Skip to comments.Congressman Compares Black Farmers' Settlement to 'Slavery Reparations'
Posted on 11/30/2010 3:30:13 PM PST by lbryce
The House approved settlements today for black farmers whom the federal government had discriminated against in the past. In the debate beforehand, however, Rep. Steve King compared this to "slavery reparations" from the "very, very urban" Barack Obama.
The Senate last week finally approved the multi-billion-dollar funding for the Pigford II and Cobell settlements, which will allow the government to pay out claims to African-American farmers and American Indians who were discriminated against in recent decades by government agencies. Now, the House which has passed the funding several times over will have to approve it, probably this week. The House, in fact, was voting on procedural motions surrounding the bill as this post was written.
That means the opponents are coming out of the woodwork.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who's been one of the most vocal opponents of the Pigford settlement for black farmers, has taken to cable news and the floor of the House to speak against the settlement. King's argument is that the bulk of the Pigford II claims are fraudulent because there are fewer black farmers than claimants a flimsy argument when you consider that many African-Americans lost their farms over the past few decades due, in part, to USDA discrimination that denied them loans which is the point of the settlement program.
On Monday night, he suggested that President Obama, as a senator, may have been prejudiced to help the black farmers.
(Excerpt) Read more at gawker.com ...
“who were discriminated against in recent decades”
Talk about assuming facts not in evidence.
Of course....it is the stated goal of the 99% of Blacks who vote for Democrats.
To get some money!
They are quite proud of it I would say.
What’ really bizarre is the increase in numbers of black farmers. Perhaps they simply could have been farmers.
Maybe I should make a claim. I’m a farmer and I could have been black.
Your concerns and conclusions are probably spot on.
Some folks are mo’ equal than others..
Does anyone have a link to the roll call on this vote? I'd like to know who the repubics were who voted for it. They need a big fat target painted on their backs.
Free school lunches, and breakfasts.
Child payments from government.
Housing payments and subsidies.
SSI for “disability,” low IQ. Learning disability.
Over representation in ranks of government employment, at pay rates twice the rates in private sector.
Affirmative action in hiring, college admissions, and generally low standards.
Failure of Obama’s “justice” department to prosecute black violations.
This farm business is no big thing. Probably a scam to get paid to NOT farm.
Fits a big pattern, triggered in the 1960s whereby the black would not just be equal, he would be pushed along.
Justified by any logical or moral reasons, or not.
Today many black people who DON’T OR WON’T work enjy a HIGHER standard of living, than people who do work.
Dat be income redistribution, which Obama, Maxine Waters and virtually every remaining democrat in office thinks is just fine.
Hey America! How's that hope and change thing workin' for ya?
Assume the position, nitpicker!! You seem unable to appreciate the necessity of such wealth transfers. Do not doubt that other mechanisms are being devised for rewarding black folk that were not farmers, including descendants of black folk that emigrated voluntarily to the American colonies from Africa, and subsequently became some of the first owners of other blacks that were brought from Africa by white slave traders who had purchased them from black Africans tribes that had captured them in the course of inter-tribal disagreements. Its all very complex, but the bottom line is: Pay up, Cracker!!
Obama isn’t a face to face fighter. He slithers in and out of the back door.
So this Free-Money-For-Minorities is just another Obama Back-Door Repartions scam.
Doesn’t everyone with more than a pea for a brain understand that Reparations without calling it that is one of the big objectives of Obama?
And he is being quite successful at it.
But often there are no suitable alternative when Gawker provides articles of specific interest, or when they feature media source material exclusive to them. a pefect example is when they do a story on Bill O'Reilly ranting about some thing or another, they'll feature, have access to the very video clip having appeared on Fox only moments earlier that you have to wait days to view otherwise, Gawker having Bill O'Reilly clip that his own show doesn't offer for days.
On those occasions I've had no other choice. So far no Gawker features posted by me have been yanked because I reject those I find troublesome, questionable.
Having appeared on Fox Broadcast TV/Cable only moments before, that Fox doesn't show on its web outlet for days.
In the former case, the Indians were subject to what amounts to stealing from their individual trust accounts for moneys rightfully placed there for mineral royalties, timber and land purchases and the like many years ago. The government basically drained those legitimate trust accounts and spent the money on other things when they had a duty to protect them.
The Pigford settlement on the other hand, was purely speculative loses for monies never earned. The Pigford case was rife with fraud and people who had just thought about farming are entitled to some money (though some legitimate claims were included IMHO).
The Dems put the two together so the Pigford settlement would gain legitimacy from the Indian settlement.
The Indian Settlement (Cobell v Salazar) should have stood alone.
So what’s Shirley Sherrod’s take on this settlement?
Good post, and right on the money.
Shirley and her extended family and friends are going to become rich from this settlement. For absolutely no good reason that I can see, other than graft.
If we had a real invetigative MSM, they’d be all over it (or if she were a Tea Party girl.)