Was Barack Obama a Foreign College Student?
One of the avenues of approach taken by "birthers" in their quest to demonstrate that Barack Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States is to try to demonstrate that, even if he was born in the United States, he gave up his U.S. citizenship somewhere along the way, and, if he's not a U.S. citizen, then he can't legitimately be president. birthers Barack Obama Therefore, many birthers gleefully seized onto a supposed news report from April 2009, which purported that Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles under a scholarship granted only to students of "foreign citizenship." They spread the rumor via the below-transcribed text: text April 1, 2009 Final Nail In Obama's Lack Of US Citizenship Coffin? AP  WASHINGTON D.C.: In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administrations efforts to move the country in a new direction. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrios case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter. However, this item wasn't a news report at all  it was a hoax whose elements were demonstrably false: April Fool's Day Associated Press stylebook registered website Read these tiny words very closely: the group Americans for Freedom of Information does not exist, just like the supposed "AP article" you keep cutting and pasting into e-mails to your irritated family does not exist, just like the "Daily Mail article" referenced in the fake "AP article" does not exist. They're all fabrications. Fakes. Hoaxes. Ask yourself why you're so eager to believe these obvious fakes. No, really. Really, really ask yourself. Occidental College told journalists Occidental has no record of a "Barry Soetoro" ever attending [Occidental], nor was there ever any such court order [requiring the school to turn over his transcripts], said Jim Tranquada, Occidental College's communications director, who personally answers the inquiries, demands and pleas of people looking for proof that the president is not who he claims to be. Tranquada said: "Contemporary public documents, such as the 1979-80 freshman 'Lookbook' [a guide distributed to incoming freshman] published at the beginning of President Obama's first year at Occidental, list him as Barack Obama. All of the Occidental alumni I have spoken to from that era (1979-81) who knew him, knew him as Barry Obama." Fulbright scholarships AMINEF lawsuit Supreme Court United States Justice Foundation Months after the fake news story started circulating, another iteration of the rumor surfaced: This time, the claim focused on photographs of Obama posing with family members (his mother; his step-father, Lolo Soetoro; and his half-sister, Maya) and an Indonesian elementary school registration form. The below-displayed photo is an authentic image of Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, baby Maya Soetoro, and 9-year-old Barry Soetoro (Obama). authentic image  Then, there is the below-displayed image depicting a registration document that the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia, released publicly on Jan. 24, 2007. Much as been made of the document, which ostensibly shows Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, having listed his stepson's nationality as "Indonesian" (thereby supposedly indicating that Obama relinquished his U.S. citizenship at some point). The document also lists Obama's religion as "Islam." Fransiskus Assisi School  After her divorce from her first husband, Obama's mother married an Indonesian student, Lolo Soetoro, who was attending college in Hawaii. In 1967, the family moved to Indonesia, where Obama attended elementary school in Jakarta until 1971. After that, he returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents. However, Lolo Soetoro's putatively listing his stepson's nationality as Indonesian on a school registration form does not in itself demonstrate that Obama was officially regarded as an Indonesian citizen by the government of that country. In any case, it's a moot point, since the same form shows that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, thereby making him a U.S. citizen from birth. (U.S. law states that a foreign nationality acquired through a parent does not affect one's U.S. citizenship status, nor can a child's U.S. citizenship be renounced solely through the actions of his parents.) states Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a person under the age of 18 must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that they fully understand the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation; are not subject to duress or undue influence, and are voluntarily seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship. Immigration and Nationality Act The claim that Obama attended college in the United States as a foreign student and/or under the name Barry Soetoro has also spread online via a digitally edited photo of a 1998 Columbia University student ID card. via a digitally edited photo Abcarian, Robin.  "'Birthers' Claim Obama Applied to College as a Foreigner."
  Los Angeles Times.  30 May 2012. Corcoran, Monica.  "Barack Obama Went Hawaiian Casual at Occidental College in L.A."
