• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pigford v. Glickman

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
I know some of this has been on here before, but some of this was new to me. Is this true?




Pigford v. Glickman


"In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States
Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly
denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period
1983 to 1997."

The case was entitled "Pigford v. Glickman" and in 1999, the black
farmers won their case.

The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to
settle their claims.

But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in
relation to that original judgment: In total silence, the USDA
agreed to release more funds to "Pigford".

The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion. This was
because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers -had
now.. swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000
black farmers throughout America ..

There was only one teensy problem:

The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers!!!!

According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007
Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout
America is only 39,697.

Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816
black farmers!!

Oops!!

Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent
86,000 claims??

And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion??

Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only
spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the
"Rural Development Leadership Network" but whose family received
the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that
action -Shirley Sherrod.

Oops again !!

Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly
exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud
claims in the history of the United States - - a fraud enabled
solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed
them into submission.

And it gets even more interesting.

Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her
in this race fraud.

As it turns out, the original judgment of "Pigford v. Glickman"
in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.

But.... in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen
the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds.

The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.

Because this law was passed in dead silence, and because the woman
responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official,
American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced
in the midst of a worldwide recession to pay out more than $1.25
billion to settle a race claim.

But Andy Breitbart knew. And July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap
which Sherrod - - and Obama + his cronies - - stumbled headfirst
into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the
existence of this corrupt financial judgment.


As for Ms. Sherrod?? Well, she's discovering too late that her cry
of 'racism' to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight
on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself - and
the huge corruption.

Sherrod has vanished from public view.

But the perpetrator of that law passed in dead silence leading to
unlawful claims & corruption..... is still trying to fool all of US.

Go to Google and read for yourself "Pigford vs. Glickman", or
"Pigford Obama".

As some have said, "The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is
less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made
him their President."
http://mydd.com/users/nancy-scola/posts/pigford-black-farmers-and-obama

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/10/obama-carries-on-the-pigford-fraud/

http://biggovernment.com/ghewson/2010/12/06/pigford-obamas-down-payment-on-the-2012-rural-south-vote/



..... there are many more ...

Why haven't we heard more about this??
 

Mike

Well-known member
Pigford was (and is) a reparations move in disguise to perpetuate a vote buying scheme by the Democrats.

I personally know several who received their $50,000.00 check and they will tell you the same.

None that I know had ever filed a "Schedule F".

Why haven't we heard more about this??

Because of the death of outrage.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
That information came to me in an e-mail
aparently there is some outrage.
fraud has happened- a crime has been comitted- where is justice?
it looks like someone should be held accountable.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
How do we do something about this? Who do we contact?
This is outrageous, perhaps oldtimer can shed some light on how this happened, He is ell versed in law!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Funny story about a Pigford check recipient.

A buddy of mine got a call from a guy that got a check and wanted a bull.

When asked what kind of bull he wanted, the answer was............................................................................................................................................


The "Most Expensive" one you have!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Turns out the guy had 9 cows..................................................
 

jedstivers

Well-known member
Here they all bought new pickups when the first $50,000 came out. The kicker is none were ever not given a loan and several had loans written off. Hundreds of thousands to million plus.
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Supposedly this has Obama's fingerprints all over it and now they are trying to include women and hispanics. All they have to say is that they intended to farm.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Clinton brokered the original deal and Buckwheat is escalating it.

Would you sell your vote for $50,000.00? Seriously.

I don't think the comfortable would, but when a person with lesser means sees the green..........................
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
Clinton brokered the original deal and Buckwheat is escalating it.

Would you sell your vote for $50,000.00? Seriously.

I don't think the comfortable would, but when a person with lesser means sees the green..........................

No one is going to see how you actually vote so that is a non issue.

My problem is how do I become black all of a sudden. I don't even tan well.



Tex :shock:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
No one is going to see how you actually vote so that is a non issue.

WTF? Just because no one sees you doesn't mean you have scruples.

That was my point. If a crook gives you a hundred dollars to vote for him, just don't vote for him. No person is going to see you do the right thing and vote against the crook so just do the right thing anyway.

I wouldn't take the 100 in the first place and if someone offered, I would sure vote against them.

I was only joking about the tanning.

Tex
 
Top