Pigford v. Glickman
Claim:  The Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit settlement paid out more than $1.25 billion, much of it to fraudulent claimants.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2011] In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997. The case was entitled "Pigford vs. Glickman" and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims. But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment:  In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to "Pigford". The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion.  This was because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers had now swollen, in a class action suit, to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America. There was only one teensy problem: The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers!!!!  According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers!! Oops!! Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims?? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion?? Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the "Rural Development Leadership Network", but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action -  Shirley Sherrod. Oops again!! Yes, folks it appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the history of the United States    a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting... Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in thisrace fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of  "Pigford vs. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.But....in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.. Because this law was passed in dead silence, and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official,  American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide recession to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim. Origins:  Pigford v. Glickman was a lawsuit filed by Timothy Pigford in 1997 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), naming Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman as the defendant.  Pigford, who was initially joined by an additional 400 plaintiffs (the case eventually expanded into class action lawsuit representing thousands of farmers), maintained that the USDA had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race in determining how to allocate various government support loans, disaster payments, and other financial assistance to farmers and had failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints of this nature from 1983 to 1997: Litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination  against African American farmers began inAugust 1997 with two suits brought by black farmers, Pigford v. Glickman and Brewington v. Glickman, but its origins go back much further. For many years, black farmers had complained that they were not receiving fair  treatment when they applied to local county  committees (which make the decisions) for farm loans or assistance. These farmers alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers. Many black farmers contended that they were facing foreclosure and financial ruin because the USDA denied them timely loans and debt restructuring. Moreover, many claimed that the USDA was not responsive to discrimination complaints. A huge agency backlog of unresolved complaints began to build after the USDA's Civil Rights Office was closed in 1983.  According to [a USDA] commissioned study, few appeals were made by minority complainants because of the slowness of the process, the lack of confidence in the decision makers, the lack of knowledge about the rules, and the significant bureaucracy involved in the process. Other findings showed that (1) the largest USDA loans (top 1%) went to corporations (65%) and white male farmers (25%); (2) loans to black males averaged $4,000 (or 25%) less than those given towhite males; and (3) 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to black farmers. The study reported that the reasons for discrepancies in treatment between black and white farmers could not be easily determined due to "gross deficiencies" in USDA data collection and handling. Under a consent decree that consolidated and settled the Pigford and Brewington cases, any African American who (1) farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, (2) applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits and believed that he or she was  discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997, was eligible to receive a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability.  As of January 2011, a total of $769,400,000 had been paid out 15,388 claimants. total In response to claims that a large number of applicants were not fairly considered because, due to a lack of notice, they filed late and were denied review, Republican Senators George Allen and Charles Grassley introduced unsuccessful Congressional bills (in 2006 and 2007, respectively) to provide a mechanism for these applicants to have their claims considered.  Finally, in January 2008 several members of Congress (one of whom was Senator Barack Obama of Illinois) urged the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to include in an upcoming farm bill a provision allowing "certain claimants who submitted late-filing requests under Pigford v. Glickman consent decree opportunity to receive determinations of their claims on their merits."  These additional claims ultimately resulted in a $1.25 billion settlement: George Allen Charles Grassley urged farm bill Due to concerns about the large number of applicants who did not obtain a determination on the merits of their claims under the original Pigford settlement, Congress included a provision in the 2008 farm bill that permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. This provision did not reopen the previous Pigford litigation, but rather provided such farmers with a new right to sue. Ultimately, 11  separate lawsuits were filed on behalf of over 25,000 black farmers, and these claims were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II). On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. In response to claims that the number of applicants in the Pigford cases exceeded the number of black farmers enumerated by census information, the Congressional Research Service reported that: Questions have been raised about the number of black farmers who were or are eligible for a settlement under Pigford or Pigford II. Determining the number of African American farm operators who farmed during the period of January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, is difficult because of the way in which the Census of Agriculture defined farm operator. Prior to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, only principal farm operators were counted. In the 1982 Census of Agriculture, there were 33,250 African American-operated farms; in 1987, 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators.   These statistics, however, failed to recognize that many farms are operated by more than one farm operator. In 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm. The 2002 Census enumerated 29,090 African American farm operators. This statistical change more accurately captured the actual number of operators, that is, those who areactually engaged in farming. For example, a single farm may be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. In addition, a farm operator might operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such a case, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm. Under the term of the consent decree, however, such a farmer could be an eligible claimant because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. The varying Census definitions of farm, farm operator, and farm owner help explain why the number of initial claimants in the Pigford case (approximately 94,000) was higher than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated by the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997 and why the estimated number of potential Pigford II claimants may be greater than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated in those or subsequent Census counts.  In addition, it is important to note that there may be other reasons for discrepancies between the number of farmers reflected in farm Census data and the number of claimants under Pigford or Pigford II. For example, individuals who attempted to farm but who were denied loans or other farm assistance would not be counted as farmers but may have been or may be eligible to file a claim under the terms of the two settlement agreements. Likewise, the estate of a deceased individual who farmed or attempted to farm during the eligibility period may be entitled to relief under either settlement, but such persons would not be counted as farm operators. Finally, due to fraud or mistake, some individuals who are not eligible may have filed or may file claims under Pigford or Pigford II, but such claims would not be entitled to an award. For example, nearly 7,000 Track A claims in Pigford (31%) were denied relief, presumably because such claims lacked merit or had other defects. Thus, the number of claims filed cannot be viewed as an accurate representation of the number of awards that have been or will be made under the two settlements. In April 2013, the New York Times reported that the latter settlement was agreed to despite substantial objections from those who maintained that there was no credible basis for it, and that the process for compensation was wide open to fraudulent claims: The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections  until now undisclosed  of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal  the $50,000 payouts to black farmers  had proved a magnet for fraud. The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion. From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination. Shirley Sherrod was the USDA's Georgia State Director of Rural Development who was forced to resign in July 2010 after video excerpts from her address to a March 2010 NAACP event were posted on the Internet, excerpts which supposedly caught her describing how she discriminated against a white farmer who sought her help in 1986 when his farm was about to be foreclosed on.  