  Los Angeles Times.  18 January 2009. Gordon, Larry.  "Occidental Recalls 'Barry' Obama."
  Los Angeles Times.  29 January 2007.
On 23 December 2016, a woman identifying herself as Catherine Elizabeth Clennan created a GoFundMe campaign destined for viral attention, in which she asked donors to supply her with US$5,000,000 in order to fulfill her "lifelong dream" (of having five million dollars). Clennan's bid for money stated that at 27, she dreamed of one day being independent of her family who "pay for everything" for her. Although she said that she hoped to raise $2,000,000 to buy a home in California, the campaign's goal was set at more than twice that amount: My name is Catherine Elizabeth Clennan and my whole life I have been trying to live by other's definitions of who I 'should be'. I have been trying so hard to live this lie that I came face to face with a choice: either live as others definitions of you and die OR strike out on your own and find for yourself who you really are. Well I chose life. I chose to live by my own definition ... With this choice I am in the process of turning my life in a new direction. Currently I live in Laramie, Wyoming. in a property owned by my family. They pay everything for me - and I am 27 years old. I feel that as long as I live by their definition I am 'taken care of', but this definition is leading me to deaths door - it forces me to live a lie - to turn my back to who I really am; a free spirit, an artist, a woman, a lesbian, a civil rights activist, a woman who goes against the grain, a woman who knows that not everything is as it seems. I need $2,000,000 dollars to purchase my dream home in California. I need the money to help me walk out of the lie that I am living, but more importantly I need the money to live my dream - which is to live as much as my life in the spiritual dimension as possible. The money will go towards the purchase of a new home, new transportation, and the various fees and taxes that accumulate with a move across the country. These funds will help me live the life that I feel I am meant to live, the life I want to live - the life defined not by other people - but by me. These funds will help me break free from the tyranny of what other people think is 'right'. The 'right' job, the 'right' education, the 'right' way to earn a living...   Although GoFundMe marked the campaign as "trending" as of 28 December 2016, Clennan had only received $21 of that goal on that date:   Although she has not indicated that her campaign is a hoax or prank (and GoFundMe has not flagged or removed it), Clennan does not appear to have much of an online footprint other than this campaign, aside from a LinkedIn profile and what may be a Huffington Post contribution (which as of April 2016 indicated she was an active student). That single article led some social media users to claim Clennan worked for the Huffington Post, but it looked as if she had submitted only one piece as a contributor. LinkedIn contribution In that article, Clennan expressed a desire to "be a public figure": Exposing my vulnerabilities publicly and confidently gave that girl the strength she needed to participate. Thats when I knew exactly what I wanted to do with my life  I want to use computer science to inspire other women to explore computer science. I want to be a public figure in computer science that is the exact opposite of what you would typically expect to find in the field. I want to be that girl who no one thought she could, who had all the odds against her, that everyone thought was dumb, and yet she becomes incredibly successful in computer science. Then I want to turn that success around and use it as a pedestal to expose every wound, every failure, every painful vulnerability I have, even with my hands trembling, Clennan invited potential donors to visit her Facebook page for more information, but few additional details were available there. It remains possible that her goal is genuine and presented honestly with no expectations that it would go over poorly or go viral, but also within the realm of possibility that the GoFundMe request was a step in her stated aim to become a public figure. Facebook Clennan, Catherine.  "The Benefits Of Being A Dumb Girl In Computer Science."
