Surprise, surprise.  So Google, perhaps the leading proponent of so-called "Net Neutrality," predictably…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Net "Neutrality": Google Says Nondiscrimination for Me, But Not for Thee

Surprise, surprise.  So Google, perhaps the leading proponent of so-called "Net Neutrality," predictably doesn't consider itself constrained by the same rules of nondiscrimination from which it seeks to benefit via government intervention:

Progressives have long argued that the federal government must protect the Internet from discrimination by treating service providers like Comcast as public utilities.  Now we learn that the Net doesn't have to be neutral, as long as Google is the company targeting legal businesses that are politically unpopular.  Google recently announced in a blog post that the search engine would no longer run advertisements for payday loans with high interest rates and a 60-day repayment period.  'Ads for financial services are a particular area of vigilance given…[more]

May 31, 2016 • 01:05 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
USDA’s “New Era of Civil Rights” Costing Taxpayers Billions Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, October 04 2012
What Vilsack did instead was implement an agenda that has funneled billions of taxpayer money to pay for unproven allegations of discrimination.

The latest billion-dollar giveaway for unproven discrimination at the United States Department of Agriculture was recently announced by Secretary Tom Vilsack.  The $1.33 billion settlement with Hispanic and women farmers is part of Vilsack’s “new era of civil rights” at USDA that is robbing taxpayers of their day in court. 

“The opening of this claims process is part of USDA’s ongoing efforts to correct the wrongs of the past and ensure fair treatment to all current and future customers,” Vilsack said in a press release. 

The settlement for Hispanic and women farmers continues a policy Vilsack began in April 2009 to establish a “new era of civil rights” at USDA.  According to the USDA website, Vilsack instituted a policy of “zero tolerance for any form of discrimination” and instituted a “comprehensive program to improve USDA’s record on civil rights…” 

What Vilsack did instead was implement an agenda that has funneled billions of taxpayer money to pay for unproven allegations of discrimination. 

USDA’s “ongoing efforts” include settlements for alleged discrimination of $1 billion in 2000 and $1.25 billion in 2010 to black farmers, as well as a $760 million settlement with Native Americans, also in 2010.  The $1.33 billion settlement fund for Hispanic and women farmers brings the total USDA payout to $4.34 billion, with all but the first billion coming during Vilsack’s tenure.

The settlements are commonly referred to by their case names: Pigford I and Pigford II for black farmers, Keepseagle for Native Americans and Garcia for the consolidated Hispanic and women farmer cases. 

All of the settlements arose out of lawsuits claiming discrimination when USDA officials denied farm loans to members of protected classes.  But not one of the litigants in any of these lawsuits has ever submitted their evidence to a jury of their peers.  Instead, every person eligible under the terms of one of these USDA settlements is rerouted into a claims process that tilts heavily in favor of making lump sum payments with few questions asked. 

USDA’s taxpayer-funded giveaway began in 2000 when under the Clinton Administration black farmers alleging discrimination were given a settlement option that virtually guaranteed a lump sum payment of $50,000 to any black farmer who had been denied a USDA farm loan in the previous twenty years (Pigford I). 

Some supporters of the easy payout criteria were explicit that the program was really about reparations for slavery, not actual USDA discrimination.  Indeed, the federal judge who presided over the settlement began his enforcement order by referencing “forty acres and a mule…” 

The spending spree continued in 2008 when Congress authorized an additional $100 million to settle claims with black farmers who failed to make a claim under Pigford I on time.  In 2010, Congress approved another $1.15 billion to fund the Pigford II settlement sought and negotiated by Vilsack and Attorney General Eric Holder. 

By that point, lawyers practicing jackpot justice saw opportunity and quickly landed a settlement for Native Americans farmers for $760 million, also without having to produce actual proof of discrimination to a jury.  The gravy train seemed destined to include Hispanic and women litigants until the 2010 midterm elections put an end to the Democrats’ control of Congress. 

That, coupled with the federal court system’s denial of class action status to Hispanic and women farmers, meant that members of two powerful blocs in the Democratic Party were left out of USDA’s newly minted spoils system. 

So Secretary Vilsack took matters into his own hands and began the process of rerouting doomed lawsuits into a more friendly forum where he could play the part of judge and jury. 

The result has been a $3.3 billion boondoggle that lets one man’s bloated sense of justice trump fairness to taxpayers.

Question of the Week   
Since its inception in 1861, how many Medal of Honor recipients have been women?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Smart Democrats began dusting off copies of their Plan B for the 2016 fall campaign this week. They were prompted by a devastating report from Department of Justice inspector general, who found that 'significant security risks' were raised by Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private e-mail server at the State Department. ...Democrats will carefully watch the polls in the next few weeks. If Hillary…[more]
 
 
—John Fund, National Review OnLine
— John Fund, National Review OnLine
 
Liberty Poll   

If Bernie Sanders debates Donald Trump before the California presidential primaries, who will be the biggest loser?