the Clinton administration agreed in 1999 to make $50,000 payments to thousands of black farmers, the Hispanics and women had been clamoring in courtrooms and in Congress for the same deal. They argued, as the African-Americans had, that biased federal loan officers had systematically thwarted their attempts to borrow money to farm.

But a succession of courts—and finally the Supreme Court—had rebuffed their pleas. Instead of an army of potential claimants, the government faced just 91 plaintiffs. Those cases, the government lawyers figured, could be dispatched at limited cost.

They were wrong.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections—until now undisclosed—of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal—the $50,000 payouts to black farmers—had proved a magnet for fraud.

{snip}

The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.

Yet those concerns were played down as the compensation effort grew. Though the government has started requiring more evidence to support some claims, even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation.

As a senator, Barack Obama supported expanding compensation for black farmers, and then as president he pressed for $1.15 billion to pay those new claims. Other groups quickly escalated their demands for similar treatment. In a letter to the White House in September 2009, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading Hispanic Democrat, threatened to mount a campaign “outside the Beltway” if Hispanic farmers were not compensated.

{snip}

A 2010 settlement with Native Americans was contentious for its own reasons. Justice Department lawyers argued that the $760 million agreement far outstripped the potential cost of a defeat in court. Agriculture officials said not that many farmers would file claims.

That prediction proved prophetic. Only $300 million in claims were filed, leaving nearly $400 million in the control of plaintiffs’ lawyers to be distributed among a handful of nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers. Two and a half years later, the groups have yet to be chosen. It is unclear how many even exist.

The Times’s examination was based on thousands of pages of court and confidential government documents, as well as interviews with dozens of claimants, lawyers, former and current government officials and others involved in the cases over the past 14 years. {snip}

Mr. Vilsack has said the compensation effort ushers in “a new chapter of civil rights at U.S.D.A.,” where “we celebrate diversity instead of discriminate against it.”

In an interview, he said the payments had been fully justified and carefully controlled. Fraud has been a “really, really small part of it,” he added, pointing out that so far, three of every 10 claims had been rejected and only three claimants had been convicted of fraud.

{snip}

Mr. Vilsack blamed disgruntled Agriculture Department employees for the criticism of the payouts, saying some simply refused to acknowledge the pervasiveness of discrimination. “There are a lot of agendas here, and you are opening up a Pandora’s box,” he said.

{snip}

{snip} The original lawsuit, Pigford v. Glickman, filed in federal court in Washington in August 1997, argued that the Agriculture Department’s credit bureau, now called the Farm Service Agency, routinely denied or limited loans to black farmers while freely distributing them to whites.

Two government reports that year found no evidence of ongoing, systemic discrimination. The Government Accountability Office reported that 16 percent of minority farmers were denied loans, compared with 10 percent of white farmers, but traced the difference to objective factors like bad credit. An Agriculture Department study also found “no consistent picture of disparity” over the previous two years.

But the study concluded that decades of discrimination before then had cost African-American farmers significant amounts of land and income. Black farmers gave heart-rending accounts of loan officers who withheld promised money while crops withered, who repossessed their land and sold it to white cronies, who advised them to milk cows for white farmers rather than sow their own crops.

{snip}

There were certainly legal reasons to resolve the case. The presiding federal judge, Paul L. Friedman, was clearly unsympathetic to the government’s arguments. Moreover, the Justice Department was barred from appealing his certification of the lawsuit as a class action until after the case was over. That set the stage for a potentially long and costly battle.

Still, “it was more a political decision than a litigation decision,” said one lawyer familiar with the administration’s stance. “The administration was genuinely sympathetic to the plight of these farmers.”

Mr. Clinton asked Carol Willis, then a senior adviser to the Democratic National Committee who was known for his expertise in black voter turnout, to get involved. Mr. Willis said the president wanted to make sure his home state, Arkansas, benefited. Mr. Willis said he recruited Othello Cross, a Pine Bluff lawyer, to join the plaintiffs’ legal team.

“It had been wrong for many years,” Mr. Willis said. “Clinton figured he had to try to right it.”

So did Judge Friedman.

He initially limited the class of potential claimants to African-Americans who had farmed between 1981 and 1996 and had previously filed written discrimination complaints. But his final order significantly expanded the class, admitting those who had only “attempted to farm.” And it threw out the requirement for a written bias complaint, stating that an oral complaint was sufficient if someone other than a family member attested to it in an affidavit.

