Income Redistribution, Obama-Style

30 Dec

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

English: Barack Obama  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to Wikipedia,

Pigford v. Glickman (1999) was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement on April 14, 1999, by Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. To date, almost US$1 billion has been paid or credited to more than 13,300 farmers under the settlement’s consent decree, under what is reportedly the largest civil rights settlement to date. As another 70,000 farmers had filed late and not had their claims heard, the 2008 Farm Bill provided for additional claims to be heard; and in December 2010, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for what is called Pigford II, the second part of the case.”

That description seems reasonably benign.

But here’s another description of the Pigford II case that’s a little more infuriating.  According to this video (below), a young Senator for Illinois named Barack Obama is responsible for a new law that allowed Pigford II to pass out over a billion dollars to more blacks–many or most of whom had never done any farming and had not been discriminated against by the USDA.

If the video is true, Pigford II is nothing but an extortion racket, and Obama is little more than a con-artist for income redistribution.

video       00:03:23


Posted by on December 30, 2012 in Government as Gangsters, Obama, Race, Video


Tags: , ,

5 responses to “Income Redistribution, Obama-Style

  1. Huey Campbell

    December 30, 2012 at 1:11 AM

    Onk, Onk, Squeel, Grunt……………I can’t get to the trough!

  2. ciarlidog

    December 30, 2012 at 2:42 AM

    Another step closer to “American Spring”……

  3. GreatScott

    December 30, 2012 at 4:20 AM

    Right, and the RepubliCONS make corporate bribe artists their Pigfest, what’s the diff?

  4. Ed

    December 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM Even if the correct number of Black farmers is or isn’t clear bottom line those farmers had property and a fair means of working their craft taken away, one way or another. Where was the youtube video when all this was happening in the first place? Redistribution of wealth, I call it getting what you deserve. While the black farmer was being discriminated against the white farmer was reaping the benefits and don’t be surprised if the “additional” people in the suit are only “Black” on paper. It happens every day, this was no more than a Discrimination Suit. Denying one the resources all across the board to farm based on ethnicity is discrimination and those tentacles run deeper than you could imagine.

  5. 1st trustee

    January 2, 2013 at 9:53 AM

    The man in the video did not seem a bit racist (as he put his disclaimer out). What was that dollar amount? $1.2 billion. Does it matter? That is a fine line to walk. Calling it reparations I can understand. The Jews got it, right? Do we take that back from the Jews to be “fair” about it not being given to “Blacks?” Should we count this as reparations under another name and treat it as such? Do “Blacks” deserve reparations? Is this the only way for “Blacks” to get reparations because addressing the issue directly didn’t work regardless of the evidence and overwhelming numbers of “Blacks” versus Jews killed and treated inhumanly?

    It’s about “fairness” right? But isn’t it all fiat currency? Too many questions; too many opinions; too much “wrong” that has been done; not enough information and not enough people give a damn. People are trying to get what they feel they deserve. While it may not be in a manner some feel is correct, is it possible to get it in the “correct” way? Evidence shows a clear NO! And is it not hypocritical to be adamant about only this subject and not the others that are related and surround it? Or are people only concerned with the matters they feel close to? Aren’t the “blacks” doing the same thing? So what’s the problem with that?

    That is a touchy subject that I can see both sides clearly. In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter. Its not like we can’t just add more zeros to the end of the “national debt.” What difference does it make? I’ve never seen nor heard of the numbers go in the positive direction, just slow down going in the negative. To believe that people will do what needs to be done to start the national debt moving in the opposite direction is idiotic. The monetary environment we live in does not promote such behavior.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s