However,  a review of the unedited video in its full context revealed that Sherrod said she had in fact extended help to the farmer in question: In the heart of a farm community that still favored whites over blacks, with the USDA known as the "last plantation," Sherrod was tasked with helping Eloise and Roger Spooner save their farm. As she recounted many years later in a now widely viewed speech, Sherrod, by then working at a nonprofit organization that assisted farmers in danger of losing their farms, did not feel particularly motivated to help the Spooners, a white couple. Eventually, as any viewing of the entire speech makes clear, Sherrod changed her mind. She did help the couple, with whom she has remained friendly, and the experience became a turning point in her life when she learned to see beyond skin color and sought to work with blacks and whites battling to save small family farms that were shuttering by the thousands. White House officials subsequently issued an apology to Sherrod and offered her a new position with the USDA (which she declined). Shirley Sherrod and her husband received a share of a $13 million payment as part of the settlement of the Pigford case, as described by Time magazine: It was 1985, 20 years after her father was murdered by a white man who was never prosecuted, and the nearly 6,000-acre collective farm she had helped form in the early 1970s to create a sort of African-American utopia in the midst of Georgia's white farming community was going under. Governor Lester Maddox, a segregationist, called the tract of land "Sharecropper City," and refused to sign off on a grant that could have helped the families who owned the farm stay afloat. They had applied for loans from the Department of Agriculture's Farmers Home Administration, but often they were turned down or approved late in the crop season, delaying planting and harvesting, to devastating economic effect. The USDA would not let the collective restructure loans or take over the land and lease it back, as had been done for other farmers. Eventually, the land was sold to a white businessman and later turned into subdivisions. Back then, local USDA offices with power over loans were run by whites, and it took three times as long, on average, to process loan applications from black farmers as it did for whites. The Reagan Administration had shuttered the civil rights division in the USDA, which meant that complaints about discrimination were routinely discarded or thrown in drawers even as black ownership of farmland was on a steep decline. The failure of New Communities was so emotionally devastating to its participants that Shirley Sherrod's husband Charles later told the Washington Post, "For two years after all this happened, I wouldn't even talk about it. Couldn't talk about it, it hurt so much." But [Shirley] Sherrod did not let the USDA off the hook. New Communities became part of a massive class-action lawsuit against the department that was initially settled in 1999, reopened in 2008 and continues to pay claims for thousands of black farmers found to have been ignored, dismissed or mistreated by the USDA in the 1980s and 1990s. Out of about $1 billion paid out so far  reportedly the biggest civil rights settlement in history  the largest amount went to New Communities, which got some $13 million, with $330,000 awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone. "Thirteen million sounds like a lot, but it was not nearly enough. The land itself is probably worth at least $9 million," says the lawyer for New Communities, Rose Sanders. Last updated:  28 April 2013     Hennessey, Kathleen.  "Hard Feelings About Handling of Shirley Sherrod Have Deep Roots."   Los Angeles Times  4 August 2010.     Pickert, Kate.  "When Shirley Sherrod Was First Wronged by the USDA."   Time.  23 July 2010.
President Donald Trump and his team found several positives to tout from the newest round of employment numbers. On Jan. 5, the day the new numbers were released, presidential daughter and White House official Ivanka Trumptweeted, The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to 6.8 percent, the lowest ever recorded. We are working hard to bring this rate down even further. The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to 6.8 percent, the lowest ever recorded. We are working hard to bring this rate down even further. @WhiteHouseCEAhttps://t.co/LyNYIQ4D8s The president himself echoed the talking point in his owntweetJan. 8: African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote! #NeverForget  @foxandfriends. African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote!#NeverForget@foxandfriends How accurate is the presidents tweet? Hes right on the numbers but leaves out economic gains for those groups under Democratic control. Unemployment rates In December 2017, African-American unemployment fell to 6.8 percent. Thats a record low since the statistic was first calculated in 1972. The previous record low was 7 percent in April 2000 and September 2017. The Hispanic unemployment also dropped by a full percentage point, from 5.9 percent in December 2016 to 4.9 percent in December 2017. As the president said, this is close to the data points all-time low, which was 4.8 percent in October and November 2017. Did Democrats do nothing for black and Hispanic unemployment? The tweet would have been accurate if Trump had stopped after the numbers. But his dig on the Democrats marred his talking point. The unemployment rate for both groups declined dramatically on President Barack Obamas watch. Black unemployment peaked at 16.6 percent in April 2010, when Obama was president. It then fell by more than half to 7.8 percent by the time Obama left office in January 2017. Hispanic unemployment, meanwhile, peaked at 13 percent in August 2009, then fell to 5.9 percent at the end of Obamas term in January 2017 -- also a drop of more than half. We should note that presidents dont deserve either full credit or full blame for the unemployment rate on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. The White House did not reply to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling Trump tweeted, African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote! Hes right about the low unemployment rates for both blacks and Hispanics today. But his slam that the Democrats did nothing in this regard is an exaggeration. Under Obama, the unemployment rate for both groups fell by more than half. We rate his statement Mostly True. As Memorial Day approached in May 2021, a rumor started circulating on social media alleging that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters had introduced a bill to rename the federal holiday to "George Floyd Day": George Floyd   Waters did not introduce any bills to rename Memorial Day. This piece of text, which read: "Maxine Waters just introduced a bill to re-name Memorial Day George Floyd Day. Are you FRICK'N kidding me?" was repeated verbatim across a wide range of colorful backgrounds. No matter how many times this message was repeated, and no matter how vibrant of a background was used, this rumor remained utterly false. A list of bills that have been introduced in Congress can be seen at Congress.gov. This government website also allows users to sort these bills by politicians. When we go to the page for Waters, we can see that the California politician has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills in 2021  such as legislation that would "provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease" and "to allow Americans to earn paid sick time"  but Waters has not introduced legislation that would result in the renaming of Memorial Day. Congress.gov page for Waters provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease to allow Americans to earn paid sick time Waters did co-sponsor the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, but that bill had nothing to do with the annual federal holiday. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, which would address "a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability," was passed by the House in March 2021, but has not yet received a vote in the U.S. Senate. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 The head of the University of Wisconsin System says its high time for employee pay raises after several years of freezes, cuts and furloughs.We will all pay the price in lost talent and sliding reputation unless UW starts closing a pay gap between it and peer institutions nationally, System President Kevin Reilly told the Board of Regents on Dec. 7, 2012. No operation  public or private  can keep its talent if compensation languishes for too long.Reilly, president since 2004, said the gap between our UW employees compensation and that of their peers has widened in recent years, and that gap continues to grow.He added: Indeed, faculty salaries at UW System institutions have now fallen more than 18 percent below the national average.We suspect, with the state budget season fast approaching, that well hear that 18 percent figure again.So lets test it.There are many ways to compare salaries at schools. Reilly chose to roll all the UW campuses into one, which as we shall see has limitations.That said, Reilly made clear that his figure was system-wide, so ultimately well focus on that.We turned tosalary figurescollected annually by theAmerican Association of University Professors, a member organization established to advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good.The groups figures for instructional faculty pay, gleaned from its surveys of institutions for 2011-12, are widely quoted, notably in salary comparisons compiled and analyzed by the Chronicle of Higher Education.Reilly didnt make clear whether UWs peers include competing private schools, or just public, so well examine both.For 11 of the UW Systems four-year campuses, the AAUP peer group is masters-granting