Cory Booker Touts Controversial ‘Justice for Black Farmers Act’, in Which the USDA Buys Farms and Gives them to African Americans

OPINION:

In the span of 3 weeks after the election, the Democrats who, whether rightly or wrongly, sense a victory in the 2020 presidential election, are already proposing legislation that is eerily similar to the Communist policies that South Africa and Zimbabwe have enacted, much to their demise.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced today that he has teamed up with Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to create the Justice for Black Farmers Act. On its face, to an outside observer, this bill seems innocuous enough. Who doesn’t want “justice for black farmers”? But the problem arises when you start to look at the specifics of the bill, and exactly how it proposes to reverse what Booker calls the “destructive forces that were unleashed upon Black farmers over the past century—one of the dark corners of shame in American history.”

For now, their plan is to do it by kindly asking white or non-black people to sell their land to the government, but as we’ve seen in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Soviet Russia, sometimes these polite requests in the name of historical injustices can follow the slippery slope of government mandates.

Senator Booker tweeted out a far left website’s article on the subject, captioning it:

“I’m proud to team up with @ewarren and @SenGillibrand to introduce the Justice for Black Farmers Act. We need to balance the scales after decades of systemic racism within @USDA have harmed Black farmers.”

I’m proud to team up with @ewarren and @SenGillibrand to introduce the Justice for Black Farmers Act.

We need to balance the scales after decades of systemic racism within @USDA have harmed Black farmers. https://t.co/aV7y8CcufX

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) November 24, 2020

If you read the below screenshots of the bill itself, their plan is, essentially, to create a new position within the Department of Agriculture called “The Under Secretary for Equitable Land Access;” an incredibly Orwellian sounding position which should read nothing more than “Land Czar.” Reading further, you see that their plan is to use taxpayer funds to buy land from non-black farmers who are “willing” to sell their land (you do have to wonder how long that “willing” clause will stay in there in the future) and, according to the bill, “convey grants of that land to eligible Black individuals with no cost to the Black individuals.” Although it’s not worded this way now, some may fear that one day it could change, especially since some Democrats are already calling it just a “good start”. Will, it one day change? Could it one day read: “We’re coming for your land, today it will be optional to sell it, but tomorrow it may not be, and we are going to literally give it to someone else because they have historically suffered.”?

Many on the right see this as nothing more than racial politics playing out similarly to many of the policies enacted in South Africa and Zimbabwe, where the newly liberated indigenous Africans enacted laws that transferred land and farm ownership to themselves and away from the Europeans who had, for centuries successfully farmed on that land. Infamously, this led to Zimbabwe, less than 20 years after they enacted these policies, offering financial incentives for whites to come back and farm the land after the implementation of their policies led to widespread famine across the country.

Can America afford to be in a position where the “Breadbasket of America” is not able to produce the amount of food needed to sustain our growing population? Are we capable of handling a famine right now? Is it even moral to give someone, or a group for that matter, an entire property for free, at the taxpayers’ expense for a property that they themselves did not earn? What level of ownership will someone who has just been gifted a new farm have for it, versus a multigenerational family who has deep ties to the land itself?

Will the benefactors of this land grab possess the same ability to maintain the production standards and output of the previous generations who were able to successfully do so? In many ways, these questions mirror many of the questions we ask when discussing multiculturalism as a whole, and these are questions every reader must ask themselves. Can the non-Westerners “maintain the farm?” We may soon find out.