The Plain Truth is so Happy That You Have Been Enjoying Bob’s Broadcasts.
2000 years ago, a newscaster that we know of as Jesus Christ warned us about false Christianity. The warning was not against the devil but against false Christianity…about people who come in His name and deceive many.
CLICK TO LISTEN TO THE PLAIN TRUTH TODAY 7:11 BROADCAST: Classic Stossel: Fake Farmers
Do you remember the Shirley Sherrod scandal?
At the time, headlines demanded her immediate resignation. Commentators declared that the federal government could not allow skin color to determine eligibility for assistance. A video appeared to show Sherrod, a Department of Agriculture loan officer, refusing to help a white farmer because of his race. The outrage was swift, and Sherrod resigned.
It was framed as a major Fox News alert: an Obama administration official had stepped down. But soon after, it became clear that the video had been selectively edited, taking Sherrod’s remarks out of context and twisting their meaning. Those who amplified the story issued apologies, acknowledging that Sherrod had been wronged. Yet while the media frenzy focused on her, a much larger story went largely unnoticed—one involving billions of taxpayer dollars.
Around the same time, protesters brought tractors and horses to Washington, D.C., claiming that USDA loan officers had engaged in systemic discrimination, not against white farmers, but in favor of them. Lawsuits alleged that Black farmers had long been denied loans and assistance by racist local committees. One attorney argued that if a white man returned to his hometown and applied for a farm loan, he would likely succeed, while a Black neighbor would be denied because the system was stacked against him.
The federal government eventually issued a formal apology and agreed to sweeping remedial measures, including mandatory civil rights training for USDA employees. It also agreed to pay $50,000 to any Black farmer who could show that the department had discriminated against them. Members of Congress urged the government to begin writing checks immediately.
And it did. Billions of dollars were paid out.
But farmer Jimmy Dismuke claimed the settlement had turned into a massive scam. According to Dismuke, lawyers told people that virtually anyone could qualify for the $50,000 payments. When people asked how to qualify, they were told that owning potted plants or fertilizing a yard could be enough to claim that they had “attempted” to farm. Dismuke reviewed lists of recipients and found that many were not farmers at all. Calls to people on the list went unanswered.
Because government records were limited, the lawsuit was settled largely on self-certification. Claimants only had to say they had attempted to farm. That standard, Dismuke argued, was so broad it was meaningless. “My three-year-old grandson could have attempted to farm,” he said. “There was no way you could lose.”
One attorney involved in the claims process later said he only realized the scale of the fraud after payments had already been made. People approached him saying that some recipients had never farmed a day in their lives, nor had their families. When he looked into it, he found the claims were true.
More than a billion dollars was ultimately distributed to roughly 15,000 farmers and so-called attempted farmers. The volume of claims was so high that Congress later approved an additional billion dollars to cover more claimants.
A farmer who declined to appear on camera showed a building where many people had filled out claims asserting they had attempted to farm. While not formally farmers, they were deemed eligible under the settlement’s broad definitions. The lawyer who secured the original settlement acknowledged helping thousands of claimants file paperwork. When asked how he verified their eligibility, he said the applicants filled out the forms and that he hoped they were telling the truth.
Critics argued that the program invited abuse, especially in a culture where entitlement sometimes blurs the line between restitution and fraud. Some claimants reportedly believed the payments were justified as reparations, arguing that Black Americans deserved compensation because their ancestors were denied opportunities in agriculture.
The attorney behind the settlement maintained that the USDA was systemically racist, stacked against minorities, women, and Native Americans. He claimed no minority group had escaped discrimination and filed lawsuits on behalf of multiple groups, including women. While women-owned farms increased from five percent in 1978 to eight percent by the late 1990s, he argued that discrimination persisted.
When asked whether white men should also sue, he dismissed the idea, saying they did not need help. Asked about legal fees, he described them as modest—around ten million dollars—though others estimated that attorneys collectively earned between forty and fifty million dollars.
In the end, critics argued that while discrimination may have existed, the settlement process created massive incentives for abuse. They concluded that the real winners of the lawsuit were not farmers at all, but the lawyers who facilitated the claims.