Black Farmers Win $1.25 Billion

in Discrimination Suit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Thousands of black farmers who were discriminated against by the U.S. Agriculture Department will be eligible to receive $1.25 billion in a settlement, the government said on Thursday.

The settlement of the case, known as Pigford II, is contingent on Congress approving $1.15 billion for the farmers, in addition to $100 million already provided in the Farm Bill.

For decades, black farmers said they were unjustly being denied farm loans or subjected to longer waits for loan approval because of racism, and accused the USDA of not responding to their complaints.

The original Pigford lawsuit, named after North Carolina farmer Timothy Pigford, was filed against the USDA in 1997, and settled two years later when the government compensated black farmers left out of USDA loan and assistance programs.


More than 13,000 farmers able to provide proof of their claims of discrimination were awarded $50,000 each and given debt relief in a package worth more than $1 billion.

But tens of thousands of claims were denied for missing the filing deadline. The settlement in Pigford II would allow these farmers to again make their claims.

"We have worked hard to address USDA's checkered past so we can get to the business of helping farmers succeed," USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.

"The agreement reached today is an important milestone in putting these discriminatory claims behind us for good," he added.

Black farmers able to demonstrate they suffered from discrimination and filed complaints between 1981 and 1997 will get up to $50,000 and debt relief.

A separate, more in-depth claims process could provide some farmers with up to $250,000 in damages. The final awards for those with successful claims will be determined by the actual amount of funds Congress releases and the number of claims.

"The plaintiffs can move forward and have their claims heard -- with the federal government standing not as an adversary, but as a partner," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Any foreclosure on farms with pending claims will be halted until the claims are addressed. Those with successful claims will begin receiving payments in mid-2011.

"These are people who have been promised things over the past and they haven't transpired," said John Boyd Jr, founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association.

"We've been really pressing the government for the past 20 years, and we want to make sure this thing really happens for us," he told Reuters, saying the ruling could benefit around 80,000 farmers.

President Barack Obama applauded both USDA for its efforts to right past wrongs and the Justice Department for "bringing these long-ignored claims of African American farmers to a rightful conclusion."

ISSUE MOVES TO CONGRESS

Though the settlement is a significant step forward, black farmers awaiting compensation still have one more hurdle to cross. Farmers will only receive payments if Congress approves the money by March 31.

Blanche Lincoln, chair of the Senate agriculture committee, expressed her support for upholding the settlement agreement.

"I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to help provide the compensation owed to African American farmers who have been victims of discrimination," she said.

Boyd pointed out that this is the second time the $1.15 billion request has come to Congress. It was not acted on in the previous budget.

"Taking this big step today by entering into an agreement with the black farmers really puts the pressure on the president and the agriculture secretary to finish the job by calling on leaders of Congress to finally bring long-overdue justice to black farmers," he said.

(Editing by Simon Denyer and Eric Walsh)

Organized Activism WORKS !

Visit B4B Site

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline

More News You NEVER
Hear on The News !

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.

HISTORY:

The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.^[1] In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

On 24 April 2008, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.

ROUTE:

The 1,680 kilometres (1,040 mi) pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India.

TECHNICAL FEATURES:

The pipeline will be 1,420 millimetres (56 in) in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm.^[3] The initial capacity will be 27 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually of which 2 bcm will be provided to Afghanistan and 12.5 bcm to both Pakistan and India. Later the capacity will increase to 33 bcm.^[4] Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline.^[3] The pipeline is expected to be operational by 2014.^[5]

The cost of the pipeline is estimated cost at US$7.6 billion.^[2] The project is to be financed by the Asian Development Bank.

Special thanks to Wiki

Looks like there's more to Afghanistan than just terrorists, corruption and heroin...THERE'S OIL !!!

Click B4B

To return to Main Page

WATCH:
'Yes We KLAN' Rally In D.C.
This Is One SICK GROUP !

Return To B4B Main Page CLICK

WATCH: Whitney On Oprah
In Case You Missed It !
Both Days

SHOW DAY TWO:

Visit B4B Main CLICK HERE

Truth About Our 'Founding Fathers'

Racists, Sexists; Not worthy of all the Praise !

From: Can't Hold My Tongue

The term founding fathers has come to be associated with honor and glory in US society. They are referred to most often when one is lamenting this or that deviation the nation has taken from an earlier, truer, more righteous path established by the Founders. Almost always, I hear this rhetorical device, “the Founders” emanate from the mouths of whites in the US. The evoking of “the Founders” stands as yet another plank of evidence of the pathological nature of our national insanity. The myth of “the Founders” is most easily exposed simply by looking at a few of amendments to the Constitution for which they are so highly and incessantly praised and adored.

The main Federalists, James Madison, Andrew Hamilton and John Jay are heavily credited for providing the basis for what many consider to be a great system of governance, that existing in the US. Mentioned far less is how the Federalists had to be pressured by the anti-Federalists to include what is now known as the Bill of Rights. The Federalists didn’t want it in. Freedom of speech (1st amendment), the right to a speedy trial (6th amendment), the right to a gun (2nd amendment), decree that Africans are human (13th and 15th amendments). The Founding Fathers didn’t see fit for these things to be a part of the Constitution, hence the need to amend it, to add to it later. Look at all the amendments.