  Huffington Post.  12 April 2016. In mid-June 2021, thousands of Twitter users circulated the below-displayed tweet including images purportedly taken from an eighth-grade textbook in Louisiana that introduces the Civil War through the perspective of Kate Stone, a 20-year-old, wealthy white woman whose family owned more than 100 slaves. below-displayed tweet "There are two approved Louisiana history textbooks for the state's 8th graders," read the tweet authored by Joshua Benton, who's the founder of Harvard University's Neiman Lab. "This is how one of them introduced the Civil War: as tough times for a poor young white woman whose family owned 120 slaves." Joshua Benton   Benton added to clarify his point:   That clarification was largely true. State law allows local school systems to establish required textbooks for students  since, according to the Louisiana Department of Education, educators "closest to students are best positioned to decide which instructional materials are appropriate for their district and classrooms." Louisiana Department of Education For the purpose of this fact check we focused on Benton's underlying claim: that the Louisiana Department of Education reviewed a textbook called "Louisiana Our History, Our Home" for eighth-grade teachers to possibly include in social studies classes, and that that piece of literature introduces readers to the Civil War via the perspective of a wealthy, white woman whose family owned more than 100 slaves. Under Louisiana law, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education oversees teams of teachers who regularly review textbooks submitted by publishers to determine if, or to what extent, they meet the state's teaching objectives in core subjects (English language arts, math, science, and social studies). A document outlining that process reads: Under Louisiana law document The Department conducts the review of instructional materials. This process supports local school systems and educators in making informed decisions regarding which materials to adopt and purchase locally. The state does not recommend or adopt textbooks or instructional materials. [...] There are no requirements to use any of the textbooks and instructional materials that have been state reviewed. Pending the outcome of the state reviews, the state Department of Education lists the textbooks on its website for local school boards to consider while creating curricula, or for parents and students to see. on its website The list ranks the books on a three-tiered scale, with a "Tier I" label for learning materials that are of "exemplary quality and meet all criteria" and a "Tier III" designation for resources that "do not meet the non-negotiable criteria." meet all criteria Let us note here: A financial incentive exists for local school systems that opt for books with the state's highest rating. Administrators can buy "Tier 1" materials using state funding; however, they must come up with local dollars to help cover the cost of "Tier 3" resources, according to state records. Also, school systems can instead forgo the state's review process altogether and rely on their own ratings of textbooks, or they can adopt a combination of state-reviewed and locally-reviewed materials. state records As of this writing, the state department's list of "Instructional Materials Reviews" indeed included the textbook to which Benton referred in his viral tweet  titled "Louisiana Our History, Our Home" and published by Clairmont Press in 2015. Also, as Benton correctly stated, just one other textbook exclusively designed for eighth-grade social studies classes was similarly reviewed. Here's a screenshot of a portion of the list for proof: list Louisiana Our History, Our Home Clairmont Press just one other textbook   Considering that evidence, it was true the Louisiana Department of Education reviewed the book for eighth-grade teachers to possibly use in classrooms and made that fact known on the department's website, despite the fact that local school districts ultimately decide what students read on a community-by-community basis. Furthermore, the state department rated "Louisiana Our History, Our Home" with a "Tier III" label, citing a range of issues from its sourcing to interactive activities for students. Ted Beasley, the agency's director of communication, elaborated in an email to Snopes: This Clairmont Press resource is Tier III, which is the lowest rating we have. This is the lowest possible rating we can give a resource. We rate all resources submitted by publishers. Tier 3 signifies materials that do not represent quality. We do not have data on the number of systems or schools utilizing the referenced textbook. The state's review of the controversial book, however, did not explicitly note anything about the purported introduction to the Civil War via the story of Kate Stone, a 20-year-old white woman whose family operated a planation in northeast Louisiana and at one point owned more than 100 slaves. (She documented the war's impact on them in diaries, and publishers later compiled those writings to create "Brokenburn: The Journal of Kate Stone.") The state's review of the controversial book Brokenburn: The Journal of Kate Stone Next, we investigated whether the textbook indeed included the pages shown in Benton's tweet and below.   