Sunday, August 15, 2010


As recently as August 3rd your Commander wrote extensively about the Shirley Sherrod story, and you may remember that I suggested that there was something missing from this story. Recently I received the following details, and I am shocked to note that there is little or no coverage of this legal action in our national media. Why?

"Pigford v. 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 v. 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 of this year, 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 verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697.


Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into 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. Oops again.

Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in 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 v. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack 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 depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim."

I was a bit suspicious about this information and began to do some fact checking. Information about the case can be found at the following two web sites: &

Or, you can Google "Pigford" or "Pigford v. Glickman" for other sites.

Let us assume two totally different sides to this story. If this is true, why are we not hearing these details fully disclosed on all our news outlets? Should this story not be true or any parts of it are incorrect I ask the same question why are we not hearing that side of the story?

I smell a cover-up. More important is the fact that there is absolutely no information circulating about Shirley Sherrod’s decision to accept or reject the job offered by President Obama. Is this another important story that will just fade away in the after-glow of even more startling world events?

How do you like TRANSPARANCY under the banner of HOPE AND CHANGE?


No comments: