500%" of Black US Farmers Sign Up for Reparations

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFtYCXkvW0Q&feature=player_embedded

More than 92,000 “black farmers” signed up for reparations from the Obama USDA after the Pigford case was extended in 2010. That’s five times the number of blacks who were actually farming during the time period in question and would possibly qualify for the reparations.

Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers $50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed. To date, almost $1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement’s consent decree. Democrats want to add another $1.2 billion to the money pot and continue with the reparations.

Now the Obama Administration is offering Hispanic and women farmers over $1.3 billion in discrimination payouts

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Ahhh... Faux News still has the gift of blending fact and fiction into an intoxicating brew to work up their fans into RIGHTous outraged frenzy!

Snope this story.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Fox News.

I really do not understand anybody, even if they're Republicans, using this as an actual news source for ANYTHING.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Ahhh... Faux News still has the gift of blending fact and fiction into an intoxicating brew to work up their fans into RIGHTous outraged frenzy!

Snope this story.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/09/30/congressmen-request-probe-black-farmer-claims-question-pigford-case

Three prominent Republican members of Congress, at least, have a real problem with this sort of "partnership." Reps. King, Bachmann and Goodlatte, possibly relying on published NLPC stories (one only can hope), smell a shakedown. And while they aren't overtly denouncing the Pigford II settlement, they are saying that the information on the case is insufficient to justify loosening public purse strings. At yesterday's press conference, the trio called upon Attorney General Holder to conduct a complete investigation and appealed to the Senate to refrain from approving additional funding until the results of the probe are made available. Congressman King, a member of both the House Agriculture and Judiciary Committees, also announced that he had written Agriculture Secretary Vilsack to request a meeting next week to discuss allegations of major fraud in the disbursement of funds under the original Pigford suit. King stated:

There is a growing firestorm over the allegations of massive fraud in the Pigford settlements. According to sworn testimony by John Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association, there are 18,000 black farmers. They could not all have been victims of discrimination. To date, there have been over 94,000 claims made. These numbers speak to massive fraud, meaning that American taxpayers are on the hook for what Pigford judge Paul Friedman called ‘forty acres and a mule.'

It is common practice for Secretaries of Agriculture to sit down with members of the Agriculture Committee. It is uncommon for the topic of conversation to be as urgent and expensive as Pigford, with a price tag of $2.3 billion. Secretary Vilsack has an obligation to the American taxpayers to cooperate with an investigation of Pigford fraud.

The Senate may be poised to pass the Obama administration's request for additional Pigford funding. Pigford payouts must be stopped until Congress and the USDA can conduct a thorough investigation.

It's a reasonable appeal. Hopefully, the Obama administration can put aside any misgivings it might have that Rep. King's concerns are rooted in "racism." The issue is public accountability. Congress should not be spending billions of taxpayer dollars based on highly questionable and likely bogus claims, regardless of the race of the complainants. The Pigford case provides an example of what happens when plaintiffs and their litigators see government as a lottery rather than as a repository of the public trust - and when executive branch officials are too timid to admit as much.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/09/30/congressmen-request-probe-black-farmer-claims-question-pigford-case

And this demonstrates what exactly? That you were able to find another right wing nut website that echos the same falsehood?

[lostinblue 1,989]

And this demonstrates what exactly? That you were able to find another right wing nut website that echos the same falsehood?

How many blacks signed up?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Ahhh... Faux News still has the gift of blending fact and fiction into an intoxicating brew to work up their fans into RIGHTous outraged frenzy!

Snope this story.

Well, it works!!! My feigned hyperbolic outrage could not be stronger that it is right at this very moment, ever!

[Danno 1,228]

And this demonstrates what exactly? That you were able to find another right wing nut website that echos the same falsehood?

What exactly are you contesting, that scam 1 and 2 took place or that scam3 is in the works?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

What exactly are you contesting, that scam 1 and 2 took place or that scam3 is in the works?

What is being contested is the clever use of facts, blended with misrepresentation to create a fabricated controversy. I realize your mind is exactly the type that eats up such Faux News, but even the illustrious Danno-logic can't really overcome the fictitious use of facts in this regurgitated Faux News story, which is really just a rehash anyway.

[lostinblue 1,989]

What exactly are you contesting, that scam 1 and 2 took place or that scam3 is in the works?

People that have never farmed, wanted to farm or applied for a loan ?

[Danno 1,228]

What is being contested is the clever use of facts, blended with misrepresentation to create a fabricated controversy. I realize your mind is exactly the type that eats up such Faux News, but even the illustrious Danno-logic can't really overcome the fictitious use of facts in this regurgitated Faux News story, which is really just a rehash anyway.

Your perfunctory attack of FOXs is I guess, interesting (in your mind) but what most people base opinion on is facts, if you have some which are meaningful to your POV... why not post them, I am open minded enough to consider all info on the topic.

So put up.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Your perfunctory attack of FOXs is I guess, interesting (in your mind) but what most people base opinion on is facts, if you have some which are meaningful to your POV... why not post them, I am open minded enough to consider all info on the topic.

So put up.

I did in my very first post: one word - snopes.

Since such blends of fact and fiction are the bread and butter of Fox News "Fair and Balanced" reporting I am sure you will be back shortly with a "yeah I see where the OP is more than a bit unfair and imbalanced" admission. Or not...

[Danno 1,228]

I did in my very first post: one word - snopes.

Since such blends of fact and fiction are the bread and butter of Fox News "Fair and Balanced" reporting I am sure you will be back shortly with a "yeah I see where the OP is more than a bit unfair and imbalanced" admission. Or not...

Just say it, you can't put up... except for your tiresome opinion of FOX.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Just say it, you can't put up... except for your tiresome opinion of FOX.

The Fox story was unfair and imbalanced. Your lack of information showing it isn't is quite telling. Is all you have knocking my opinion regarding Fox? It would appear so.

Again I put up snopes. You? Nothing.

[Danno 1,228]

The Fox story was unfair and imbalanced. Your lack of information showing it isn't is quite telling. Is all you have knocking my opinion regarding Fox? It would appear so.

Again I put up snopes. You? Nothing.

Let me get this right, you are trying to debunk a news story which includes Gov't officials testimony.

And what is your proof? one general term "snopes"

Ok I will play along since I have a few minutes.

I will debunk your debunking.

Here is my source Google.