schools. The Madison and Milwaukee campuses are compared to a more select group, doctoral institutions.TheChronicle of Higher Education siteshows that all but one of the UW Systems 13 four-year campuses pay professor salaries that are far below the national median for full professors at public, private and independent institutions of similar type. Madison is the lone exception; average pay for full professors there ($114,690) is merely below the median for doctoral institutions. Figures are for full-time professors.Pay at 11 of the 13 schools for another group of faculty -- assistant professors, which is considered the entry level -- was below or far below the national median. At the other two, it wasabovethe national median -- Madison ($75,860) and Whitewater ($62,178).At the UW Systems 13 two-year campuses, professors of all types collectively are paid far below the national median, the salary figures show. Thetwo-year campusesinclude schools such as such as Rock County, Fox Valley, Waukesha and Barron County.Lets quantify the size of the gap.At the flagship Madison campus, full professors collectively would need a 4 percent to 5 percent raise to reach national averages, depending on whether independent and private schools are included in the comparison, according to calculations we did using the AAUP data.Assistant professors at Madison, by contrast, are 4 percent to 6 percentabovethe national averages.But Madison stands alone as coming close to the national averages in both categories.The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the states only other public doctoral institution, runs 24 percent to 27 percent below national levels for full professors, with average pay of $95,570. Assistant-professor pay there runs 6 percent to 8 percent behind.The other 11 four-year campuses range from 15 percent to 33 percent below average for full professors. Full professor pay at the four-year campuses (not including Madison and Milwaukee) ranged from $67,008 to $75,857.Assistant professor pay at 10 of the 11 fell short by 5 percent to 19 percent (with Whitewater the only school above the median).Those two positions -- full professor and assistant -- dont comprise the entire faculty.Reillys specific claim was not about individual schools, or groups of schools, but that system-wide faculty pay has fallen 18 percent below the national average.We asked AAUPs research director, John Curtis, to calculate a system-wide figure, one that rolls up all the campuses into one amount, and includes all types of full-time faculty, including associate professors, instructors and lecturers.Based on his figures, we found a collective 20 percent faculty pay gap between UW System salaries and those at similar public, private and independent schools.The gap is 18 percent for just the four-year, public Wisconsin campuses (leaving aside the two-year schools).Reillys office told us he, too, relied on the AAUP figures to reach his conclusion. His spokesman, David Giroux, provideddetailed comparisonsthat also factored in a cost-of-living adjustment based on geography. In addition, Reillys approach compared schools with a select peer group rather than all schools of the same general type.The bottom line from the UW-provided data: It reaches very similar conclusions to the analysis by Curtis. There was one major exception. Reillys analysis put UW-Madison professor salaries much further below the median.Our bottom line: Reillys math appears to be on target.Curtis cautioned that a system-wide number may signal a disparity in a broad sense, but really is not very meaningful for addressing pay institution-by-institution because the overall figure combines a wide range of institutions of different types.A system-wide look does not shed light on pay differences by field, either -- history professors vs. engineering professors, etc.Our ratingReilly said faculty salaries at UW System institutions have now fallen more than 18 percent below the national average.The aggregate figure has its limitations as a precise guide for future action, but Reilly scores with this broad comparison, which suggests a significant disparity.We rate his claim True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of March 2020 threatened to shut down businesses across America for an extended period of time, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should be provided economic assistance to keep them afloat for the duration. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that over the last several years many of the major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying up their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote: strongly against Start with the airlines. Rather than using their profits from the past five years to pay off debts and save for a rainy day, the big four  American, United, Delta and Southwest  instead grew their combined liabilities to $166 billion, all while spending $39 billion on share repurchases. That number, which is only from the big four, is almost 80% of what theyre asking for now from U.S. taxpayers. Similarly, the three largest Cruise companies -- Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean -- have liabilities of $47.5 billion and engaged in share repurchases of $8 billion. Had these companies paid down liabilities instead of using stock repurchases to bid up their stock prices, they would have been far better prepared to weather this emergency. Of course, higher share prices made their stock options more valuable. This allowed top airlines executives to pay themselves $666 million in compensation over the five-year period. The top cruise executives managed to haul in $448 million. Now, taxpayers are unwillingly being called upon to bail out their profligate behavior. A widely circulated meme on social media offered another reason why cruise lines were supposedly unworthy of government bailouts -- because although they might be headquartered in the U.S., their ships were foreign-flagged in order to put them out of reach of U.S. law:  That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly a disputable point. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged: news report [O]nly one major cruise ship -- NCL America's Pride of America -- is registered in the United States, according to data from CyberCruises.com. Most of the big boats fly Bahamian flags, but other popular registries include Panama, Bermuda, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands. In fact, according to Cruise Lines International Association, 90% of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. The three cruise lines called out by name in the meme -- Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival -- do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and their critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S., with the former asserting that: Bahamas Malta Panama reasons CLIA [Cruise Lines International Association] maintains there are reasons for such policies: "There are many factors that determine where a cruise ship -- or for that matter, any maritime vessel -- is flagged. Those determinations are made by individual cruise lines and other ship operators based on varying factors including the capabilities of the flag to deliver the services needed; representation and reputation of the flag in the international shipping community; the performance of the flag state, which dictates how a ship is prioritized by port states; the pool of seafarers able to meet the needs of the flag; and the flag's fees/charges and taxes," the association said by e-mail. This can be viewed as a robust free-market debate. Some maintain burdensome U.S. regulations have forced cruise operators to plant their flags elsewhere, while others say these corporations are seeking to attract American dollars while skirting American safety and consumer protection laws. On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" made no bones of observing that reflagging of ships had long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations: paper Aside from the majority revenue generated by U.S. passengers, cruise lines are independent of the U.S. economy. Even though nearly 75 percent of passengers are U.S. citizens, cruise line corporations and their ships are not traditionally American-owned or registered ... (Tomlinson, 2007) Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries [such as] Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas. In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament. A vessels country of registration is commonly referred to as the "flag of convenience" (FOC). Flagging a ship under a foreign flag for the convenience of the cruise line is nothing new, nor is it rare. The majority of cruise ships today are registered to Panama, Liberia, or the Bahamas. It is important to pay close attention as many vessels within the same fleet are often registered to different countries. Carnival Corporation, for example, has flagged their cruise vessel Celebration under Panama and Destiny under the Bahamas. Cruise lines often avoid drawing attention to the FOC of by using the term "headquartered in Miami, Florida." It is important to understand that while the majority of these cruise lines have their headquarters in Miami, they are not registered in the U.S. Thus, U.S. laws do not apply and passengers are at the mercy of maritime law. That the practice of ship-reflagging is common and regular is undeniable. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly some critics have argued that they do not: critics Even in a crisis, companies with prudent balance sheets will survive and in time, thrive. Despite what politicians might tell you, the airplanes and ships of imprudent companies are physical property that will not suddenly disappear. They will fly or sail again under the same or different name, but hopefully with cheaper prices, better service and different executives. Like a college student sleeping off a hangover, a crisis is a time to sober up by removing debt from the system. Its not time for another drink. McGee, Bill.  "What Every Cruiser Should Know Before They Book."