From Twitter user @jbenton   From Twitter user @jbenton  Firstly, we attempted to contact Benton to learn how he made his alleged discovery. We were waiting on his response, as of the initial publication of this report. Beasley told Snopes the state department was unable to confirm the authenticity of the pages. So, we reached out to Clairmont Press, as well as the textbook's listed author, Alecia Long, with the following questions: We have not received responses from them, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. In sum, until we uncover verified evidence to corroborated the images in Benton's tweet thread, we cannot give this claim a traditional Snopes rating, so we therefore rate it "Research in Progress." In follow-up tweets, Benton elaborated on his purported discoveries within the textbook, including a chapter that aimed to tell the story of Louisiana's post-war years by first sharing the experience of a Confederate soldier who eventually served as Louisiana's governor, Francis R. T. Nicholls. And, as of this writing, his biography on the state's Secretary of State website described Nicholls as a politician who considered the Antebellum Period as "a golden age in Louisiana" with the "planter approach to less government-low taxes, few official services and little involvement by Blacks in the political processes." post-war years Francis R. T. Nicholls his biography Antebellum Period After the budget committee in the Florida House recommended an 8 percent tuition increase last month, parents, students and politicians alike cried foul because the state university system has raised tuition for the past six years.Even Gov. Rick Scott, who signed a budget last year with a tuition increase with nary a peep, said, I don't believe in tuition hikes.The problem with getting upset about those higher tuition bills, said House budget panel chair Rep. Denise Grimsley, R-Sebring, is that Floridians aren't really paying all that much for college as it is because Floridas tuition rates are already among the lowest in the nation.The cost of postsecondary education in Florida is almost the lowest in the nation at an average of $5,531 (Florida ranks 45th), which is 32 percent lower than the national average of $8,200, Grimsley told theTampa Bay Times. The increase is equal to $8.27 per credit hour, which equates to $248.10 for a full 30 credit hours per year. Allowing tuition increases helps keeps Florida nationally competitive.This oft-cited ranking of 45th is a very popular argument among proponents of the increase, in Tallahassee and across the state's 11 public universities. PolitiFact wondered, since this ranking is quoted so often, is it accurate?The source of the national rankings is the College Boards 2011 Trends in College Pricing report. The annual report is produced by the nonprofit organization, which also owns the SAT, and is comprised of data from surveys of almost 4,000 postsecondary institutions nationwide and historical data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Department of Education. In this case, we're talking about the average price paid by a full-time student for one year of undergraduate enrollment. (It does not include room and board. )For the 2011-12 academic year, this amounted to an average of $5,626, the survey says. This is an 11.8 percent increase from the previous year, when the average was $5,034. The discrepancy between Grimsley's numbers and the final reported $5,626 is a difference between weighted and unweighted data, said College Board analyst Jennifer Ma. The simple average across tuitions is $5,531, but the board uses a formula to create totals that better reflect full-time enrollment, she said.Last year, the Legislature increased tuition 8 percent, and the state university system followed up with another 7 percent hike under a program known as tuition differential. Universities are allowed to raise tuition beyond any legislative base tuition hike as long as the total increase does not exceed 15 percent each year. Theyre allowed to keep going up until reaching the national average, which currently stands at $8,244. (Last years 15 percent increase differs from the 11.8 percent listed in the Trends in College Pricing report because the report includes fees as well as tuition. )As any parent with a checkbook can see, Florida's average tuition is cheaper than $8,244. It's also cheaper than the state with the highest average tuition in the country, an honor that belongs to New Hampshire, which stands at $13,507. The last school on the list is Wyoming, which charges an average of $4,125.In addition to Wyoming, the other states costing less than Florida are West Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, Utah and Louisiana. If your eyes haven't glazed over from so many numbers, the important part is that of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Florida does indeed rank 45th, although if we want to get technical, which PolitiFact always does, Florida is ranked 44th among the 50 states when you exclude D.C. (which comes in at No. 31 on the list with an even $7,000). In case you were wondering, the wide variance among state tuition costs comes down to taxpayer-funded support for postsecondary education. In states with very high average tuition, tax coffers contribute very little to public colleges and universities. Florida's tax