Pigford v. Glickman = Shirley Sherrod and Massive Fraud
 

TOTVers from both sides of the aisle....this case is so worth the effort to research yourself. It is amazing from multiple perspectives. It starts out like a slow reading novel, then explodes into a stunning barn burner leading to the steps of the White House and Congress. It has greed, plot twists, Shirley Sherrod like you never imagined, Andrew Breitbart, corruption and an expose that will be tomorrow's headlines.....if you put in the time.

Pigford was a class action lawsuit against the USDA that alleged racial discrimination in granting farm loans to black farmers between 1983 and 1997. The government in 1999, settled and agreed to pay each of the 400 black farmers who originally filed, $50,000 if they attempted but failed to get help from USDA. Source: Wikipedia

Here is where it starts to get interesting. On February 23, this year. The USDA quietly agreed to release $1.2 billion tax dollars as the original 400 claimants inexplicably rose to 86,ooo. If you love a mystery, here is where the "plot thickens"..........according to the U.S. census, our country doesn't have 86,000 black farmers....the number is actually only 39,697. What do you think Watson, could a foul deed be afoot?

Tension builds.....a finger is pointed at the woman who spearheaded this case. A woman who in 1997 held a position in the "Rural Development Leadership Network" A woman who purportedly received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action - SHIRLEY SHERROD.....Gasp.
My next post will be, The Use of Racism for Fun and Profit. Wait....that's already been done.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/110/0...Dismissal.html

In 2008, Chuck Grassley (R) and a Senator from Illinois......no suspense here...you can see it coming......yes....Sen Barack Obama (D) got a law passed to reopen the case, and add tens of thousands to the corrupt government gravy train. Why aren't they in jail for aiding and abetting a fraud on the American people?

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/...inglepage=true

It would appear that the mischievous but brilliant Mr. Breitbart may have the last laugh after all. What a trap he set for Ms Sharrod.

I have only touched the tip of this iceberg with a summary that will hopefully encourage you to exercise your Google button and your grey matter. That really is the purpose of the post. The final chapter is being written as an army of researchers is now investigating this scam that leads right to Congress and the People's House. There are copious, credible Internet sources for you to conduct your own investigation and fortify your own conclusions. You will be angered, frustrated and enlightened to the extent the Washington spin machine will not be able to "hide" the truth from you.

God bless America and keep our troops from harm's way.

I hear you loud and clear cabo35. When the Shirley Sherrod tape first surfaced, I researched her. I was really interested in trying to find out about the story she tells to the NAACP group about her father's death.

Instead, I found the story about the lawsuit. I also found information about this group in New York she and her husband founded New Communities. If I can find this information without any high dollar gumshoe action, but just from the comfort of my living and a laptop...oh well. I posted the information right here on this forum, TOTV.

I hope I can shake this feeling that people really don't care what happens to this country or their money. It is just becoming common place to expect this. To me it is unacceptable.

Personally, I wondered why she didn't take her old job back when it was offerred to her. It was the one part of the 'initial' story that just didn't make sense.

Wait until Glenn Beck gets ahold of this story.

This is why truth and history is so important. I found this 1974 newspaper piece which recites the entire text of a speech given my then-AFL-CIO President George Meany regarding the United Farm Workers of
America and its President Cesar Chavez.

If you understand United Farm Workers role and actual lawsuits against Shirely Sherrod's organization in the 1970s, it makes this even more interesting.

The unions have morphed and changed many times over since their inception to the unions we see today. They changed from their conception to the 1974 unions you can read about.

But notice what Meany says about immigration and the teamsters union (International Brotherhood of Teamsters). How very insightful and timely. Who are the teamsters associated with today? Hmm, the answer is one of Mr. Obama's favorite groups. The SEIU.

This isn't to say that the AFL-CIO is better or worse than either the SEIU or the IBT. It's just interesting to me. Talk about corruption and deceit and there is Shirley Sherrod's name right in the middle of a long history of government abuse and deception.


http://www.farmworkermovement.org/uf...28,%201974.pdf

Amazing what a little effort will turn up. Nice work. Where is the mainstream media? Covering Lindsy Lohan no doubt.

I forgot to say the piece is on page 7 of the link.

Not a surprise about the mainstream media at all. With all they gave a pass on during the campaign, they have a lot invested now.

Which reminds me....last press conference where the press could ask on any subject was over one year ago (we all remember when the President said the police acted stupidly)....to ME....that is newsworthy..the lack of such a press conference. Does anyone share my view on that ?

I'm so disgusted and angry with today's lazy press. If Obama came out high on truth serum at a press conference, I don't know if many of them would have the knowledge to ask anything important, relevant or any questions with any real substance. He keeps going on these campaign, grip and grin, dog and pony show stops. I'd like to see a few town hall meetings around the country where his real bosses, we the people, could ask some calm level headed questions.