The Agriculture Department was partly to blame for the lack of records. It routinely discarded failed loan applications after three years, and it had badly mismanaged written discrimination complaints. Ninety percent of the farmers had no records either, plaintiffs’ lawyers said.

The billion-dollar settlement, the judge’s opinion said, was designed to provide “those class members with little or no documentary evidence with a virtually automatic cash payment of $50,000.” Those with documentary proof could seek higher awards, a tack ultimately chosen by fewer than 1 percent of applicants.

{snip}

Delton Wright, a Pine Bluff justice of the peace, recalled what happened after word of the settlement reached his impoverished region: “It just went wild. Some people took the money who didn’t even have a garden in the ground.” He added, “They didn’t make it hard at all, and that’s why people jumped on it.”

Mr. Wright, whose family owns farmland outside Pine Bluff, won his claim. So did two other applicants whose claims were virtually identical to his, with the same rounded handwriting, the same accusations of bias and similar descriptions of damages suffered.

Now 57, with his memory weakened by what he said was a recent stroke, Mr. Wright said he could not recall details of the discrimination he encountered, much less explain the apparent duplicate claims.

{snip}

Claimants described how, at packed meetings, lawyers’ aides would fill out forms for them on the spot, sometimes supplying answers “to keep the line moving,” as one put it.

Even his own staff was complicit, Mr. Cross said; he discovered that four employees had been slipping unverified claims into stacks of papers that he signed. He did not inform the court monitor, he said, because “the damage was done.”

On two floors of the Cotton Annex building in Washington, a 300-member team from the Farm Service Agency reviewed claims before adjudicators rendered their final decisions. In recent interviews, 15 current and former Agriculture Department employees who reviewed or responded to claims said the loose conditions for payment had opened the floodgates to fraud.

“It was the craziest thing I have ever seen,” one former high-ranking department official said. “We had applications for kids who were 4 or 5 years old. We had cases where every single member of the family applied.” The official added, “You couldn’t have designed it worse if you had tried.”

Carl K. Bond, a former Agriculture Department farm loan manager in North Carolina, reviewed thousands of claims over six years.

I probably could have got paid,” said Mr. Bond, who is black. “You knew it was wrong, but what could you do? Who is going to listen to you?”

{snip}

The true dimensions of the problem are impossible to gauge. The Agriculture Department insists that the names and addresses of claimants are protected under privacy provisions. But department data released in response to a Freedom of Information request by The Times are telling. The data cover 15,601 African-Americans who filed successful claims and were paid before 2009.

In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.

In Maple Hill, a struggling town in southeastern North Carolina, the number of people paid was nearly four times the total number of farms. More than one in nine African-American adults there received checks. In Little Rock, Ark., a confidential list of payments shows, 10 members of one extended family collected a total of $500,000, and dozens of other successful claimants shared addresses, phone numbers or close family connections.

{snip}

Some 66,000 claims poured in after the 1999 deadline. Noting that the government had given “extensive” notice, Judge Friedman ruled the door closed to late filers. “That is simply how class actions work,” he wrote.

But it was not how politics worked. The next nine years brought a concerted effort to allow the late filers to seek awards. Career Agriculture Department officials warned that they might be even more problematic than initial claimants: in one ZIP code in Columbus, Ohio, nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed, according to the former high-ranking agency official.

{snip}

Public criticism came primarily from conservative news outlets like Breitbart.com and from Congressional conservatives like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who described the program as rife with fraud. Few Republicans or Democrats supported him. Asked why, Mr. King said, “Never underestimate the fear of being called a racist.”

Congress finally inserted a provision in the 2008 farm bill allowing late filers to bring new lawsuits, with their claims to be decided by the same standard of evidence as before. {snip}

Congress overrode a veto by Mr. Bush, who objected to other provisions in the bill. But as Mr. Bush left Washington, Congress had appropriated only $100 million for compensation, hardly enough to pay for processing claims.

Within months of taking office, President Obama promised to seek an additional $1.15 billion. In November 2010, Congress approved the funds. {snip}

But simultaneously, the Agriculture Department abandoned the costly and burdensome review process it had applied to earlier claims. As a result, according to internal government memos, the percentage of successful claims is expected to exceed that in the original 1999 settlement. More than 40,000 claims have been filed and are under review.

