-Caveat Lector- http://www.frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/lubinskas08-15-01.htm Shakedown at the USDA By James Lubinskas FrontPageMagazine.com | August 15, 2001 IN DECEMBER 1996, a small group of black farmers held a demonstration outside the White House complaining about supposed discrimination in the United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) massive lending program. Blacks comprise less than one percent of the farmers in the United States, yet they account for 3.2 percent of the USDAs loans. This would suggest that the USDA, like every other government agency, bends over backwards to favor blacks. Of course, the press did not mention this in its coverage of the protest, and as a result the USDA is paying settlements to black farmers which could cost taxpayers up to $4 billion dollars.* There is no statistical evidence to support the view that the USDA discriminated against black farmers and none was even offered. Sources inside the USDA claim former President Clinton told then-Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to keep the black farmers "out of my backyard." Glickman did as he was told, and within days announced he had discovered massive discrimination in the agency he had headed for almost two years, and that black Democrat Mike Espy had led before him. Though he offered no evidence of discrimination he set up a series of taxpayer-financed "listening tours" across the U.S. Not surprisingly there was no shortage of blacks ready to relate tales of how they were discriminated against and put-upon by the USDA. Some did not even allege they were denied loans, but claimed that white bureaucrats did not do enough to help turn them into productive farmers. After the "listening tours" Glickman ordered a review of all 956 pending discrimination complaints. The USDA spent millions of dollars to bring in field workers to review each complaint. After poring through 956 cases the workers found that only five cases had potential merit. According to USDA employees who wish to remain anonymous, the findings were suppressed, the notes were destroyed and the reviewers were accused of covering up for their colleagues. ** Not to be dissuaded by the inconvenient findings, Glickman came up with a new strategy to prove that his own agency was racist. In 1997, two black farmers in North Carolina, Cecil Brewington and Timothy Pigford, filed suits against the USDA. Pigford had already filed three claims against the USDA, none of which was found to have merit. Indeed, one of his suits had been dismissed with prejudice, which means legally he should not have been allowed to file another suit making the same charges. The complaints did not even cite any evidence of discrimination other than Glickmans own statements that his agency was rife with discrimination. The USDA did not bother to challenge the complaint and the case ended up with U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman. If Judge Friedmans name sounds familiar it should. A Clinton appointee, he presided over several politically sensitive Clinton-era cases including ones involving Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia of Buddhist-temple fund-raiser fame, Democratic fund-raiser Pauline Kanchanalak and Sidney Blumenthals slander suit against Matt Drudge. In each case, Judge Friedman ruled for the Clinton cronies and in each case a higher court reversed his ruling. In October 1998, he certified class-action status for the discrimination suit despite the fact that the statute of limitations had run out for most of the plaintiffs. The Congressional Black Caucus drafted legislation waiving the statute of limitations and it passed as an attachment to the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. Interestingly no one mentioned that this is a clear violation of ex post facto laws and hence unconstitutional. In April 1999, the government and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree approved by Judge Friedman. The process for getting compensation was ludicrously easy and essentially amounted to being black, believing you were denied a loan because of race, and having filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1997. Incredibly, if a claimant could not produce evidence of having filed a complaint, he could "prove" he filed one by having a declaration from a non-family member that he did file one! Also under the consent decree, the statement of any claimant is accepted as true unless the USDA can refute it with documentation. Since the USDA only keeps records of unsuccessful loan applications for three years, there is no evidence from before 1994. Essentially, any "farmer" who alleges to have been denied a loan from 1981 to 1994 will be paid at least $50,000 even without evidence. Another condition in the consent decree was that the USDA had to spend half-a-million dollars promoting the terms of the decree in both the black media and the general media. By the decrees closing date of October 1999, there were over 20,000 claimants (The 1997 Census of Agriculture lists the total number of black farmers as 18,451). Currently there have been almost 12,000 blacks compensated and there are more to come. Of the 12,000, less than 10 percent had records of applying for loans. There is also a group of 196 blacks that is not settling for a mere $50,000. One oppressed tiller-of-the-soil said he will settle for nothing less than $70 million! The shakedown has produced all sorts of side effects. Essentially the suit has caused an across-the-board ban on foreclosing on delinquent black farmers because they are all potential parties to the suit (the black delinquency rate on farm loans was 36 percent in 2000 compared to a white delinquency rate of 14 percent). There have been all sorts of copycat suits by American Indian, Hispanic, Asian and women farmers (apparently gay and handicapped farmers are slow on the draw). Perhaps most remarkably, a group of white farmers filed suit claiming they were treated as badly as black farmers. Unlike the black suit, the Department of Justice is fighting this one and it is likely to be thrown out. The greatest effect of the lawsuit is that we have yet another example of a bogus discrimination claim trumpeted as indisputable proof that blacks are discriminated against. Claims like these are indispensable for black race activists, white liberals and others who blame whites for the problems of blacks. When they argue for affirmative action preferences, special hate crime laws, constraints on police or even reparations for slavery, a favorite retort is that blacks face little racism in America today and certainly less than in times past. Essentially the activists can point to the Adams Mark hotel chain, Coca-Cola, Dennys, and now the USDA and say: "Look, it is not like we are making this up. Some of Americas biggest businesses and government agencies have admitted that they practice discrimination against blacks." Of course, the media are willing accomplices in this as well. U.S. taxpayers being shaken down through unproven claims of discrimination, an agency head who withholds evidence that would combat the lawsuits, violations of Constitutional safeguards and a politically connected judge who just happens to get an important case should be a red flag for an investigative journalist. But outside of a few conservative and right wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and American Renaissance , this issue has gotten no play in the press. As Adams Mark, Coca-Cola and Dennys have discovered, rolling over to phony discrimination claims only invites more abuse. There are many more government agencies to target and no shortage of race activists to lead the charge. It is almost certain that the USDA shakedown will spawn more shakedowns and that the media will not report the facts. James Lubinskas last wrote for FrontPage in March 2001. See his articles "Horowitz and His (Conservative) Critics," and "The End of Paleoconservatism." *This article is based on a piece that appeared in the February 2001 issue of American Renaissance magazine. It was written by USDA employees who wish to remain anonymous (for obvious reasons). ** American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor contacted the USDA public affairs office to get their side of the story but did not get a response. While FrontPage rejects the racial agendas of the American Renaissance movement (which we see as paralleling those of La Raza, the Nation of Islam, the American Indian Movement and other racial "nationalist" groups), it has always found the writings of Jared Taylor to be based on sound scholarship. View Comments | Make Comments | Email this Article [INLINE] [INLINE] Horowitz's Notepad | Poe's Notepad | Reality Bites | Shop Online | Encounter Books | CSPC Bookstore Home | Contact Us | Advertise With Us | Archives | Privacy Policy [INLINE] [LINK] Advertise your banner here Copyright � 2001 FrontPageMagazine.com <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