contribution to tuition costs has dropped significantly in recent years; tuition used to pay about 25 percent of the cost of college, with state support picking up 75 percent of the bill. That ratio has moved closer to a 50-50 model.Ralph Wilcox, provost at the University of South Florida and chairman of the Council of Academic Vice Presidents for the state university system, prefers to compare Florida to other states with high-ranked public research universities recognized by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, using data from the U.S Department of Education. In that scenario, Florida ranks dead last for tuition costs. The average among those 40 states now tops $9,200.Grimsley's office defends continued increases in order to bring Florida schools in line with other research universities and to fund new initiatives. The rise in prices would also help schools recruit highly qualified faculty and researchers, she reasons.Our rulingFor this fact-check, we're not looking at the case for or against college tuition increases. Instead, we wanted to see if Florida actually came in 45th in the nation for tuition costs, because we've heard that number cited so often. Using the most comprehensive survey of postsecondary education available, Florida does indeed rank 45th if you count the District of Columbia; otherwise, the state ranks 44th. The only states that have lower tuition than we do are West Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, Utah, Louisiana and Wyoming. We rate this claim True. Elected officials pay can be a sensitive topic with taxpayers, especially in todays economic climate. So its no surprise Ohio Treasurer Kevin Boyce, who is running in November to keep his job, is bragging about cutting his salary.Boyce talked about his six-figure earnings in a YouTube video released by his office. Presented as a preview of the offices forthcoming annual financial report, the production feels more like a tribute to Boyces performance as treasurer aimed directly at voters.Ive even cut my salary -- twice, said Boyce, a Democrat and former Columbus city councilman.Boyce was appointed Treasurer in late 2008. Richard Cordray left a vacancy when he took the state attorney generals job in the wake of Marc Danns resignation.Annual salaries for the states elected officials are set in state law, which lawmakers can amend to increase or decrease pay. The treasurers salary has been set at $109,986 since 2008.In June 2009, Boyce sent a memo to the state Department of Administrative Services saying he was taking a pay cut that would reduce his gross salary that year to $107,874. The pay cut, effective July 1, 2009, was the equivalent of taking five unpaid furlough days, a cost-saving measure that has been forced upon many state employees.In the same memo, Boyce authorized an extension of the reduction for all of 2010. This years pay cut is the equivalent of 10 unpaid furlough days, according to the administrative services department.Boyces gross salary this year will be $105,757.Boyce lumped both cuts -- each about 2 percent -- in the same memo, but he effectively trimmed his salary twice. Had he not extended the cut into 2010, his pay wouldve jumped back up to $109,986, a spokeswoman for the administrative services department said.We find Boyces statement True. Comment on this item. An image widely circulated on Facebook in response to the National Football League's anthem controversy held that NFL players did not stand on the sidelines during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before games prior to 2009. Instead, they stayed in locker rooms during the anthem and did not begin standing along the sidelines for renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" until after the Defense Department began paying the NFL to hold patriotic displays in 2009:  The issue has been in the public spotlight ever since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began protesting police brutality by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem during exhibition games played prior to the start of the 2016 NFL season. Several other players, including some in other sports, have since taken part in similar silent demonstrations during the 2016 and 2017 seasons. Tom E. Curran of Comcast Sportsnet New England reported in a story published on 29 August 2016 that teams standing together on the field during the playing of the national anthem was a relatively recent development in NFL history: "NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed this the practice began in 2009, adding, 'As you know, the NFL has a long tradition of patriotism. Players are encouraged but not required to stand for the anthem.'" published What actually changed in 2009, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, was that (due to network timing issues) players had previously remained in their locker rooms during the playing of the national anthem for primetime games.  After 2009, players appeared in the sidelines for the anthem during primetime games, just as they had been doing all along for Sunday afternoon games.  (The distinction often went unnoticed by viewers, as network telecasts frequently didn't air the pre-game anthem ceremonies.)   ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith referenced Currant's report during a segment on 14 September 2016, adding a "paid patriotism" element to the mix: segment The players were moved to the field during the national anthem because it was seen as a marketing strategy to make the athletes look more patriotic. The United States Department of Defense paid the National Football League $5.4 million between 2011 and 2014, and the National Guard [paid] $6.7 million between 2013 and 2015 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies as part of military recruitment budget-line items. The practice of "paid patriotism" came to light on 30 April 2015, when Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) released a statement chiding the New Jersey Army National Guard for paying between $97,000 and $115,000 to the New York Jets for a series of promotions involving military personnel. That November, Flake and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain issued a report stating that the Defense Department had been paying for patriotic displays in football and other sports between 2011 and 2014: statement report Contrary to the public statements made by DOD and the NFL, the majority of the contracts  72 of the 122 contracts we analyzed  clearly show that DOD paid for patriotic tributes at professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer games. These paid tributes included on-field color guard, enlistment and reenlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches and puck drops. The National Guard paid teams for the opportunity to sponsor military appreciation nights and to recognize its birthday. It paid the Buffalo Bills to sponsor its Salute to the Service game. DOD even paid teams for the opportunity to perform surprise welcome home promotions for troops returning from deployments and to recognize wounded warriors. While well intentioned, we wonder just how many of these displays included a disclaimer that these events were in fact sponsored by the DOD at taxpayer expense. Even with that disclosure, it is hard to understand how a team accepting taxpayer funds to sponsor a military appreciation game, or to recognize wounded warriors or returning troops, can be construed as anything other than paid patriotism. However, this report did not cover the year 2009, so it is unclear whether NFL teams' appearing on the field for the playing of the national anthem truly began in conjunction with the "paid patriotism" policy. In a September 2017 piece about the anthem controversy, CNN noted that:  [T]he connection between "paid patriotism" and players being mandated to be present for the anthem is tenuous. The report does mention several instances where teams were paid for anthem performances, but that was about the specific artist or presentation. There is nothing in the report to suggest teams were paid or coerced into pulling players on to the field as part of "paid patriotism" initiatives. In fact, Pentagon spokesman Army Major Dave Eastburn recently clarified the Defense Department's current relationship with professional sports. "DoD does not require or request that athletes be on the field during the playing of the national anthem when military members are part of the patriotic opener," he said in a statement to CNN. The league announced in May 2016 that they would refund $723,724 to taxpayers which they said "may have been mistakenly applied to appreciation activities rather than recruitment efforts" during the years in question. announced Willingham, A.J.  "The National Anthem in Sports (Spoiler: It Wasn't Always This Way)."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. Jacobson, Louis.  "A Short History of the National Anthem, Protests and the NFL."
  PolitiFact.  25 September 2017.
 This story was updated to note that 2009 changes in NFL anthem policy were specific to primetime games. Bell peppers come in a variety of sizes and colors, and, according to a popular internet rumor, a variety of genders as well:  This old cook's tale about identifying the gender of bell peppers has been around for years, but it has recently seen an uptick in Internet interest on social media sites such as Pinterest. But no matter how many times the above-displayed image is shared, it will not change the fact that a bell pepper's sex cannot be determined by the number of bumps on its outer surface  in large part because peppers aren't classifiable as being wholly one sex or the other: Pinterest A section on the reproductive biology of peppers in The Encyclopedia of Fruit and Nuts notes that bell peppers come from flowers possessing both male and female sex organs: "Pepper flowers are complete and perfect, that is they have a calyx, corolla and male and female sex organs. The flowers are protogynous, but readily self-pollinate." notes David Karp, a pomologist at UC Riverside, also addressed the rumor of bell pepper gender in 2013: "The supposition that there are male and female peppers is a common canard, but untrue. Peppers grow from flowers that have both male and female parts. The fruits do not have a gender." addressed While bell peppers are neither male nor female, some food blogs have insisted there is still some usefulness to this widespread rumor. For example, the Garden Frugal writes that while it is not scientifically accurate to label bell peppers male or female, assigning a gender may help cooks remember how to choose the right peppers: writes Describing