{snip}

The Bush Justice Department had rebuffed all efforts to settle the parallel discrimination suits brought by Native American, Hispanic and female farmers. But now, the Obama administration’s efforts to compensate African-American farmers intensified pressure from members of Congress and lobbyists to settle those cases as well.

{snip}

The Native-American case was clearly problematic for the government.{snip}

But Justice Department litigators were far from unarmed. If they lost on damages, case law suggested that the decision might be reversed. Depositions had revealed many of the individual farmers’ complaints to be shaky. And federal judges had already scornfully rejected the methodology of the plaintiffs’ expert, a former Agriculture Department official named Patrick O’Brien, in the women’s case.

Mr. O’Brien contended that white farmers were two to three times as likely as Native Americans to receive federal farm loans in the 1980s and 1990s than were other farmers. But the government’s expert, Gordon C. Rausser, a professor of economics and statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, had produced a 340-page report stating that Mr. O’Brien’s conclusions were based “in a counter-factual world” and that Native Americans had generally fared as well as white male farmers.

Professor Rausser was astounded when, with both sides gearing up for trial in late 2009, the government began settlement negotiations. “If they had gone to trial, the government would have prevailed,” he said.

“It was just a joke,” he added. “I was so disgusted. It was simply buying the support of the Native-Americans.”

{snip}

On Feb. 19, 2010, Alan Wiseman, a lawyer for the Hispanic farmers, strode into Federal District Court in Washington unusually upbeat. “Sometimes,” he told Judge James Robertson, “it takes divine intervention” to move the government.

Over the past decade, his case had not gone well. Nor had the parallel lawsuit brought by female farmers.

Judge Robertson had refused to certify either group as a class. The United States Court of Appeals had upheld him, stating in 2006 that the Hispanic plaintiffs had been denied loans “for a variety of reasons, including inadequate farm plans and lack of funds.” Nor had female farmers proved a pattern of bias, the court found.

The Justice Department’s lawyers had definitively ruled out any group-style settlement. {snip}

Michael Sitcov, assistant director of the Justice Department’s federal program branch, told the judge that senior department officials agreed with career litigators that the cases should be fought one by one.

But members of the Congressional Hispanic caucus and a group of eight Democratic senators, led by Mr. Menendez, were lobbying the White House to move in the opposite direction. They grew increasingly agitated as the plaintiffs’ cases appeared to falter.

In a letter to Mr. Obama in June 2009, the senators noted that black farmers stood to receive $2.25 billion in compensation, but that Hispanic farmers, who alleged the same kind of discrimination, had gotten nothing. Should that continue, Mr. Menendez wrote that September, “Hispanic farmers and ranchers, and their supporters, will be reaching out to community and industry leaders outside of the Beltway in order to bring wider attention to this problem.”

The issue came to a head after the Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue of class certification. The next month, on Feb. 11, 2010, Daniel J. Meltzer, principal deputy White House counsel, held the first of three meetings at which resolution of the case was discussed, records and interviews show. Among the attendees were senior Justice and Agriculture Department officials, including Mr. West, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, and Krysta Harden, then the assistant agriculture secretary for Congressional relations.

Settlement negotiations began the next week. Judge Robertson expressed surprise at the news, “given the history of the case.”

{snip}

In agreeing to the payout, the government did, for the first time, impose a greater evidentiary burden. While one major category of claimants—those who said their loan applications had been unfairly denied—remained eligible for payments of up to $50,000 without any documentation, others were required to produce written evidence that they had complained of bias at the time. The Hispanic plaintiffs were indignant.

{snip}

The claims process opened in late September, six weeks before the election. In the weeks before the March 25 deadline, facing far fewer claimants than expected, the Agriculture Department instructed processors to call about 16,000 people to remind them that time was running out, despite internal disquiet that the government was almost recruiting claims against itself. The deadline was then extended to May 1.

So far, about 1,900 Hispanics and 24,000 women have sought compensation, many in states where middlemen have built a cottage industry, promising to help win payouts for a fee.

{snip}

[Editor’s Note: Absent from the Times report is the fact that American Renaissance reported on the Pigford fraud back in February 2001.]

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • edwina

    one of thousands of reasons why I hate paying taxes………

    gross misuse of taxes………. abuse of taxpayers

    • Bill

      Use of taxes to victimize tax payers (mainly whites) by subsidizing housing so blacks and Mexicans can live next to you in houses they’d never be allowed to have, and destroy your neighborhood having destroyed every one of their own. Use of taxes to indoctrinate the next generation into hating themselves for being white, and hating US for noticing and objecting. Use of taxes to aid Muslim Brotherhood in their battles to make various mid-eastern nations even MORE radical. And it goes on and on. They don’t just steal from us to redistribute our money to non-deserving “others”. They steal from us through taxes to DESTROY us. Like killing the goose which lays the golden eggs, but yet they tell us they are oh so much smarter than we hick AmRenners.