This is the Journalist's Creed.I t was written in 1906 by Walter Williams who founded the Missouri School of Journalism, the first school of journalism.
Tell me if you think any of today's journalists have even read these beautiful words. As concerned as I am by Obama not holding a press conference in over a year, I'm just as upset by the journalist who don't do or understand their jobs and responsibilities.

I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best -- and best deserves success -- fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world.

Bucco, I am sure many share your view. Unfortunately, some, for a variety of reasons, prefer to wear blinders. It is stunning that no one can ask the President any questions in an open forum. Do you think it could have anything with the foundation of lies he has told the American people?

Yes
 

That will be when we hear the truth.

I seen on the news where they were talking about the sporting events attended by Obama. They said it was six times the number of press conferences he did.

Yeah a lot of people complain about Obama having no press conferences - except that he does. Then the complaint was that they weren't the right KIND in the right PLACE. Then the complaint is that they're not asking the right questions.

You can compare the lists for yourself:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/newsconferences.php

Reagan doesn't come out looking too good. He averages less than 6 and only had 3 in '87. So far, Obama is averaging 23.

You defend Obama at every turn. Do you actually think he is doing a good job? Do you read just what you want to read?

I'm of the opinion that the people with their irrational "Bush Hate Syndrome" who put all their faith in their near religious devotion to the man they thought would make them whole again, with love in their hearts, and return them to the Camelot of an America that they fantasize about, namely Obama; will never admit that they put their hopes and dreams and pride on the line for, at best, an "enlightened despot".

They can't and won't admit that they put their love on the line for this man who would turn out to be this huge a fraud. A man who has his own agenda that had nothing to do with expectations of the "useful idiots" who believed their saviour to be the exception to the rule of power hungry leaders who step on the supporting intelligentsia once their claim to power is attained.

There will be a need for many therapists and psychiatrists to sort out the crushed psyches of these woe-begotten souls when this is all sorted out.

I've said it about a dozen times before and there are people here who prove a point when it comes to refusing to listen.

Read closely what I write. It's the double-standard that I can't stand. I do not agree with many of Obama's policies and proposals. But to knock them when a previous administration did the SAME thing is poor debating. It basically shows someone as a hypocrit - that when THEIR guy does something, it's ok, but if the OTHER guy does it, it's not.

I especially like to draw comparisons to Reagan. When someone complains that Obama doesn't do press conference when he does than at a clip 4 times what Reagan did, that says something. Now, if someone says "Gee, I didn't know that", then fine. But what do I get? Certainly not that.

When someone complains that Obama didn't produce an instant economic turnaround, I like to point out that Reagan spent 1984 selling his principle of 'stay the course' and the economic problems HE inherited were far less than what Obama came into. I believed in giving Reagan the chance back then and I know you can't turn around a near-depression in a year. Nor do I agree that Obama is doing the best job of fighting it. (He's yet to convince me of how he'll get the deficit down)

I held my nose and voted for Obama. I *enthusiastically* voted for Reagan in 1980.

We'er all listening to you. Comparing Obama to Reagan????? I think I won't listen to you anymore.

All you have to do is read the words of the great Ronald Reagan as compared to the words of Barack Hussein Obama and you can't help but come to the conclusion that their ideals and beliefs and faith in American greatness are at polar opposites.

One can't argue that there aren't a lot of differences betwetween the two. My point has always been that the circumstances have many similarities and how willing some people are to endorse the same traits (when 'their guy' is in charge) that they condemn when 'the other guy' has won the election.

Your comparisons have too many holes to debate intelligently. Even, the far left has lost faith in his Oneness. One man was a uniter and the other is clearly a divider.

So back to the original questions raised by the Pigford case.

Who is receiving this $1.2 billion looted from the public treasury?

Given the available fact pattern, why isn't someone looking into massive fraud and corruption connected with these obviously ill-gotten gains?

It appears Obama and Congress had a central role in spreading the wealth through apparently fraudulent claims given the limited, available facts of the case. Who is investigating how the taxpayer dollars were doled out and who the beneficiaries were?

Where are the investigative reporters who vigorously dug into George Bush's National Guard record and invaded Alaska in droves to find something..... anything negative about Sarah Palin and/or her family?

It would appear Obama and his ilk own the so called mainstream media with rare exception.

I would not describe the press as "lazy." Unmotivated yes. Like Cabo said, they had plenty of gusto researching Bush's military service and Palin's background.

US Rep. John Conyers, a self proclaimed Progressive Democrat, has been involved in this case since the beginning. He openly states the entire purpose of the lawsuit isn't just about black farmers being treated unfairly. It is about reparation for black Americans. Redistribution of wealth. Of course if the "media" writes fairly about this case or the issue of redistribution of wealth or reparations, they are racists.



http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?F...c-df3de5ec97f8

Conyers was on the 2005 committee that looked at the Notice Provision in the Pigford vs. Glickman consent decree.


http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...ju97230_0f.htm

The press is more concerned with the current headline and almost nothing beyond that.