We delight in watching the MSM and the Democrat Party dodge and weave around the truth as they attempt to defend their Fearless Leader the Brown Clown from forthcoming charges of tampering with federal elections and lying to judges. But let’s not lose sight of what it was exactly that motivated Barack Hussein Obama during his destructive eight year reign.
Yes, he was (and is) a power-hungry leftist, intent on cementing Big Government and an established unelected bureaucracy at the helm of the American ship of state in perpetuity. Yes, he was (and is) very likely what, back in the good ol’ 1950s, we called a “ComSymp”. But above all, Mistuh Obama despises and resents Palefaces, and has clearly dedicated his career to bringing honky down a couple of notches, and elevating persons of colour to their rightful position of societal and economic global supremacy.
Never mind that Americans have been told that racist attitudes and behavior are “not who we are”. Never mind that such thinking is “on the wrong side of history”. Indeed, we’ve been told that non-whites canNOT be racists, canNOT have racist ideas, because only Palefaces, from their position of Privilege, can practice racism. Minorities are incapable of racist thoughts and actions, so we’ve been informed. Daniel Greenfield puts the lie to that bushwah in this excellent analysis:
When Obama met with Farrakhan, it was under the auspices of the Congressional Black Caucus. It wasn’t the first or last time that the CBC had been caught in bed with the hate group leader. And CBC members have never been ashamed of their ties to a racist who had praised Hitler as a “great man”.
“I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Rep. Danny Davis declared. “I don’t regard Louis Farrakhan as an aberration or anything, I regard him as an outstanding human being.”
The Congressional Black Caucus had a front seat to #MeToo with the revelation that $220,000 had been paid out to a staffer alleging sexual harassment by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), a former judge impeached for bribery whose girlfriend has been on his payroll to the tune of $2.4 million, and that Rep. Conyers (D-MI) had his own sexual harassment settlement. That scandal forced Rep. Conyers to resign and hand the seat to his son at the behest of his wife, Monica, who had been convicted of bribery.
Corruption, fraud and bribery are ongoing problems at the Congressional Black Caucus.
After two decades of financial scandals, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) was convicted of running a fake charity and sentenced in December. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was sentenced last December for bribery, fraud and money laundering. His son, Chaka Fattah Jr, was already in prison on unrelated bank fraud charges. Around the same time the wife of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Il) had wrapped up her prison sentence after her husband had ended his prison term a year earlier on fraud charges.
Hardly a year goes by without a criminal case involving a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Bribery and fraud, fake charities and money laundering to pay for the high life are familiar CBC themes . Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. bought a gold Rolex, Michael Jackson and Malcolm X memorabilia, and mink capes. Rep. Brown stole from poor children to pay for an NFL luxury box (won’t you take a knee) and a Beyonce concert. Chaka Fattah Jr. bought Hermes ties and a Ritz-Carlton condo.
These aren’t aberrations. They’re part of the culture of corruption at the Congressional Black Caucus.
The year that Barack Obama, a former CBC member whose level of corruption outdid any of his former colleagues by climbing into the high stratospheric billions and using the Justice Department to run a massive slush fund, took office, every single House member investigated on ethics charges was CBC. A former study suggested that a third of CBC legislators had faced an ethics probe.
That’s what a culture of political corruption looks like.
But the Congressional Black Caucus has consistently blamed all of its corruption troubles on racism. And CBC members would always play the race card. Rep. Corrine Brown had improbably claimed that Obama’s DOJ had targeted her because “I’m a black woman with a mouth.”
It’s the same old racist excuse. And racism is the usual cover story for CBC corruption.
When Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) was accused of stealing a woman’s first class airplane seat, she claimed that it only happened “because I was an African American woman, seemingly an easy target.” The woman she casually accused of racism had no previous idea of who even stole her seat. And as a Democrat and a human rights activist was probably angry about her lost seat, not the politician’s race.
No one can be too surprised at a politician receiving preferential treatment at the expense of ordinary citizens. Especially a politician who had once allegedly howled, “You don’t understand. I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen.” It’s the eagerness with which CBC members shut down any conversations about their corruption with casual accusations of racism that is the real problem.
The worst offender in the Conyers sexual harassment case wasn’t actually the congressman in question. It was another Black Caucus member who came to his defense by accusing his victims of racism.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) allegedly claimed that Conyers’ accusers were all white women. And suggested that the accusations were somehow racially motivated. Other CBC members threatened Democrats who criticized Rep. Conyers and there were suggestions that the calls for his resignation were racist.