  • Puggg

    Wasn’t AmRen the first source that exposed the Pigford fraud?

    • Eagle_Eyed

      Yep. See the note at the end of the article.

    • The__Bobster

      http://www.vdare.com/posts/pigford-nyt-2013-story-almost-catching-up-to-vdarecoms-2006-story

      Pigford: NYT 2013 Story Almost Catching Up To VDARE.com’s 2006 Story
      By James Fulford on April 26, 2013 at 12:20pm

      Steve Sailer, below, links to a story on the “Black Farmers”/Pigford law suits from the NYT: Federal Spigot Flows as Farmers Claim Bias, By Sharon Lafraniere, April 23, 2013.

      The story we published was Louis T. March’s coverage of the fraud rings that had sprung up around Pigford claims was published in 2006.

      While it was Obama’s administration that decided to not defend these claims, the scam has been going on since the Clinton Administration.

    • Secret Tribunal

      Exposing fraudulent money transfers for White privilege to oppressed minorities is deemed a Hate Crime.

    • sbuffalonative

      EVERYONE, please go to this link. They’re crediting Breitbart for breaking this story.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/new-york-times-andrew-breitbart-90681.html?hp=l12

      This is a great chance to link people with American Renaissance. I’ve aleady posted the link twice to the orginal AR piece from 2001.

      Keep posting. Keep linking:

      http://www.amren.com/ar/pdfs/2001/200102ar.pdf

      • Puggg

        I’ve already posted over at Politico. I’m sure I’ll be deleted in pretty short order, so that’s why we should keep doing it repeatedly.

    • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

      Andrew Breitbart

  • Bet a dollar bill all that money these people got is “Gone With The Wind”.
    I’ve witnessed payday in the Army, ’69-71, where a small bunch of duffus’s would get their money and without a thought roll the dice in my room which was not ten feet from the pay officers desk. “Sheet man, now I’m broke.”

    • Katherine McChesney

      Dumb as a mud fence they are.

  • Jo Stimpson

    Obama makes LBJ look like a spendthrift.

    • The__Bobster

      I think you got that backwards. Obama makes LBJ look like a penny pincher.

  • K

    Barack Obongo is the distilled essence of everything that is wrong, bad, and stupid about America today.

    • bigone4u

      A hip-hop president for a hip-hop nation. Not my nation though. Screw him.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    Let me get this straight. The Feds subsidize loans for farmers (at the expense of everyone else) because black and brown farmers have poor credit and no rational bank wants to lose money giving it to NAMs. But, because this is the real world and not Marxist-fantasy land, even the less-restrictive government loan officers have to reject more blacks and browns since the government had standards.

    Flash forward. A few lawyers sniffing around for a way to skim money from the productive file a class action suit against the government which gave less-than-credit-worthy borrowers the chance at a farm (something made possible only by government loans). Apparently the logic was derived from a kindergarten class. If you give out goodies then everyone gets some.

    So naturally corruption occurs. The case gets shipped to liberal justices who rule against the government (which, once again, is the reason *any* poor black or brown got a loan). Because discrimination is bad, every NAM who said he was denied gets $50,000. And the same government which got sued for “trying to right a wrong” (even though we know there is nothing wrong with banks denying risky loans) doesn’t fight back against a ridiculous settlement which is arbitrarily high and costly to a country trillions in debt.

    A government which breaks the constraints as placed on it by the people isn’t something new, but a government which doesn’t follow it’s own rules is no longer legitimate. Washington is one large anti-white mafia which does only what is in the interests of non-whites. Anarcho-tyranny indeed.

    • So CAL Snowman

      Has their ever been a government in history that has so completely turned on its native people? Has there ever been a government in history that has declared the founding stock of said country to be the enemy?

      • Dr. X

        From what I’ve read, the UK and France are working on it as well…

        • Paleoconn

          Many European countries actually. It is really a White pathology.

      • Der Typ

        Hitler ordered all the means for the Germans to survive destroyed at the end of the war. Thankfully Speer disobeyed him. I would also say Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all turned on their people pretty hard. Pol Pot probably being the worst example.