  USA Today.  26 April 2011. McGee, Bill.  "Why Are Cruise Ships Registered in Foreign Countries?"
  USA Today.  11 December 2012. van Doorn, Philip.  "Airlines and Boeing Want a Bailout  But Look How Much Theyve Spent on Stock Buybacks."
  MarketWatch.  22 March 2020. Griffin, John M. and James M. Griffin.  "Coronavirus Bailout for Airlines and Cruise lines Is Socialism for the Undeserving Rich."
  USA Today.  20 March 2020. Burke, Caitlin E.  "A Qualitative Study of Victimization and Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships."
  Accessed 23 March 2020. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Things appeared pretty bleak in March 2020 as the COVID-19 coronavirus disease continued to spread across the globe. Businesses and restaurants were being shut down, people were asked to stay inside their homes, and the stock market was crashing. But, according to viral list on social media, it wasn't all bad news.  On March 16, a Facebook post that supposedly highlighted some "good news" about COVID-19 started to spread online: post How about some good news? - China has closed down its last coronavirus hospital. Not enough new cases to support them. - Doctors in India have been successful in treating Coronavirus. Combination of drugs used: Lopinavir, Retonovir, Oseltamivir along with Chlorphenamine. They are going to suggest same medicine, globally. - Researchers of the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody against coronavirus. - A 103-year-old Chinese grandmother has made a full recovery from COVID-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China. - Apple reopens all 42 china stores, - Cleveland Clinic developed a COVID-19 test that gives results in hours, not days. - Good news from South Korea, where the number of new cases is declining. - Italy is hit hard, experts say, only because they have the oldest population in Europe. - Scientists in Israel likely to announce the development of a coronavirus vaccine. - 3 Maryland coronavirus patients fully recovered; able to return to everyday life. - A network of Canadian scientists are making excellent progress in Covid-19 research. - A San Diego biotech company is developing a Covid-19 vaccine in collaboration with Duke University and National University of Singapore. - Tulsa County's first positive COVID-19 case has recovered. This individual has had two negative tests, which is the indicator of recovery. - All 7 patients who were getting treated for at Safdarjung hospital in New Delhi have recovered. - Plasma from newly recovered patients from Covid -19 can treat others infected by Covid-19. So it's not all bad news. Let's care for each other and stay focused on safety of those most vulnerable. We're not sure who wrote this Facebook post. The earliest version we could find was posted by Dr. James Fedich, but we've come across several other variations of the list across social media. We reached out to Fedich to confirm authorship but we have not yet heard back.  More importantly, this list appears to be generally accurate. Some of the statements are missing some context, are a bit exaggerated, or appear to be little more than wishful thinking, so let's take a brief look at each of the claims individually: China has closed down its last coronavirus hospital. Not enough new cases to support them.  China built several temporary hospitals in order to care for people sickened by COVID-19. On March 11, journalists reported that these hospitals were shut down as the spread of the disease started to slow. On March 19, China reported no new locally transmitted cases had been reported for the first time since the start of the pandemic: reported    Doctors in India have been successful in treating Coronavirus. Combination of drugs used: Lopinavir, Retonovir, Oseltamivir along with Chlorphenamine. They are going to suggest same medicine, globally.  The Economic Times reported that the combination of two anti-HIV drugs had proven crucial to the treatment of coronavirus patients. India's Union of Health Ministry revised its guidelines to recommend the use of "anti-HIV drug combinations Lopinavir and Ritonavir on a case-to-case basis depending upon the severity of the condition of a patient having coronavirus infection." reported recommend But it's unclear how effective these drugs will end up being or if they will be implemented in treatment worldwide.  Researchers of the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody against coronavirus. The Dutch newspaper NL Times reported that "a team of ten scientific researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam and Utrecht University" reported that they discovered an "antibody capable of fending off an infection by the Covid-19 variant of coronavirus." reported This may prove to be a big step in developing a vaccine for COVID-19.  A 103-year-old Chinese grandmother has made a full recovery from COVID-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China. The Independent reported on March 11 that a 103-year-old woman named Zhang Guangfen contracted the disease in Wuhan, China. Guangfen was treated for six days at the hospital before being released. Dr. Zeng Yulan told reporters that the centenarian's quick recovery was likely due to the fact that she had no underlying health conditions.  reported Apple reopens all 42 China stores. Although China was once the epicenter of this pandemic, the country managed to get a handle on the situation, and as of this writing cases in the country continue to drop. On March 13, 2020, Apple announced that it was reopening all 42 of its stores in China.  Reuters reported: "Apple Inc (AAPL.O) is reopening all 42 of its branded stores in China on Friday [March 13], a company spokesman said, more than a month after they were shut in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak." reported Cleveland Clinic developed a COVID-19 test that gives results in hours, not days. The MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, announced on March 16 that it can test COVID-19 samples at its laboratory and get the results in just two hours. These tests, however, were in very limited supply: MetroHealth CEO and President Akram Boutros, MD, FACHE, said: "Supplies are very limited, and testing at this time must be reserved for the hospitalized patients who are critically ill and those who have had direct contact with them." Good news from South Korea, where the number of new cases is declining. While COVID-19 continues, currently, to spread in places like the United States, some other countries have managed to "flatten the curve" and suppress the spread of the disease. Science Magazine wrote on March 17: "Amid these dire trends, South Korea has emerged as a sign of hope and a model to emulate. The country of 50 million appears to have greatly slowed its epidemic; it reported only 74 new cases today, down from 909 at its peak on 29 February. And it has done so without locking down entire cities or taking some of the other authoritarian measures that helped China bring its epidemic under control." Science Magazine One reason for South Korea's success, according to CNN, is that the COVID-19 outbreak occurred in a population of relatively young, non-smoking women.  CNN Italy is hit hard, experts say, only because they have the oldest population in Europe. While South Korea may have benefited from this disease impacting its young population first, Italy, on the other hand, has one of the oldest populations on earth.  