I agree that it was indeed wise to include an amendment feature, but the very things that had to be amended communicate volumes about just who the Founders were and what their interests were. They didn’t allow women or non-whites to be a part of the democracy they continually bragged about (and that continues to be bragged about). They created this thing called ‘America’ but then stated essentially that women and non-whites were not Americans. These groups subsequently had to fight for the right to be Americans. They had to fight for the right to reverse their situation created by the Founders. Women and non-whites being a majority of the population, most of the country had to spend years in struggle reversing the situation of exclusion written into law by the Founding Fathers.

If you talk to your average white guy you’ll find extolling the virtues of the Founders, he’ll explain to you that although those were problems the things he finds exciting and in fact extraordinary are all the other things. The fact that a majority of the population was excluded, is but a footnote to him, an ancillary concern. This is instructive as it illustrates how, even after literally centuries of so-called ‘progress’, the mindset of the Founders, those elites, still exists within the average white male in the United States.

Indeed, anyone that finds it within himself to extol the virtue of the Founders inherently sidelines the value of the lives of women and non-whites generally. History allows me to say that without hesitation. We know that the Founders were racists, were sexists, that many of them were enslavers. Knowing all of this, many in the US make it clear that they see these problems as minor. And thus the reality of the problems of today are made clear. The racist, sexist mindset of the Founders continues to resonate throughout US society; culturally, politically. Though progress has been made, it is the citizens of this country with the mindset of the ‘the Founders’ that have, throughout the years, have not advanced progress but instead formed the principle resistance to that progress.

*****************

B4B NOTE: Beware of folks who constantly rant that they want things the way the Founding Fathers wanted things to be. This, in many cases is code word for support of the ills and extreme negativity that has plagued our country for centuries.

Return B4B Main Site

Despite Internet Frenzy,

President Obama Still Firm

on Public Option Plan

Administration Official: "Sebelius Misspoke."

By Marc Ambinder

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

"Nothing has changed.," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."

A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak. "The media misplayed it," the third official said.

Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before.

On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it," Obama said.

This has been a refrain the White House has used for weeks, but not until Saturday did Mr. Obama voice it so explicitly.

The perception that the White House had backed away from the public plan has roiled many prominent Democrats, who took to their blogs, and to Twitter, to protest.

B4B Main Page

From Media Matters:

Charting a misleading course on health care

(BKA Health Care Lies of Right Wing Media)

Nothing sends media conservatives off the deep end quite like the issue of health care reform. This week was certainly no exception.

This Wednesday on his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News' Glenn Beck blew up on a caller who dared to challenge his unyielding, misleading war against health care reform. After patronizing the angry caller for several minutes, Beck "los[t]" his "mind," screaming at the caller: "Get off my phone you little pinhead!" Since then, the disturbing exchange has been burning uphighlighted the clip as an example of how conservative "anger" has "intensified." Capping things off, Beck's screaming fit spawned a hilarious YouTube user-generated remix titled: "Glenn Beck 'Get Off My Phone' Radio Freak Out (Twilight Vampire Metal Remix)." YouTube and is currently ranked the #5 video overall with more than 350,000 views. MSNBC's David Shuster and Tamron Hall even

Coverage of health care, though, has been anything but funny of late.

This week, the Drudge Report, Fox News Channel, Fox Business and CNBC's The Kudlow Report ran with a chart released by congressional Republicans that day - just one day after House Democrats introduced their health care reform bill -- that purported to show "the complex health care reform proposal by Democratic congressional leaders." The release from Rep. Kevin Brady (TX) about the chart, titled "BAFFLING FLOW CHART; Public Gets Peek at Complicated Bureaucracy in Democratic Health Care Plan," stated that the chart "depicts how the health care system would be organized at the national level if the Democrats' plan became law. These new levels of bureaucracy, agencies, organization and programs will all be put directly between the patient and their health care."

Fox News' Sean Hannity hosted Bill O'Reilly ambush-producer-extraordinaire Griff Jenkins, who described the chart as "Candyland," noting that "whatever it is, it's a lot of government between you and your doctor," while syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, also on Fox, touted the chart by saying it makes the health care bill "look like an absurd Rube Goldberg device."

The conservative media's promotion of the House Republican chart harkens back to the media attention devoted in 1994 to a similar misleading chart -- distributed by the office of then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter -- that then-Senate Republican leader Bob Dole claimed illustrated "what the health care bureaucracy would look like under" President Clinton's health care reform plan.

It really was a textbook example of how the right-wing noise machine operates. Media Mattersproduced a chart of its own documenting the media's web of misinformation on the subject, illustrating the disturbingly common pattern of conservative spin making its way from a Republican politician's press release to the Drudge Report to Fox News and other outlets on the right. Additionally, I discussed the subject as a guest on MSNBC Live noting, in part, that the conservative movement has been using the media to attack health care reform efforts for more than 70 years.

Not to be left out in the world of insane health care claims, an editorial by the conservative Investor's Business Daily actually claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The claim is false, of course, but that didn't stop Rush Limbaugh, the Media Research Center or a host of other media conservatives from advancing the delusional line of attack on reform.

B4B Main Page