        I agree with your sentiment, but you asked so I stuck my 2 cents in.

  • dave1163sag

    all these mutts have to do is cry racism and the whites and the govt will start shaking in their boots. the blacks now how to play the system,too bad they dont how to get a job and invent or cure anything. its time for whites to start crying racism. we are the ones who are really discriminated against. the problem is we have no one with balls to state the truth. where is our organizations to fight black racism against whites? i cant believe how scared the white race has become.

  • bigone4u

    US President Barack Obama is a corrupt lying sociopath. His financial irresponsibility is as big as his ego. Kudos to the NY Times for its reporting, laying bare the workings of a government that no longer serves the people.

    • Secret Tribunal

      He’s not a sociopath. He’s a Bois Caiman Boukman. Acting entirely natural for his nature is not sociopathology. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it wrong. What is evil in him is his good. We are a different species, so our medical terminology doesn’t apply to his voodoo. Stop insulting genuine sociopaths like us.

  • Secret Tribunal

    Better Living Through Modern Racism says,

    “It doesn’t matter how the FedGov does it or what laws or what Constitutional oaths are broken, as long as the national debt increases so fast and so large that eventually, very soon, it wipes out White privilege through inevitable massive taxation and inflation, then we can truly say we ‘did the right thing’ and made St. MLK proud of us.”

    White privilege is the enemy; Obama is the final solution.

  • The__Bobster

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/obama-hands-out-billions-in-fraudulent-bias-claims-to-black-farmers

    Obama Hands Out Billions In Fraudulent Bias Claims To “Black Farmers”
    By Steve Sailer on April 26, 2013 at 11:04am

    I’m shocked, shocked to learn that former civil rights lawyer turned Chicago politician Barack Obama has been handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to largely fraudulent civil rights plaintiffs.

  • Caledwych

    As I read this, I kept thinking of the Roman Empire post 476 AD.Various barbarian tribes picking the corpse of a once-great Empire,just getting “their share” while the body decays.All you diversity trolls,you’re going to miss us “evil racist white folks” once we’re gone;who’s going to pay for all the goodies you’re getting?For all you fellow AmReners and like minded people,you need to stop pledging allegiance to a nation and government that despises everything about you and your culture but continually robs you.Shocking as it sounds,I quit pretending to be an “American” years ago and put my loyalty to my tribe…why not,blacks and hispanics do it so what’s good for them…..

    • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

      You’d find actually reading the history of the actual decline and fall of Rome. I suggest the classic, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” by Edward Gibbon. Not just the starting point for any serious student of modern Western History, but a literary classic as well. It really wasn’t quite “those barbarians,” (your racial ancestors) but some other ones of a still popular religious delusion.

      • Caledwych

        Whiteplight,in fact “those barbarians”were my ancestors but I was making an allegorical statement–Odoecer and his Visigoths could frankly have cared less about “Roman values and culture” as they plundered Rome,in the same way that the oh-so-noble “people of color’ care not a whit about ours.Myself,I put no stock in being an “American” anymore.Until the inevitable disolution of the USA occurs and Cascadia forms,I consider myself stateless and a wage/tax slave of a crumbling empire.

      • saxonsun

        Yes, Gibbon held Christianity responsible for the collapse of the Roman Empire. Although he gives Christianity too much credit for this, he still has a point.

    • Dr. X

      “You need to stop pledging allegiance to a nation and government that
      despises everything about you and your culture but continually robs you.
      Shocking as it sounds, I quit pretending to be an “American” years ago…” Quite right! Whites who pledge allegiance to the American flag and believe in patriotism are merely screwing themselves. This nation has become a criminal-run organization in which Obama and his ilk are merely plundering the wealth created by our White ancestors. I’ve offended a few veterans with my contempt for the U.S., but so what? I refuse to honor the flag that a Marxist “community organizer” with ties to known communists and Sixties terrorists displays on Air Force One. Why pledge to the flag of a nation that has actively discriminated against white males for the last 40 years in blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause?? Let this country burn. I’m about as loyal to the American flag as George Washington was to the Union Jack.

      • Erasmus

        Agreed. Raised in a military family and still having deep respect for most of the men and women who wear the uniform, I now urge them not to throw their lives away serving in the military. Oh, if one must go in because of economic hardship, he must. But he shouldn’t throw his life away by making himself cannon fodder in the infantry or the marines.