Wired reported: "Italy has been hit particularly hard, with some 2,000 deaths thus far. Overwhelmed hospital staffers have had to make devastating decisions about who to treat and who they must let perish. The reason why Italy is suffering so badly, write University of Oxford researchers in a new paper in the journal Demographic Science, may be twofold: The country has the second-oldest population on earth, and its young tend to mingle more often with the elderly, like their grandparents. Such demographic research will be critical in facing down the threat elsewhere, as more countries grapple with a deadly pandemic thats just getting started and we learn more about how the virus is transmitted within families and communities." reported Scientists in Israel likely to announce the development of a coronavirus vaccine. Haaretz reported on March 18 that "scientists at Israels Institute for Biological Research" have made a "significant breakthrough," and that they could announce in the next few days that they have completed development of a vaccine.  reported Haaretz said: "According to medical sources, the scientists have recently had a significant breakthrough in understanding the biological mechanism and qualities of the virus, including better diagnostic capability, production of antibodies for those who already have the virus and development of a vaccine." However, it will still be awhile before this vaccine reaches a larger population.  Haaretz added: "The development process requires a series of tests and experiments that may last many months before the vaccination is deemed effective or safe to use." 3 Maryland coronavirus patients fully recovered; able to return to everyday life. Fox 5 DC reported on March 14 that Maryland's first three coronavirus patients had all recovered and were returning to their homes.  reported The news outlet wrote: "On Friday, Montgomery Countys Chief Health Officer Dr. Travis Gayles told FOX 5 the first three people to test positive for Coronavirus in the state of Maryland have recovered and are able to resume their normal lives." A network of Canadian scientists are making excellent progress in Covid-19 research. The Montreal Gazette reported on March 13 that the country's scientists were making progress on COVID-19 research as they were able to isolate a copy of the coronavirus.  reported "A team of Canadian researchers from Ontario has isolated and grown copies of the coronavirus, the agent responsible for the outbreak of COVID-19 that has spread worldwide," the Gazette said. "The isolated virus will help researchers in Canada and across the world develop better diagnostic testing, treatments and vaccines, and to gain a fuller understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)." A San Diego biotech company is developing a Covid-19 vaccine in collaboration with Duke University and National University of Singapore. A CBS TV station reported on March 12 that the San Diego biotech company Arcturus Therapeutics was working on a COVID-19 vaccine.  The outlet reported: "As the race to develop a vaccine for coronavirus / COVID-19 continues globally, the San Diego based biotech company, Arcturus Therapeutics, is working on creating one at its Torrey Pines lab ... The biotech company is working with Duke NUS- Medical School, a partnership between Duke University and the National University of Singapore." Tulsa County's first positive COVID-19 case has recovered. This individual has had two negative tests, which is the indicator of recovery. Tulsa World reported on March 12 that the county's first coronavirus case had fully recovered. The Tulsa Health Department reported the good news on Facebook: reported reported   All 7 patients who were getting treated for at Safdarjung hospital in New Delhi have recovered. The Hindu reported on March 14 that seven coronavirus patients at Safdarjung hospital in New Delhi had recovered from the disease, writing: "Safdarjung Hospital, which is treating a bulk of COVID-19 patients here in the Capital has reported that seven of the positive cases currently admitted in the hospital have recovered but are yet to be discharged."  reported Plasma from newly recovered patients from Covid-19 can treat others infected by Covid-19. The final item on this list refers to an experimental treatment. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn said that the FDA was experimenting with a new COVID-19 treatment involving the plasma from a person who recovered from the disease: Tech Crunch reported: reported Hahn also highlighted another experimental treatment possibility that the FDA is investigating: Using plasma derived from blood taken from coronavirus patients who have recovered, and injecting that into other patients in an attempt to potentially jump start their own immune response. Theres a cross-agency effort about something called convalescent plasma, he said. This is a pretty exciting area. And again, this is something that we have given assistance to other countries with as this crisis has developed, so FDA has been working for some time on this. If youve been exposed to coronavirus and youre better, you dont have the virus in your blood. We could collect the blood now, this is a possible treatment. This is not a proven treatment, I just want to emphasize that, [but we would] collect the blood, concentrate that and have the ability, once its pathogen-free, that is virus-free, be able to give that to other patients and the immunoglobulins, the immune response could potentially provide a benefit to patients. In Summary The claims on the popular "good news" list are generally accurate and supported by credible news reports. The number of new cases in China and South Korea have dropped since the pandemic began, enough so that China has closed its temporary hospitals. A number of patients have also successfully recovered from the disease, and several organizations are working on vaccines for COVID-19. However, at the time of this writing (March 19, 2020), this "good news" should not be taken as proof that this pandemic is soon coming to an end. Health officials in the United States continue to urge citizens to practice "social distancing," and it's likely that we won't see a worldwide rollout of an effective vaccine until mid-2021.  vaccine The Hindu.  "Seven Recover at Safdarjung Hospital, Yet to be Discharged."   14 March 2020. Normile, Dennis.  "Coronavirus Cases Have Dropped Sharply in South Korea. Whats the Secret to its Success?."
  Science Magazine.  17 March 2020. Sepkowitz, Kent.  "Why South Korea Has So Few Coronavirus Deaths While Italy Has So Many."
  CNN.  17 March 2020. Simon, Matt.  "Why the Coronavirus Hit Italy So Hard."
  Wired.  17 March 2020. Efrati, Ido; Levinson, Chaim.  "Israeli Research Center to Announce It Developed Coronavirus Vaccine, Sources Say."
  Haaretz.  18 March 2020. Ramirez, Stephanie.  "3 Maryland Coronavirus Patients Fully Recovered; Able to Return to Everyday Life."
  Fox 5 DC.  14 March 2020. Breummer, Rene.  "Coronavirus: Canadian Researchers Make Progress Toward Vaccine."   Montreal Gazette.  13 March 2020. Tulsa World.  "Finally Some Good News: First Tulsa County COVID-19 Patient Has Recovered, Health Department Says."
  12 March 2020. Etherington, Darrell.  "FDA Testing Coronavirus Treatments, Including Chloroquine, Plasma from Recovered COVID-19 Patients,"
  Tech Crunch.  19 March 2020. Lovelace Jr., Berkeley.  "First Human Trial for Coronavirus Vaccine Begins Monday in the US."
  CNBC.  16 March 2020. Cleveland.com.  "MetroHealth Now Testing for Coronavirus."
  17 March 2020. Dalton, Jane.  "Coronavirus: Wuhan Doctors Celebrate Closure of Last Temporary Hospital After Dramatic Fall in Cases in China."
  The Independent.  15 March 2020. Economic Times.  "Combination of Two Anti-HIV Drugs Proved Crucial in Coronavirus Treatment, Rajasthan Official."
  16 March 2020. India Today.  "Coronavirus: Health Ministry Recommends Anti-HIV Drug Combination Lopinavir-Ritonavir on Case-to-Case Basis."
  17 March 2020. Newmark, Zack.  "Dutch Researchers First to Find COVID-19 Antibodies: Report."
  The NL Times.  14 March 2020. Giordano, Chiara.  "Coronavirus: 103-year-old Woman Becomes Oldest Person to Beat Disease."
