Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200102 American Renaissance

200102 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21 |Likes:
American Renaissance, February 2001. Who Wants to be a Black Millionaire?; The Mind of the Chinese; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, February 2001. Who Wants to be a Black Millionaire?; The Mind of the Chinese; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 28, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/12/2013

pdf

 
American Renaissance - 1 - February 2001
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson
Vol. 12, No. 2February 2001
Who Wants to be a Black Millionaire?
American Renaissance
The untold story of howUSDA is handing out bil-lions because of “racism.”
O
ver the past three years, the me-dia have been covering an on-going class-action lawsuit a-gainst the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture (USDA) by black farmers. Accord-ing to the press, the department has ad-mitted discriminating for years againstthousands of honest black farmers, andis now paying the price. To date, no pressreport has fully explained the lawsuitand the way it was settled. This meansno press report has told the truth aboutwhat amounts to a deliberate decisionby USDA to write checks to virtuallyany black who steps forward with aclaim of “racism.” This article, relyingexclusively on knowledgeable sourceswithin the government, is the first in-depth look at this sad affair, which islikely to cost taxpayers at least $2 bil-lion and perhaps as much as $4 billion.The story is an involved one but is sadlyinstructive of the self-abasement nowcommon in the name of race. It likewiseprovides blacks yet more encourage-ment in their belief that they are besetby bigotry at every turn.The story began simply enough inDecember, 1996, when a small group of black farmers demonstrated in front of the White House, complaining aboutalleged USDA discrimination in its vastfarm lending program. Blacks are lessthan one percent of the farming popula-tion but account for three times that pro-portion of USDA lending (3.2 percent),which suggests the very opposite of de-liberate exclusion, but no one pointedthis out at the time. The press gave thedemonstration more coverage than itssmall numbers and unsubstantiatedclaims merited, and shortly afterwards,according to sources within the govern-ment, William Clinton told AgricultureSecretary Dan Glickman to keep com-plaining blacks “out of my back yard.”Mr. Glickman, who had been given acabinet post by Mr. Clinton after beingousted in the 1994 Republican landslidefrom a House seat he had held for 18years, was quick to comply.Within days, Mr. Glickman an-nounced the sudden discovery of ram-pant discrimination within the depart-ment he had headed for nearly two years(and which had been run before him bya black former congressman, MikeEspy). He offered no evidence of rac-ism, but scheduled a series of “listeningsessions” around the country to look forsome.At a probable cost of a million dol-lars or more, the January, 1997, USDA“listening” tour made stops in 11 citiesfrom California to Washington, D.C.The entourage included Mr. Glickman’sdeputy secretary, the black leader of anewly created Civil Rights Action Team(CRAT), and a hand-picked group of 11other government officials. The CRAThad originally numbered ten, but aneleventh was hurriedly added when itwas discovered Mr. Glickman had for-gotten to include a Hispanic.The “listening” tour had much to lis-ten to (see sidebar on page 3). Plenty of people, many of whom had been com-plaining for decades about allegedUSDA racism, were happy to repeatwell-practiced accounts of mistreat-ment. Among the aggrieved was a smallgroup of black farmers whose attemptto file a class-action suit had been dis-missed a few years earlier. They did notclaim USDA had refused them money–all had received farm loans–but thatwhite bureaucrats had not done enoughto help make them successful farmers.After hearing a variety of accusations,Mr. Glickman’s CRAT concluded thatUSDA’s civil rights apparatus had notbeen doing its job. It blamed the ReaganAdministration for this, although Demo-crats had been in charge for the preced-ing five years. The CRAT declared thatthe Civil Rights Division was in a “per-sistent state of chaos,” largely becauseof constant “reorganization” (which usu-ally resulted in higher pay for themostly-black staff). CRAT also discov-ered that the general impression of theCivil Rights Division was true: It was a“dumping ground” for obstreperous orunproductive employees who weretransferred there to undemanding jobs,as a way of resolving conflicts with pre-vious supervisors.Needless to say, CRAT also foundthat lax supervision by the civil rightsdivision had permitted racism to run riotthrough the department, and Mr. Glick-man accepted all CRAT recommenda-tions on how to correct this. As part of this process, he ordered an immediate
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.Why is this man smiling?
USDA essentially
decided to write a check
tovirtually any black whostepped forward with aclaim of “racism.”
 