        If our US military were being used in our national interest it would be one thing, but it has now become a tool to be used cynically by elites to advance their global hegemony. Family and friends, the people you love are worth putting your life on the line for, not lazy, fat cats who want to advance a new world order.

        • MBlanc46

          When do you think that the US government wasn’t a tool to be used cynically by elites to advance their global hegemony?

    • Erasmus

      As I read this, I kept thinking of the Roman Empire post 476 AD. Various barbarian tribes picking the corpse of a once-great Empire, just getting “their share” while the body decays.

      And, sadly, various people in powerful postions on the inside facilitating it for their share of the spoils.

    • tickyul

      YES, around the 200 year mark countries start crumbling…..not all, but that seems to be the trendline………….the USA sure fits that bill.

  • Minorities know that ALWAYS playing the race card pays off for them–the government is pro-minority and has proven again and again unsubstantiated cries of racism are silenced for a short period of time by paying at the expense of the majority.

    This crap NEVER stops–many minorities use the race card as a source of revenue….government lets them do it again and again.

  • jay11

    We do all know, though, that no one will be prosecuted for fraud, no one will lose their job and no further action will be taken by the government except to identify a new victim class to tack on to the ‘settlements.’ (How ’bout all those Arab farmers, Tibetan lesbian farmers, Hmong farmers, gay farmers, etc, etc, etc)

    • White male farmers?

      • Erasmus

        Only if they’re gay and growing marijuana.

  • sbuffalonative

    The Government Accountability Office reported that 16 percent of
    minority farmers were denied loans, compared with 10 percent of white
    farmers, but traced the difference to objective factors like bad credit.

    Just think, it could have ended right there. All the government had to do was state the facts that what looked like discrimination in loans was really discriminating against people with bad credit.

  • Puggg

    The good news is that since it was in the New York Times, J.E. can finally start believing that the Pigford fraud story is true.

  • 24,000 female farmers.

    I am not saying there are none, but come on.

    How many of these females are black and double dipping?

    • Greg Thomas

      Or illegal invading mexicans and anchor babies.

  • Jefferson

    It is amazing that someone can be raised by White people and yet still have an extreme hatred for Whites, even though it was Whites who put food on the table and a roof over the head of Hussein Obama when he was growing up. It sure as hell was not his dead beat Black as midnight father.

    • Paleoconn

      White liberals have a hatred for Whites, and they were all raised by Whites.

    • sbuffalonative

      They know they’re not white and they assume that every real or imagined slight or failure must be because of their non-white half. The resentment only grows. They believe white people have rejected them so they identify with non-whites.

      • eavesmac

        If whites drank the kool-aid and went the way of Guyana on a mass scale, how long would the bl’s make it on their own? Till the stuff we built or made ran out.

  • One thing I’ve learned about the Activists: They Never Quit. They never stop. and they’ll keep invading our media airwaves until their last breath. After this issue subsides; they’ll find another one. ……

    • MikeofAges

      America is in such sad straits that you have to go to criminal and sociopathic social and political theorists to get the truth. Kaczynski. Lyndon LaRouche. William Cooper. Christopher Dorner. Even Charles Manson. Kaczynski covered what you are talking about in his theory of oversocialization and his psychology of leftism. Whatever you think of his manifesto, it was not primarily an anti-technology rant. That was only a small part of it.

  • WR_the_realist

    Obama is horrid. But leave it to the Stupid Party to never give us candidates who can defeat him.

  • hogs at the trough. You reckon bad things will happen if liberals forget to feed their pets?

  • WH fake reparation welfare pos

    And that lying pos 18 trillion indebted faggot Opoopa in the WH furloughs airports endangering and hurting an entire airline industry whining about a sequester? Has there ever been a worse pos? Clinton and Bush were as bad as they come but this lying caniving mutt half breed is in a class of his own.

  • Jenkem Huffington

    Wow, it’s funny I’ve never seen a darkie in my life that was eager to work…. not punch a clock and pretend to work; at the Registry, TSA, or some as other government parasite or AA do-nothing hire…. I mean real work dusk to dawn and even late into the night 7 days a week that farming actually entails. Offer 50 grand to each one that claims that they really would have worked had only YT given them a handout earlier, and they come out of the woodwork.
    Really I see plenty of mexican immigrants who actually do work their arses off on farms, so you could almost make a case for them actually wanting to work, but it ignores the point that where the hell in our Constitution does it say it’s the responsibility of government to guarantee loans or buy people farms? We don’t need a revolution, I promise if we had one tomorrow none of us would like the results, we need a restoration to state soveriegnty, personal liberty (personal responsibility), and very small and limited federal government.

    The answer is that there is a global conspiracy to bring us into a one world socialist totalitarian government. Browns and blacks have little intelligence, little ambition and readily accept socialism is a great thing. We have been watching ever since the “great society” days, the American middle class being replaced by the welfare class. An entire class of people dependent on the government for their existance. Add that to the hoards of beaurocrats that facilitate the redistribution of wealth and we’re already at over 50% of the populace that is so dependent on the state they are essentially slaves.
    The only bright side is that after they have outlived their usefullness as forces for change they will likely be exterminated, but in the mid-term time frame you’re looking at a society where 1/3 of the people hold another 1/3 at gunpoint forcing them to work, so that another 1/3 can do nothing…. this isn’t looking good.

    • Anna Tree

      Sardonicus : “That “Great Liberal Dream”– the
      unfounded and quixotic belief that racism will disappear with
      miscegenation. This has clearly not happened in places with considerable
      historic miscegenation like the Caribbean, Venezuela, Mexico and indeed
      Brazil, where lighter skinned, more Europeanized people, form the
      ruling elites. This will I think also be the case in the US, even if
      there is more miscegenation among the lower and middle classes. Anyway
      this doesn’t increase the stability or unity of a given country.”

      Hirschibold: “The US
      may really become a new “Latin” country within the next century because I
      think the changes happening in the US are not to transfer power to
      Hispanics or Blacks (or in Europe to Muslims) but to decrease the power
      of the white middle- and working-class, who are still capable of
      opposing their elites. Once the US is majority-minority, it’s the end of
      a democratic rule, a small white elite will have absolute power like
      the Sinaloa white elite in Mexico, or the whites in Brazil and in the
      rest of South America.”

      • Tina

        This is EXACTLY what is happening

      • Caledwych

        Bingo!As it is in every nation in South America…but I shouldn’t be too harsh on the “southern cone” of Latin America;it’s where I hope to emigrate when the proverbial ca-ca hits the fan here in the once-great US of A.(emigrate,as in Uruguay or Argentina,to be precise).

  • jeffaral

    I am from Nigeria. My great great great grandfather was brought over to America against his will as a slave. We West Africans are to this day still traumatised by this unspeakable act of violence. How can we file a claim for compensation against the Federal gummint? Thanks for any information.

    • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

      And probably sold into slavery by your great great great Uncle. Go piss up a rope.

    • MBlanc46

      I believe that your great-grandfather ran up a substantial bill for food, lodging, clothing, and medical care with my ancestors. Please contact me so that I can tell you where to send the money (with interest).

    • Bearson

      My ancestors came from England and Scotland. They were dirt poor. They somehow made it to the western states. They had absolutely nothing to do with slaves, slave traders, or any business which had anything to do with slaves. We to this day are sick and tired of constantly hearing about something completely irrelevant to us and are traumatized from all the incessant talk about it, not to mention having those relevant constantly shoved down our throats. Please let me know who we can sue for traumatizing us so.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      I’m sure we can reach some sort of agreement. How’s this: the United States ships all 39 million blacks back to west Africa, and west African governments give us whites our money back, adjusted for inflation.

      You will have to make separate arrangement with other countries that received slaves, eg. Brazil.

  • Dave4088

    I echo everyone’s sentiments. The America most of us grew up in, knew and loved is now gone and the re-election of Hussein Obama hammered that point home to me. America is now ruled by a junta of racist Bantus, revanchist Latinos, self-hating whites and, of course, Jews with an eternal hatred of white gentiles.

    The sooner the curtain closes on Amerika the better it will be for the healthy segment of the white race.

  • DiversityIsDeath

    So since they uncovered all this massive fraud and criminal activity, what are they going to DO about it? NOTHING.

  • DragropeJustice

    Whatchoo talkin’ bout, Vilsack?

    • American Tax Payer

      vilsack has always been a Traitor. I’m surprised that good for nothing has been around for as long as he has. Grassley’s good.

  • American Tax Payer

    I’m testing here too. I finally figured how to get my account back (my original posting name) before Politico went and changed their posting format.

  • Michael_C_Scott

    The payouts don’t really matter. All that money will be right back in circulation faster than you can say “I gots ta be haben dat bling, gnome sayin?”