  The Independent.  11 March 2020. Reuters.  "Apple Says Reopening All its Branded Stores in China."
  12 March 2020. A decades-old, remarkably persistent rumor periodically rears its head on social media:  The fact that McDonald's uses cow eyeballs and worm fillers does not stop them from legally using the claim that they served 100% beef. McDonald's has assured its consumers that its product contains 100% beef. They are allowed to do this because McDonalds buys their "beef" from a company called "100% Beef Company", making it possible for McDonald's to call beef byproducts and soy products "100% beef". McDonalds then ships the beef to their grinding facility in Oak Brook, Illinois where they then take the ground worm filler and add it to their 100% beef patties. McDonalds serves billions of people around the world every year. This allows them to produce a higher profit margin by increasing the amount of patties that can be made, by increasing their product load with the worm filler. The worm filler is ground and packaged in a facility next to McDonalds corporate headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. The employees must sign a confidentiality waiver to never discuss the ingredients of the McDonalds food products or face termination and legal repercussions. However many employees have stepped up over the years with the truth and have created a huge controversy over the quality of food that the company produces. McDonalds has also been accused of using mutant laboratory meat, and pig fat their milkshakes and ice cream. Considering that one quarter of Americans eat McDonalds every single day, although nutritionists recommend you do so only once a month, they are doing so unaware of the products they are putting into their body. If everybody truly knew what they were consuming, they definitely would not be eating this. Rumors don't rely upon common sense. It's the "yuck!" factor that gets us, and so the earthworm additive rumor has long bedeviled McDonald's. As chronicled by Fredrick Koenig, the McDonald's "worm burger" rumor began in the American South in the late summer of 1978 as a tale primarily told about the Wendy's and driven by (false) reports that an investigative television news magazine program had broken the story; then, in typical urban legend fashion, the rumor quickly focused on the most prominent exemplar in that marketplace, the giant McDonald's fast food chain: Toward the end of the summer of 1978, my mother-in-law said she had heard a new rumor about a hamburger chain: A story going around Chattanooga, Tennesse, alleged that Wendy's put red worms in their hamburgers! Contamination rumors are fairly common occurrences in the food and beverage industries. They often sound silly and seem merely bothersome, but they can be devastating, as Wendy's well knew. The first inquiring phone call was made to Wendy's on August 15th. The caller said that the worm story had appeared on the television program 20/20. As the calls poured in, however, the name of the television program involved changed from week to week. Sometimes it was 20/20, sometimes 60 Minutes. Very early in this rumor series, a woman called Wendy's main office to say that her husband saw a program (20/20) on which appeared representatives from Wendy's and McDonald's hamburger chains. The Wendy's people, she said, admitted to putting worms in their hamburgers, but the McDonald's spokesmen were noncommittal. Wendy's was the main target of the worm rumor, with McDonald's, Burger Chef, and Burger King named from time to time. After Labor Day, the Wendy's worm rumors became even stronger in the Chattanooga area and included adjoining parts of Georgia. One whole section of Atlanta was affected. In desperation, Wendy's Chattanooga people demanded that the head office do something. Steve Samons of Wendy's decided to go public, while Doug Timberlake of McDonald's opted to "lie in the weeds" and see how Wendy's made out. A television newx conference was scheduled for September 15th. It was to feature a representative of the government meat inspection office in that region who would point out that nothing was added to the ground beef at Wendy's or at any other fast-food chain. For some reason, he did not show up, so the production became exclusively Wendy's, who denied all and made statements to exonerate themselves. After that effort, they were never again part of the rumor scene. From then on the rumor involved McDonald's. It spread out from Chattanooga and for a while seemed to follow Interstate 75, over to Atlanta, up to Ohio. Doug Timberlake said that when it reached Indiana and Ohio, it really flared up. McDonald's response was to deal with the rumor locally, denying it immediately, getting names and sending out letters, and passing out literature. It just so happened that McDonald's had an illustrated promotion press kit, featuring the high quality of ingredients that went into their burgers  "Nothing but 100% pure United States Government-inspected ground beef," and so forth. These materials were distributed to franchise owners in the affected areas and guidelines were laid down. If the literature did not seem to quell the rumors, it was recommended that they start a small, local advertising campaign stressing quality of products, with no specific mention of the rumor. If that failed to work, they were told to go to the local press as a last resort. In no case, however, were they to use the word worm. Managers who called to ask questions were told what to do "just in case." Then things turned scorching hot in Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia. It wasn't even necessary for a person to find the rumor credible in order for it to affect his behavior. Just the thought in the back of one's mind of worms in hamburgers was enough to steer one to a pizza parlor. As Doug Timberlake said, "The rumor was hitting at the bottom line. It was seriously affecting sales in certain areas, and these kinds of losses could not be sustained for a very long period. The affected franchises were hurting; their operations were getting badly mauled." It was decided to hold a press conference in Atlanta. Timberlake was aware that "going public" would make many people aware of the rumor who had never heard it before. Public relations people often are leery of talking directly about a rumor problem or referring to rumors even indirectly, because they believe that such tactics spread rumor even more. On the other hand, an emphatic public statement possibly could immunize people from the effects of the rumor when they did hear it, as well as set the record straight for those who had already heard it. On November 23rd a national press conference was held in Atlanta in which the rumor about "protein additives" was denied. The "100% U.S. Government-inspected beef" position was re-asserted, and of course the word "worm" was never mentioned. A follow-up nationwide advertising campaign was launched in which color photographs of the product, with captions, celebrated its pure, uncontaminated ingredients. The "extinguishers" went into effect, and shortly thereafter the rumor was quenched. The experience of one owner of four McDonald's franchises in Atlanta, Georgia, was typical. Back in 1978, he saw his sales plunge by 30 percent and consequently had to lay off about a third of his employees. Corporate rumors aren't victimless. As McDonald's CEO Ray Kroc noted at the time, the rumor didn't even make sense from a financial standpoint: Rather than saving the company money, the idea of using of worm meat as a "cheap filler" was nonsensical because worms were much more expensive than beef: In April 2014 and again in November 2017, the "worm burger" rumors were revived when the faux news site Daily Buzz Live published an article (reproduced above) recycling that and several other old McDonald's-related urban legends, accompanied by an unrelated photograph of ground beef mixed with pats of frozen butter that coincidentally resemble worms. For the record, not only is the worm additive rumor untrue, but McDonald's also does not purchase and use cow eyeballs, skirt the law by buying adulterated meat from a company misleadingly named "100% Beef," or put yucky stuff like styrofoam balls and feathers in their milkshakes. article photograph cow eyeballs 100% Beef milkshakes Brown, Craig.  "... and Moreover."