peppers as a gender is not accurate, because bell peppers are hermaphroditic. The gender reference is used only as a memory aid to help select the best bell pepper for each purpose either eating raw, seed collection, or for cooking. There is a simple method for identifying which bell pepper has the traits you desire. Peppers with four lobes are female and those with three lobes are male. The female peppers with more lobes, contain more seeds are best for seed collecting and growing new plants (hence female). They are also sweeter when eaten raw. The male peppers with three or fewer lobes are better for grilling, cooking. They also contain fewer seeds. But this claim is also unfounded, as the number of lobes on a pepper does not have any bearing on its taste. And while it could be argued a four-lobed pepper has more seeds than a three-lobed pepper, this has more to do with the overall size of the fruit than the number of lobes. Claim:  Macy's removed SodaStream products from its stores because the products are made in disputed territory in Israel. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Bowing to pressure from leftwing pro-Palestinian activists, Macy's has decided to scrub Israeli-made SodaStream products from their shelves  Origins:  In October 2014, a rumor began to circulate that retailer Macy's had "caved" to activist pressure and removed SodaStream products from its retail outlets and online storefront. Claims stated the removal of Sodastream products from Macy's stores came under pressure from activist groups who objected to the manufacture of the products in disputed territory in Israel. The rumor's first major appearance came on 7 October 2014 in a larger Wall Street Journal article about SodaStream's declining revenue. In the article, an analyst stated Macy's had stopped carrying SodaStream but did not cite a specific reason for the retailer's decision:  SodaStream released only its revenue expectations of $125 million and its projected operating income of $8.5 million. Those numbers shocked even the more bearish investors and analysts. Jim Charnier, an analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt, said he had been expecting a poor quarter because he learned early in September that Macy's Inc. had stopped carrying SodaStream and saw other negative figures from the market. Yet he said that the company's estimated revenue of $125 million and operating income of $8.5 million are still far below his expectations, as it shows that revenue in the U.S. could have dropped by more than 50%. Macy's did not immediately return requests for comment. While the quote in context seems to imply poor sales influenced Macy's decision to sever its relationship with SodaStream, it was not backed by any comment from Macy's or SodaStream about why products made by the latter company were being discontinued by the retailer. SodaStream's CEO commented on tepid earnings reports and suggested in May 2014 a weak holiday sales season and excess inventory (not political sentiment) had adversely impacted the brand's revenues: CEO Daniel Birnbaum blamed the 28% drop in U.S. sales on a weak holiday season, creating excess retailer inventory. SodaStream's guidance for the year wasn't as bad as the company sees revenue growth of 15% for the year, but just a 3% improvement in net income. Both projections were better than analyst estimates but are reflective of SodaStream's growing pains. As of 24 October 2014, Macy's website still displays an active product page for SodaStream, but none of the categories are populated with products available for sale. However, skincare company Ahava has also been the target of boycotts and calls for action for similar reasons, and Macy's has not discontinued sale of that brand. SodaStream Ahava If Macy's dropped SodaStream to placate pro-Palestinian interests in a public relations move, it's highly unlikely the retailer would choose not to confirm its action. It is far more likely the overall weak market for home soda-making equipment influenced Macy's decision to temporarily or permanently discontinue sales of SodaStream products. Neither company has yet officially commented on the status of Macy's business relationship with SodaStream.  Last updated:  24 October 2014    Farrell, Maureen.  "SodaStream Losing a Lot of Its Pop."   The Wall Street Journal.  7 October 2014. Since at least July 2021, online advertisements have displayed the words: "[Pics] Drone Captures Photos We're Not Supposed to See." It showed a purported drone photograph of a massive nest or other object hanging off a telephone pole or power lines. The ads appeared to promise answers. For example, this ad appeared next to an article on the 10news.com website. 10news.com  The ad showed a strange object blanketing power lines or a telephone pole.  