Tuesday, September 25, 2012

More Reparations from Obama's USDA

I haven't done any research on this...but it does seem ridiculous that the plaintiffs don't have to have proof...just a feeling they were discriminated against.

RUSH: It's from Chatsworth Osborne Jr.'s website, The Daily Caller. "As part of 'a new era of civil rights' at the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced Monday that Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers who believe," simply believe, "USDA discriminated against them can file claims to get a piece of at least $1.33 billion in cash awards and tax relief payments and up to $160 million in farm debt relief, beginning this week.
"Women and Hispanic ranchers and farmers..." You know, there gobs of 'em out there. There are women ranchers all over the place and Hispanic ranchers everywhere out there. "Women and Hispanic ranchers and farmers who feel the agency denied their loan or loan servicing applications because of their race or gender at various periods from 1981 to 2000 can file claims alleging discrimination from Sept. 24, 2012, to March 25, 2013, for a slice of the payout. ...
"In February 2011, Vilsack announced the historic 'path to justice for Hispanic and women farmers' to offer them an outlet to receive compensation for past wrongs without having to go to federal court," without having to prove discrimination. All these people have to do is say they think they were discriminated against and they get some money. This is buying votes during the election from Obama's stash.
Now, this is all part of the Pigford settlement. You remember the black farmers were the first bunch to be able to claim this. Remember what was her name, Shirley something or other? I forget her name. This was a big cause celebre of Andrew Breitbart's, if I recall. Breitbart proved that there were a bunch of people that had never been farmers who were claiming they were discriminated against as farmers. Shirley Sherrod. That's right. So these people...
It's reparations, in a disguised way. All of this stems from Ronaldus Magnus having done away with the civil rights division in the loan office of the USDA in 1981. The laws against discrimination were still on the books, there was still a civil rights division in the Department of Justice, but because there was no civil rights division present at the agriculture department, it's assumed that there was discrimination. Nothing has to be proved!
Honestly, folks, nothing has to be proved. It was just assumed that there was discrimination. "If there was a black farmer, he had to be discriminated against." Now, if there's an Hispanic farmer, he had to be discriminated against. We don't need any proof. We just know it happened because America's a rotten country. A female rancher? Don't have to prove discrimination! We know it happened because she was a woman. America's unfair to women, and so, here's your money.
That is what the Pigford settlement is all about. It's just the assumption that America is unfair and discriminatory. There was never any proof that there was discrimination in the USDA. It was just assumed. So this suit, the Pigford suit, goes back to Reagan taking the civil rights division in the loan office out of the USDA. Now, apparently there were hundreds of thousands of farmers from all walks of life who were discriminated against by the loan department of the USDA in those 18 years between 1981 and 1999.
Now, if that's true, who was doing the discriminating? The government! Government bureaucrats. Who knew they were so damn bigoted? And what was the USDA doing giving out loans, anyway? Were there no banks to do this? So this is outrageous to me. The agricultural department under Obama is opening up a new line of giveaway money, this time to Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers who "believe" that USDA discriminated against them.
I'm not making this up, folks. They don't have to have any proof. There isn't any. It was just assumed. That's what the whole Pigford case was about. It was just assumed that there was disc'imination. (interruption) Well, if you think you were discriminated against, can you claim it? No, 'cause you weren't a farmer, Snerdley. Well... (laughing) You grow fruit? In your backyard, you grow crops? Well, for all I know, you could make a claim! Well, no. No. No. 'Cause it's 1981 to 1999, when Reagan shut it down. It's '81 to '99. That's when this covers.

No comments:

Post a Comment