American Renaissance - 2 - February 2001
 Letters from Readers
Sir – Sam Francis is provocative, asusual, in his January article about theelection, but I’m not convinced Repub-licans can get more white votes if theymake overtly racial appeals. There areonly three places those votes can comefrom: people who vote Democrat,people who vote third party, and peoplewho don’t vote at all. Obviously, peoplewho vote Democrat are not going to re-spond to racial appeals. Neither are thelefties who voted for Ralph Nader. Thatleaves Buchanan supporters–a pitifullysmall number that doesn’t count–and thenon-voters, who are therefore the onlypeople we are talking about.Would whites who now stay homevote for Republicans if only they wouldoppose affirmative action and immigra-tion? Where’s the evidence for that? Arethere millions of potentially racialistvoters looking for race-related differ-ences between the candidates but can’tfind enough between Democrats andRepublicans? I’m not convinced. DidGeorge Wallace get a lot of support fromwhites who didn’t usually vote? DidStrom Thurmond when he ran as aDixiecrat? Did David Duke? It wouldbe useful to know, but I don’t know andI don’t think Mr. Francis knows.At the same time, we mustn’t forgetthat an explicitly racial appeal will driveaway a certain number of current Re-publican voters. At the Republican con-vention, nobody got bigger cheers thanColin Powell–when he said there had tobe more affirmative action. There isobviously a large number of thoroughlyderacialized middle-class Republicanswho want low taxes and less government
and 
who think being nice to minoritiesis the
sine qua non
of human decency.Women, especially, will bolt if Repub-licans start sounding like Sam Francis.I wish Mr. Francis’ theory were cor-rect, and it would be lovely to have anattractive, pro-white Republican presi-dential candidate on which to test it–butI’m not convinced he would get anymore white votes than George W. got.Sam Harrell, Royal Oak, MISir – In the December, 2000, issue,letter-writer Susan Endicott says thewhite race is to blame for its low birthrate, concluding, “Whatever the causes,when a society cannot even be botheredto reproduce itself it is a symptom of profound sickness.”For the most part, whites are havingthe number of children we
desire
andfeel we can provide for in a way thatreproduces our civilization. Whites donot like crowded societies, and Ameri-cans would not have to live in crowds if our government kept out Third-Worldinvaders. Without them, we would havea low-crime nation with a stable popu-lation, more soul-restoring wilderness,and workable programs to transformpollutants into products and sources of energy. Would Miss Endicott insteadhave us adopt the low-parental-invest-ment, large-family strategy of our de-mographic competitors? Could we do sowithout losing our souls?At the same time, the demonizationof whites and the hostile behavior of ouruninvited immigrant “guests” has a de-pressing effect on everything we do, not just child-bearing. It takes an extremelytough personality, fortified with forbid-den knowledge, to withstand the cam-paign Western man’s enemies–bothwithin and without–have waged againstus. Count yourself lucky to be amongthe sturdy few, and please have manysons and daughters–as many, that is, asyou can raise according to the standardsof our people.Marian Kester Coombs, Crofton, Md.Sir – In your December issue youmocked South African president ThaboMbeki’s remarks about AIDS and AIDStreatment. In fact, his “eccentric view”that the harmless retrovirus, HIV, doesnot cause AIDS may be one of the fewthings he has got right. I suggest youreview the literature.In Africa, the main cause of AIDS is
economic
. AIDS generates far moremoney from Western countries than anyother infectious disease. As an example,in Uganda in 1992 WHO allotted$6,000,000 to fight AIDS but only$57,000 to fight all other infectious dis-eases. This is why many African doc-tors diagnose almost everything asAIDS, including TB, malaria, hepatitis,malnutrition, herpes, diabetes, even caraccidents. These diagnoses bring wealthto themselves and their countries.Alfred Ratz, Bend, Or.Sir – Eric Owens’ November articleon the new nationalist music was welldone, but I found his most fascinatingpoint to be the effect this music is sup-posed to be having on young whites:“[O]ne can already distinguish the riseof an intellectual and successful youthelite in the racial movement inAmerica.” I don’t see much sign of thiselite. Perhaps another cover story couldtell us what it is doing and where to look for it.Name WithheldSir – Thomas Jackson, who usuallykeeps his cool no matter how stupid thebook he is reviewing, sure lost his tem-per at the author of 
 Racist America
. Welearn that Joe Feagin is driven by “blindfanaticism,” and “naked lust for power”to write “breath-takingly stupid,”“Marxist gibberish” “foolishness.”Whew! I felt as though I had met theanti-Christ. This is the wild sort of stuff the other side writes. Please tell Mr.Jackson to ease off on the outrage and just let the reds and the goofs speak forthemselves. Your readers are smartenough to detect gibberish on their own.Susan Endicott, Waynesboro, Va.
 