“Do you go and stalk white people’s houses or just come to the black neighborhoods and stalk our houses?” Monica Conyers demanded.
The claim that Rep. Conyers’ accusers were “all white women” proved to be a lie. But it shouldn’t have mattered what race the women accusing a politician of sexual harassment were. Nor should it have mattered what race the passenger whose seat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee allegedly stole might have been.
The reflexive accusations of racism by Congressional Black Caucus members hurled at their alleged victims and at any attempt to bring them to justice is at the root of the CBC’s culture of racial corruption. The Caucus is a racially exclusive body. And it uses race and racism as weapons to protect its privileges of power. It doesn’t admit white politicians who represent African-American districts.
“It is critical that its membership remain exclusively African American,” Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr. (D-MO) had written. Referring to a white Democrat’s membership bid from an African-American district, he declared that, “he does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria unless he can change his skin color.” It’s the same familiar mantra of slavery and segregation but with a politically correct twist.
Rep. Clay has paid out nearly a million dollars in campaign funds to his sister’s law firm.
“We supported the tradition that only African-Americans have been full members of the CBC,” insisted Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), whose son and husband would be convicted on charges that included fraud and racketeering.
Urban political machines have a long history of exploiting ethnic and racial solidarity to maintain their grip on power. The Congressional Black Caucus did not invent an original form of corruption. Tammany Hall went through various ethnic incarnations as one immigrant group made way for another.
The Congressional Black Caucus is not uniquely corrupt because it is black. But it uses racial solidarity and animosity to protect its insidious corruption. The CBC uses the idea of racial persecution to convince the African-American areas it preys on to turn a blind eye to its corruption. And it depicts its critics and victims, whether they are the women groped by Rep. Conyers or the poor children ripped off by Rep. Brown, as pawns or perpetrators of a racist conspiracy against black people.
The CBC’s merger of xenophobia and corruption is nothing new. But it’s a uniquely toxic tactic to utilize during a time of racial tensions. The Caucus styles itself as the “conscience of the congress”, but it has no conscience. It’s become a gang of thieves united by greed, racial solidarity and racial animosity.
The Congressional Black Caucus is uniquely destructive to black people and to the entire country. Its corrupt civil rights icons have long since become mirrors of the very thing they once fought against. And their accusations of racism are reflections of their own racism and their own racial privileges.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and Rep. Clyburn’s accusations show how the perniciously corrupt culture of the CBC’s racial solidarity has turned race and racism into unlimited justifications for their own abuses. The Caucus’ racism and corruption feed into each other in a vicious cycle that spurs its members to greater ethics violations and noisier accusations of racism. The corruption charges then become proof of racism.
The more CBC members are arrested and jailed, the more the Caucus doubles down on the conviction that the only reason they were jailed is racism. And then it exploits that sense of racial grievance to justify even more corruption. This vicious cycle of racism and thievery in the CBC must be broken.
But these are not the only examples of institutionalized racial preference for persons of colour in our nation’s recent history. Remember the Pigford lawsuit, and the cash settlements paid to southern black farmers? This classic application of the Jesse Jackson-perfected shakedown strategy pried nearly $2B taxpayer dollars out of the federal treasury, and awarded it to southern black farmers, both living and to the estates of those deceased, as reparations for alleged discrimination by the USDA in the granting of loans. No argument that such invidious discrimination may well have occurred … only problem is how, and to whom, OUR dollars were awarded. Here’s an article posted on a slightly left-of-center website that gives the details with just a scosche of bias:
Pigford vs. 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 vs. 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 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!!
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.
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 vs. 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 on Monday, 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. (That’s changed since this article was written; click the link below this story to find out what Miz Sherrod did next).
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.”
…. there are many more …
Why haven’t we heard more about this??
We have seen a number of viral e-mails, including this one, that inaccurately describe the circumstances surrounding the initial and final settlements of a racial discrimination suit brought against the United States Department of Agriculture.
Pigford v. Glickman was a class-action lawsuit brought in 1997. The suit, in which farmer Timothy Pigford sued then-Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, resulted in a court-approved agreement in 1999 to settle claims of discrimination that occurred between 1983 and 1997. But tens of thousands of black farmers missed the deadline for filing claims. Congress took testimony on complaints that inadequate notice and poor legal representation were to blame for the late claims and passed a law in 2008 that gave the late filers the right to have their cases heard on the merits. The 2008 law provided $100 million to settle the additional claims. Congress in 2010 appropriated another $1.15 billion. The second settlement came to be known as Pigford II.
