Another $1.3 Billion Payoff for Faux USDA Discrimination Against Hispanic & Women Farmers

0
Share

I’m seeing dollar signs. I’m a woman and I thought about filing an application for a loan to run a farm once so I want in on this latest offering by the U.S.D.A. They are giving away money to women and Hispanics who feel like they were discriminated against.

What started out as a legitimate suit by a small group of black farmers has morphed into taxpayer money going to Democratic voting blocs in time for the 2012 election.

On Monday, the U.S.D.A. announced that all women and Hispanic farmers who feel like their loan was rejected due to race or gender between 1981 and 2000 are eligible to get paid off as long as they file by March 25, 2013.

The U.S.D.A. has over $1.3 billion of our tax money for this latest fraudulent discrimination payoff. You can read the announcement for “free” money here. I like to call it Pigford IV because it is a cancerous outgrowth of the Pigford I and II lawsuits.

It is allegedly about civil rights and a “path to justice for Hispanic and women farmers.” The U.S.D.A. is lauding it as “historic.”

It sure is. It is an historic play for votes!

This is the fourth round of the vote-buying Pigford lawsuit that was originally exposed by Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann.

The original lawsuit, Pigford I, was won by black farmers some of whom were actually prejudiced against. In time, it grew to incorporate people who merely thought they were prejudiced against. Some only had a yard they were calling a farm.

Specifically, Pigford I was a suit by a North Carolina farmer, Timothy Pigford, who filed on behalf of himself and 400 other black farmers to protest U.S.D.A. loan practices in 1983-1987.

The second lawsuit was Pigford II which gave away billions to black farmers who claimed they were discriminated against when applying for loans from 1981 to 1996. Pigford II was for anyone who didn’t file on time for the original 1999 Pigford settlement.

There were only 33,000 African-American owned farms at the time of Pigford I but by Pigford II, there were 80,000 claimants [each ended up receiving $50,000]. Amazing, huh?

The settlement amounts to taxpayer reparations for minorities and they are all Democratic special interest groups.

One recipient, Jimmy Dismuke, said he only had to make the claim to get the money.

via Christian Science Monitor

Jimmy Dismuke, a black hog farmer from Arkansas, claims he’s seen fraud first-hand in the Pigford process. In a recent story published at Big Government.com, a conservative website, Mr. Dismuke says he has counted more than 300 fraudulent Pigford claims in Arkansas alone, including a case in which people who kept potted tomato plants claimed to be farmers and got $50,000. He also claims that private lawyers made the rounds in black churches, enticing potential claimants with easy payouts.

“Pigford is the biggest rip-off this country has ever known, and there are lots of people in positions of power that know it,” Dismuke writes. “Politicians are using it to buy votes. Trial lawyers are using it to get rich.”

Dallas lawyer Augustus Corbett, who grew up on a North Carolina farm, calls the USDA’s past actions part of a broader “conspiracy,” especially in the South, designed to let primarily white developers buy up black-owned farmland for pennies on the dollar.

Bipartisan support for the bill is tied to three layers of fraud protection, including the appointment of an independent trustee who Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says will conduct “multiple audits that will focus across the whole.” Under the previous Pigford settlement, USDA investigators found only three instances of fraud among 15,000 claims…

While not a lawsuit, I refer to the Obama bill as Pigford III. Obama signed a bill this year to include 500,000 Native-Americans. Coincidentally, Native-Americans are another Democratic voting bloc.

One of the lawyers for Pigford “discussing” the case on John Stoessel with Andrew Breitbart:

Thomas Burrell, the head of the Black Farmers Agricultural Association, explains the low bar for proof in the Pigford settlement:

Share