 The [London] Times.  30 April 1992  (Features). Brunvand, Jan Harold.
 The Vanishing Hitchhiker.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (p. 90). De Vos, Gail.
 Tales, Rumors and Gossip.  Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (p. 152). Koenig, Fredrick.
 Rumor in the Marketplace.  Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1985.  ISBN 0-86569-117-7  (pp. 14-17). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.
 Rumor!  New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 70-71). Newsweek.
  "A Wormburger Scare."  27 November 1978  (p. 90).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 174). In late September 2021, Snopes readers asked us to examine the facts surrounding a widely-shared but suspicious-looking Facebook promotion that promised users free Texas Roadhouse vouchers in return for them sharing and commenting on the post.  One version of the scam consisted of several photos of what appeared to be Texas Roadhouse steak dishes, as well as a picture of staff attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new restaurant, along with the following text: Im Gerald L.Morgan, CEO of texas roadhouses. I know times have been tough so to help everyone out I have a special surprise for everyone who shares&comments then. Every person who does this by Sep 29th can get a voucher. Each voucher can be used at any texas roadhouses restaurant to get a meal for two with drinks!   A second version of the scam invited users to like, share or comment on the post, before clicking on a link and "entering" or "registering" [safe link] for the voucher: registering   Users who clicked on one of those links were directed to various dubious websites (we have archived or made screenshots of these links, so they are safe to click on) where they were instructed to "claim" their prize or "register." Clicking on those links, in turn, brought users to a variety of entirely unrelated websites offering various dubious promotions and gift card offers of their own.  various dubious websites dubious promotions Snopes discovered that at least 13 separate Facebook profiles ran various versions of the Texas Roadhouse scam, in the final days of September 2021, with all of them using the blatantly inauthentic profile name "Texas Roadhouse's." The actual Texas Roadhouse chain addressed the scam in a Sept. 28 Facebook post, writing: Sept. 28 Facebook post There is a scam circulating on Facebook offering Texas Roadhouse meal vouchers and other benefits to our guests who share their posts. This account is attempting to gain access to personal information... If you see a suspicious post in your News Feed offering free vouchers to Texas Roadhouse, please do not click on any links or share with your friends. Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors. One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:   The meme read, "Congress split the Dakota territory in half in 1889 to admit two new states with 4 Republican senators. So spare us the fake outrage over DC statehood." The text was taken from a tweet posted by journalist Ari Berman on April 22. tweet The meme generally responds to congressional Republicans who have stated that allowing D.C., a heavily Democratic region, to become a state will shift the balance of political power in Congress. Noting the racial demographics of D.C. versus other states, some Democrats have accused Republicans of stonewalling D.C. statehood because of racism. stated racial demographics accused It also characterizes current Republican opposition to D.C. statehood as hypocritical, noting that the national Republican party has benefited historically from addition of new states with Republican populations. Writing for The Atlantic in 2019, Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote: The Atlantic The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states. In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyomingthe largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later. Like most things viewed through the lens of history, the reasons North and South Dakota exist as two separate states are complicated by changing context. Business interests, local efforts, and national political wrangling all played a role, but without a doubt, adding North and South Dakota to the growing union of states had the effect of benefiting the national Republican party politically, and they didn't hide that motivation. But comparing the statehood process for North and South Dakota to current advocation for Washington, D.C. statehood is comparing apples to oranges, said Michael Card, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.  That period in American history was drastically different to the current circumstances in many ways  namely, at that time, a large number of states were in the process of being added into the Union. One of the major factors in deciding statehood was population counts of non-indigenous American settlers. That figure was set at 60,000 in 1787. set at 60,000 Another contextual difference was that the nature of the political parties have evolved over time, meaning the Republicans and Democrats of today are not representative of the parties with those names from the late 19th century in many ways. Many of the non-indigenous settlers in the southern part of what was then Dakota territory were Union veterans of the Civil War and their families, who were Republicans. Many likely moved far away from the battlefields in the American South in an effort to get away from traumatic memories, Card noted. Scandinavian and Canadian immigrants tended to settle in the north. As USA Today pointed out, "the Republican Party was much more concerned with protecting African Americans and their voting rights from its founding through the early 20th century. In the mid-20th century, both parties' stances on racial equity began to switch." That switch came after Democratic legislators passed voting and civil rights legislation i the 1960s. pointed out Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region. slowed the statehood But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota. And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington. In "History of North Dakota," Robinson noted that local advocacy also came into play when it came to the creation of the two states. At the local level, there was an internal push for statehood from a small group of influential men who were unhappy with the outside control that came with Dakota being a territory, and who wanted political equality of status.  History of North Dakota Statehood was a quiet revolution, accomplished by less than two hundred men. The first leaders were Yankton politicians, but all came from southern Dakota and all were Republicans. With few exceptions, they were conservative, middle-class business and professional menbankers, lawyers, ministers, railroad employees, and newspaper editors. They were of the older American stock and came from New England, New York, or the states of the Old Northwest. They were Republicans because Dakota was a one-party regiona result of the long years of territorial status when the Republican party had control of the United States government. The idea of splitting the northern region off from the southern one started with this group, but not because of political power in Washington, D.C., Robinson wrote: "From the beginning the Yankton leaders, a small oligarchy with much influence, planned for the division of the territory at the forty-sixth parallel. Division seemed natural. The railroads ran east and west, so that southern and northern Dakota had little contact with each other." When Robinson described the decision to ultimately split the territory into two when admitting it into the Union though, he noted that it was pushed hard by the Republican Indiana senator who would become the 23rd U.S. president, Benjamin Harrison: Finally, the program of division, with southern Dakota becoming a state and northern Dakota a territory, was dropped in favor of a bill to admit two states. Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana pushed it hard and the large population of Dakota (in 1890, North Dakota alone had 190,983 inhabitants and South Dakota 348,600) made further denial seem unjust and irresponsible. In the presidential campaign of 1888 the Republican platform called for admission of two states. Ordway and the Dakota Democrats finally dropped their single-state bill. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Omnibus Bill of February 22, 1889, authorizing the framing of constitutions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington. When the bill finally passed the House of Representatives, some of the members threw books and papers into the air in celebration and there was a general handshaking of congratulation. A step toward equality of status had been taken. Updated rating to "Mixture" and added additional context. On Jan. 27, 2022, a reader sent in a tip about a Facebook ad (and likely on Instagram as well) that promised $750 in Cash App rewards for free. The Facebook page was named Kjguyrt. It had been created only a few days before: Facebook ad Kjguyrt  The page claimed to be a dry cleaning company. This was not true.  One user who realized it was a scam commented: "Take your stupid f*cking advertising and stick it up your ass." commented After a few seconds of some simple searching on Facebook, we were able to uncover a seemingly endless number of more posts, groups, and events that promoted a similar $750 Cash App scam. Most of them appeared to lead to brief surveys in Google Docs or on sites.google.com pages before ultimately asking users for personal identifiable information (PII). Such scams have a chance of eventually leading to phishing, identity theft, or other harmful outcomes. No one was genuinely giving away $750 on Cash App for free on Facebook or Instagram. This one from a page named Flash Reward had been around since at least May 2021: This one  Many of the scams led to surveys before ultimately asking for personal information.    Meanwhile, some of the pages we found put the scam in the name: $750 Cash App. This one led to scams on WhatsApp: $750 Cash App  Facebook and WhatsApp are both owned by Meta.  One of the Facebook groups we discovered was named Cash App/PAYPAL BLESSINGS. It had more than 13,000 members. In the rules for the group, it said: "This group is for BLESSINGS only no scams." However, we only found scams. Cash App/PAYPAL BLESSINGS One of the posts from a Facebook user named Stash Account, which had nothing to do with the real finance app, posted in the group: "If you haven't gotten Help Drop Tag Names & Check Balance, I am Legit Limited Time." One of the posts  "I am legit" is never a good sign.    The Stash Account person responded to hundreds of people with the scam in a comment that looked like this:  "Let's claim your reward here." No thanks.    This other Facebook group was named CashApp $750 and placed its scam links in the "About" section of the page: CashApp $750  It's unclear why these Facebook groups were allowed to exist seeing as they were so easy to find.  On top of Facebook accounts, pages, and groups all being involved in the $750 Cash App scams, also including Instagram posts, we found well over 600 Facebook events that had been created for the ruse. There were likely many more. However, our Google Chrome browser window couldn't handle loading any further listings, as it was already so much information for the tab to handle at once. well over 600 Facebook events  Here's a sample of what a few of the Facebook events looked like.    We looked into the Facebook events to see if they differed from the way the scam operated on pages and in groups. From what we saw, it looked like they, too, initially led to surveys that eventually ended up asking for PII. We previously reported on similar scams that offered $750 in Cash App that impersonated talk show host Ellen DeGeneres. Some of those accounts appeared to still be active as of late January. reported It's unclear why these $750 Cash App scams were allowed to thrive on Facebook and Instagram when they were so easy to hunt down. We recommend that readers stay far away from any social media posts or ads that promise free money. For further reading, we recently infiltrated a cryptocurrency scam on Facebook. It wasn't difficult to find our way into the scam. However, what was unexpected was the fact that Facebook took no action on the scam despite the fact that we contacted the company's media relations team by email. It, too, was still active at the end of January. infiltrated a cryptocurrency scam Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to U.S. President Donald Trump, became the focus of renewed scrutiny in February 2019 when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform. This was Cohen's first Congressional testimony since he was sentenced to three years in prison for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations relating to his payment of "hush money" to women who alleged they had sexual relationships with Donald Trump before he became president. sentenced Cohen also admitted he previously misled Congress when he told the House and Senate Intelligence committees that a proposed deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, had fallen apart in January 2016, when in fact negotiations continued until June of that year -- by which time Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. misled Following Cohen's dramatic 27 February testimony, some observers, including Trump himself, attempted to portray Cohen as an agent of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was dishonestly smearing Trump on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee whom Trump defeated in 2016. The president highlighted the links between Clinton and Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, even suggesting that the former secretary of state was paying Cohen to provide damning testimony against Trump: Michael Cohens book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clintons lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one. Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary. Using her lawyer?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019 March 1, 2019   We couldn't find any evidence that Davis has ever acted as Clinton's personal attorney as Trump alleged, but the ties between Davis and the Clintons are longstanding. He served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, attended Yale law school with Hillary Clinton, and was a frequent public supporter of her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns, such as is shown in this July 2016 Fox News panel discussion: attended 2008  Against that background, a meme emerged on social media in late February 2019 that claimed an even more direct historical link between Cohen and Clinton, alleging that Cohen had previously served as her personal attorney and was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Bill Clinton that has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories promulgated by right-leaning opponents of the Clintons. conspiracy theories The meme included a photograph of Hillary Clinton standing alongside two men identified as "Michael Cohen" and "Clinton Foundation Chairman" along with text proclaiming "Michael Cohen used to be Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer and was a member of the Clinton Foundation":   The man identified as Cohen in the meme is indeed Cohen. The man identified as "Clinton Foundation Chairman" is in fact Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic former U.S. representative from Rhode Island and son of the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has never acted as chairman of the Clinton Foundation. The underlying photograph is authentic. Cohen himself tweeted it in June 2014, writing "Being received by two great Americans ... Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound": #tbt being received by two great Americans...Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW #tbt pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 26, 2014 June 26, 2014   The photograph appears to have been taken in 2004 at a fundraising event for Kennedy's re-election campaign, which was attended by then-New York Sen. Clinton as well as Cohen. Greg Ehrlich, who co-chaired the fundraiser in question, later told the Washington Post that It was an opportunity to say he [Cohen] went to the Kennedy compound. And he loved the Clintons. They were like rock stars. Michael was always a climber. He wanted to be the guy. Washington Post Although they once attended the same campaign fundraiser, we could find no evidence to corroborate the claim that Cohen ever acted as Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, despite our searching federal and New York state court records as well as news archives that extend back decades. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen was publicly hostile towards Clinton, on one occasion tweeting out a meme that included the false claim she had "murdered an ambassador": NBC/WSJ poll has @realDonaldTrump beating #CrookedHillary on #Honesty & #NationalSecurity. This picture says it all! pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV @realDonaldTrump #CrookedHillary #Honesty #NationalSecurity pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 28, 2016 June 28, 2016  On another occasion, Cohen tweeted at Clinton to say "When you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free":   Cohen deleted that tweet after he himself was given a three-year prison sentence for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations. deleted The Clinton Foundation does not have a membership structure, so it is unclear what the precise meaning is of the claim that Cohen was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, but we also found no evidence that he has ever had any formal or informal association with that organization. We contacted representatives for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Michael Cohen in order to definitively clarify the veracity of the February 2019 meme, but unfortunately none of them responded in time for publication. For that reason, we issue a rating of "Unproven." Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Judge Gives Ex-Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen 3 Years in Prison."
  Associated Press.  12 December 2018. Tucker, Eric et al.  "Trump's Ex-Lawyer Admits Lies About Russian Real Estate Deal."
  Associated Press.  30 November 2018. Schwartzman, Paul.  "Michael Cohen's Secret Agenda."
  The Washington Post.  9 February 2019. Palma, Bethania.  "Did Michael Cohen Tweet at Hillary Clinton That Room and Board Will Be Free When She Goes to Prison?"
  Snopes.com.  22 August 2018.