American Renaissance - 3 - February 2001
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Contributing EditorGlayde Whitney, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor
review of 956 backlogged discrimina-tion complaints. The department paidmillions of dollars to bring field officeworkers to Washington to review thesecomplaints, with the result that
 possible
discrimination was found to have oc-curred in only
 five
of 956 cases.The department suppressed these in-convenient findings. After these em-ployees had spent months poring overcase files a Glickman assistant con-demned them to their faces as liars in-tent on covering up the misdeeds of fel-low employees. He also told them to de-stroy their notes.
Let’s Make a Deal
There had to be a better solution, andMr. Glickman set out to find it. In 1995,five USDA borrowers had filed a law-suit (
Williams v. Glickman
) chargingdiscrimination against black and His-panic farmers. District of ColumbiaJudge Thomas Flannery denied class-action status, citing the amorphous na-ture of the proposed class and noting thatthe claims of the named plaintiffs werenot representative of the claims of po-tential class members.However, with the legal climate im-proved by Mr. Glickman charging hisown employees with bigotry, two black farmers in North Carolina filed separatebut similar suits in 1997, this time onbehalf of blacks only. One plaintiff wasTimothy Pigford and the other was CecilBrewington. The Pigford suit is particu-larly notable because USDA had inves-tigated his claims at least three times andfound no discrimination.What’s more, a previous suit by Mr.Pigford against USDA had been dis-missed
with prejudice
, which means heshould not have been allowed to fileanother suit making the same charges.Both he and Mr. Brewington enlistedhigh-powered professional civil rightslawyers who recruited hundreds of plaintiffs. At least partly because USDArefused to challenge Mr. Pigford’s rightto sue, and made only token defenses,the cases became a legal juggernaut.U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, aClinton appointee, got both cases. JudgeFriedman often presided over sensitiveClinton-related cases, which he appearsto have received outside the normal as-signment process. His cases includedthose of Chinese bagman Charlie Trie,Democrat fund-raiser Pauline Kanchan-alak, and Maria Hsia of the notoriousBuddhist temple fund-raiser. In eachcase, Judge Friedman dismissed thecharges against Mr. Clinton’s associates,and in each case, a higher court promptlyreinstated the charges, leading to thesuspicion that Judge Friedman might beanswering to a higher authority thanmere law. (Judge Friedman also got theslander suit filed by White House aideSidney Blumenthal against Internet re-porter Matt Drudge. Under JudgeFriedman’s supervision, that case hasdragged on for years, sapping Mr.Drudge’s finances and energy. No trialdate is set.)Judge Friedman combined the casesand they are today known as
Pigford v.Glickman.
Amazingly, the complaintcites
absolutely no evidence of discrimi-nation
by USDA other than Mr. Glick-man’s statement that discrimination wasrampant in his department. Judge Fried-man certified class-action status for thesuit in October, 1998, and the jugger-naut was ready to launch.
Proven Discrimination
A
t least one of the complain-ants at the “listening” ses-sions had already won anofficial USDA determination that hehad, indeed, suffered discrimination.The word around USDA is that thisfinding was reached at the specificinstruction of former Secretary MikeEspy, who was later forced to resignamid charges of corruption but wasfound not guilty by a District of Co-lumbia jury in 1998. The finding of discrimination ignored numerousprevious investigations of the samecharges that had found no wrongdo-ing. According to USDA sources,the text of the final determination(which is unavailable to the public)is so tortured it can only have beenwritten under secretarial duress.This farmer was found not to havesucceeded because USDA “providedhim with inadequate loan funds andtechnical assistance” to become asuccessful farmer. With no apparentsense of irony, the decision thenwent on to fault the government forapproving loans when the borrowerdid not meet minimum cash flow andrepayment requirements–which isnot discrimination, but a violation of federal law that prohibits lendingmoney to uncreditworthy borrowersand the very opposite of denyingassistance. The department foundthat this same black borrower failedas a farmer because the governmentdid not provide sufficient “closetechnical guidance and managementsupervision.” The official findingneglected to mention that this farmerhad been a
teacher of vocationalagriculture
for nearly 20 years.This and other individual caseswere settled prior to the current black farmer class-action lawsuit, result-ing in payouts of millions of dollarsand the forgiveness of more millionsin USDA loans that should havebeen paid back to the government.Some farmers even got additionalloans from USDA and some of themhave refused to repay them. The cur-rent “civil rights” climate makes ithard to try to collect on them.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->