This e-mail makes a number of incorrect conspiratorial claims about Pigford II:
- The e-mail says then-Sen. Barack Obama “got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue.” Obama was one of many congressional supporters from both parties. But he did not cosponsor the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, which expanded the number of farmers who could sue.
- The e-mail wrongly says that “this law was passed in dead silence.” There were six votes on the farm bill — including two by the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto of then-President George W. Bush, who objected to continuing “subsidies for the wealthy” farmers.
- It falsely claims that the USDA “in total silence … agreed to release more funds to Pigford.” There was nothing silent about it. There were hearings that preceded the 2008 law that permitted more claims and provided more money. The USDA and Department of Justice jointly announced the $1.25 billion settlement in 2010.
- It incorrectly claims there were 86,000 “fraudulent claims,” citing 1992 Census data that showed there were “only 18,816 black farmers.” But the Census data at that time counted farms, not farmers. Some farms had multiple farmers. The data also fail to account for blacks who sought but were denied the right to farm.
- It’s misleading to say the family of Shirley Sherrod, a former USDA official in the Obama administration, “received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million).” The $13 million went to several families, including the Sherrods, who owned a cooperative farm called New Communities.
For years, black farmers had complained of discrimination in the awarding of USDA farm loans, debt restructuring and crop payments. In 1997, following a USDA-commissioned investigation that validated these complaints, a class-action lawsuit was filed by Pigford seeking damages and relief. On April 14, 1999, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford v. Glickman — which was later named Pigford v. Vilsack and came to be known as Pigford I.
The settlement provided two ways to seek damages: a fast-track process (Track A) that provided $50,000 plus loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability, and a longer process (Track B) that required claimants to establish actual monetary damages caused by USDA discriminatory practices. The Track B process resulted in larger payments. As of April 7 of this year, a little more than $1 billion had been paid to 15,645 Track A claimants. About 6,900, or 31 percent of the claims, were denied. In a 2010 report, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that “many in Congress … voiced much concern over the large percentage of denials, especially under Track A — the ‘virtually automatic’ cash payment.” CRS went on to say: “More alarming to many, however, was the large percentage of farmers who did not have their cases heard on the merits because they filed late. …”
The monitor appointed by the court to oversee the handling of the Pigford claims explained in a 2002 memorandum that the deadline for filing a claim had been Oct. 12, 1999. The memo also said that those who filed late had until Sept. 15, 2000, to file a “late claim application” with a court-appointed arbitrator, who would decide if there were “extraordinary circumstances” that would permit the late claimants to be a party to the case.
In a 2004 House hearing on the status of the Pigford case, arbitrator Michael K. Lewis testified that 65,950 late claim applications were filed by Sept. 15, 2000, and 7,742 were filed after the deadline. He told Congress, “I have completed my initial review of all 65,000 petitions. Of that number, I have found 2,268 petitions to have met the ” ‘extraordinary circumstances beyond his control’ standard.”
The rejection of tens of thousands of late claims triggered more lawsuits, as well as congressional hearings and legislation. It also triggered a lot of false and misleading information.
The e-mail is incorrect in saying that Obama “got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue.”
As CRS described in its report, numerous lawsuits filed after the Pigford I settlement were consolidated into a single case legally known as In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation. That case became known as Pigford II. Bills were submitted in both the House (in 2006 and 2007) and the Senate (in 2006 and 2007) to allow the late claims to be heard on the merits. Obama supported these bills, but he was hardly alone. And it wasn’t a partisan issue. Republican Sens. George Allen of Virginia and Charles Grassley of Iowa sponsored the 2006 and 2007 Senate bills, respectively. Obama was a cosponsor of Grassley’s bill in 2007, and he sponsored his own version of the bill that year.
The standalone House and Senate bills did not pass, but Congress included a provision in the 2008 farm appropriations bill that permitted the courts to hear late claims and budgeted $100 million to pay those found to have merit. Obama did not sponsor the farm bill. In fact, Obama — who was campaigning for president — didn’t vote on the Senate bill, the conference report or the veto override.
The e-mail also wrongly says that “this law was passed in dead silence.” As we said, there were six votes on the farm bill — two of them by the two-thirds majority required to override Bush’s veto. In a veto statement, the Republican president objected to continuing “subsidies for the wealthy” farmers. He did not mention the Pigford case.
It’s true that Obama played a prominent role in funding Pigford II. His administration agreed to settle the claims that were now allowed to proceed as a result of the 2008 farm bill. But the e-mail is wrong to say that the USDA “in total silence … agreed to release more funds to Pigford.”
The USDA and Department of Justice publicly released a joint statement announcing the $1.25 billion settlement in 2010. Plus, the USDA could not “release more funds to Pigford” without the approval of Congress, and the money could not be paid out without court approval of the settlement. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Senate by unanimous consent passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 — which provided $1.15 billion in addition to the $100 million already appropriated. The House passed the bill 256-152 on Nov. 20, 2010. It was signed by Obama. The court has not yet approved the settlement, and no awards have been paid to any Pigford II claimants, said Justice spokeswoman Jessica Smith.
The e-mail also incorrectly says there were 86,000 “fraudulent claims” filed as a result of the 2008 law that permitted the late claims to go forward. As proof, the e-mail cites 1992 Census data that it says showed there were “only 18,816 black farmers” and 2007 Census data that counted “only 39,697” farmers. The e-mail asks, “How on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims?” The CRS report provides some answers. That report says Census data prior to 2002 counted farms, not farmers. Some farms had multiple farmers, so there were more black farmers than black-owned farms.
Also, the CRS report said some blacks may be eligible for relief even though they were not farmers. They would include individuals or the estates of individuals who sought to farm but “were denied loans or other farm assistance,” the CRS said. It is also likely that some of the claims filed so far will not result in payment. As we said before, nearly a third of the Track A claims in Pigford I were denied. According to a website set up by the plaintiffs’ attorneys by order of the court, the Pigford II claims will not be adjudicated until the fall of 2012, and payments will not occur until “late 2012-early 2013.”
So, we don’t know how many claims are fraudulent, but those that are should be denied payments. (Similar to Pigford I, there is a fast track payment of $50,000 with debt relief and a longer process for specific damages up to $250,000.)
Shirley Sherrod & Pigford
Finally, the e-mail makes two erroneous claims about Shirley Sherrod, a former USDA official who was fired for remarks she made about race that turned out to be misrepresented by a conservative blogger. (This is also incorrect and out-of-date; see the Breitbart link below for the truth). Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and the White House later apologized to Sherrod.
The e-mail states that the “woman responsible for spearheading the case was an obscure USDA official,” referring to Sherrod. But she was not a USDA official when Congress passed the 2008 farm bill, which allowed black farmers to file late claims and have their cases heard on the merits. She was the USDA’s Georgia state director of rural development for only one year, from July 2009 until July 2010.
It’s true that Sherrod, who is black and a former farmer, was active in the Pigford case prior to working at the USDA. She, along with others at the Rural Development Leadership Network, helped organize black farmers to file claims in the original Pigford suit. But she was fighting the USDA from outside the agency, not influencing it from within. She told CNN: “I was deeply involved in all of that work and in the settlement, and in helping farmers to file their claims. So I was having to fight USDA just for the services, for the loans for farmers, for some of the programs that should have been automatic, that others were getting.”
The e-mail also erroneously states that Sherrod’s “family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action.” The $13 million — which the Rural Development Leadership Network called the “largest award so far” in 2009 — did not go to her “family.” Rather, the money was awarded to New Communities, a farming collective founded in 1969 in rural Georgia by Sherrod and her husband, Charles. (Yrs Truly believe this fits the definition of a “shell company”, or a phony “pass through”.)
At its height, New Communities was 5,700 acres — the largest tract of black-owned land in the country — and had about a dozen families living on and working the land full time before it went out of business in 1985, according to a 2001 article by the Associated Press. In addition to their share of the New Communities settlement, Sherrod and her husband were awarded $150,000 each for pain and suffering. (Hey – can you and I sue Batears and Hillary and Chuckles for similar amounts, as compensation for the pain and suffering THEY have caused US? Just askin’.)
–Eugene Kiely and Alex Eisenhower
Sources (please click article link for sources)
Longtime ‘Nox readers may recall that that butt-boddy of BHO and paragon of racial harmony (not to mention avowed communist) Van Jones weighed in on the Pigford settlements, famously crying out “Give them the wealth!” Guess it matters not whose wealth it is, so long as you can use the government’s police powers to confiscate it and pass it around to your voters.
Another flashback: In 2010, Miz Sherrod sued the late Andrew Breitbart for supposedly falsifying a video he posted that clearly showed Sherrod bragging to a NAACP convention about how she had denied a white farmer a USDA loan. Steve Bannon, Larry O’Connor, and James O’Keefe were also named in this suit — which was DISMISSED as without merit. More details here:
Yessss, racism is alive and well in the US of A … but surprise! It’s a two-way street.
— SafeSpace —