A variation of the ad said: "Drone Snaps Photos No One Should Ever See." A third version read: "Photos That Can Give You A New Perspective." They were sponsored by the Definition.org website, which has quite the track record for misleading clickbait. The ad was hosted by the Outbrain advertising network. quite the track record misleading clickbait Clicking on the ads led to a 39-page slideshow article and a headline that read: "Drone Photos Taken In Mid Air Will Have You Feeling Uneasy." article The article contained several photographs that appeared to be shot from the air, whether by a drone, helicopter, or airplane. One claimed it showed the aftermath of a residential explosion. Another described a shot that was purportedly captured over Barcelona, Spain. We also found a picture that was said to show volcanic activity in Iceland. a residential explosion Another Barcelona, Spain picture Iceland We clicked through all 39 pages. The article never mentioned the photograph from the ad. It was clickbait. We clicked "next page" nearly 40 times so you dont have to. The picture in the ad was not captured high in the sky using a drone. It appeared to be shot on the ground by artist and photographer Dillon Marsh of Dillon Marsh Photography. We found no credit to Marsh on the Definition.org website. Dillon Marsh Dillon Marsh Photography The picture showed a large birds' nest for the sociable weaver, built on a telephone pole. The bird species lives in the Kalahari region of southern Africa. sociable weaver  Sociable weavers in Lijjersdraai Picnic Site at Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in Northern Cape, South Africa. (Courtesy: Bernard Dupont/Flickr)  The only place they can be found in the United States is with the San Diego Zoo. The zoo described the nests built by sociable weavers as providing enough living space for an "entire colony as well as for future residents." The nests can hold up to 400 birds and can potentially last an entire century. described  Weaver birds' nests on the top of telegraph and telephone poles in the Namib desert region of southwest Africa. (Courtesy: Matt Mawson/Getty Images)  Nests built by the species are made from large twigs, dry grasses, straw, soft plants, cotton, fur, and fluff. The zoo also published that a "proper nesting tree has a long, smooth trunk and high branches to discourage slithering predators." This is perhaps what makes a telephone pole the perfect trunk for sociable weavers. The nests keep the sociable weavers cool in the summer and warm on cold nights. They welcome other birds inside, such as the South African pygmy falcon, pied barbet, familiar chat, red-headed finch, ashy tit, and rosy-faced lovebird. Vultures, eagles, and owls can also sometimes be seen on top of the nests. The added company is said to make for a more secure home from predators.  A view from underneath a sociable weaver nest. (Courtesy: Rui Ornelas/Flickr)  As for food, the zoo's page about the sociable weaver said that they "need less water than any other bird" and that "most never take a drink." They get their moisture from bugs. For more on the species, visit the San Diego Zoo website. San Diego Zoo website Several other photographs of the nests can be viewed on the Getty Images website. Several other photographs nests viewed In sum, ads promised to reveal something about a strange drone photograph that "we're not supposed to see." The long articles that resulted from the ads never mentioned the picture. In reality, it was shot from ground level and showed a massive nest built on a telephone pole by sociable weavers. Note: Photographs from Flickr are credited to Bernard Dupont and Rui Ornelas. Matt Mawson shot the Getty Images picture. The photograph in the ad, which went uncredited by the advertiser, appeared to originally be captured by Dillon Marsh. Bernard Dupont Rui Ornelas Matt Mawson Dillon Marsh Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins:  In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments.  This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years.  An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination.  Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . . . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . . . to be at $43,209 per household."  Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040  which asks you to list 'other payments'  simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same  hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes.  Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains.  Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits.  In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds.  He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks.  When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite.  One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15  (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department  in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property.  One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land."  However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.   Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln.  (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.)   Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act:  An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.  (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.)  President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers.  Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders.  Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies).   Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike.  In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001.  And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 May 2011    Brown, Timothy.  "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax."   The Associated Press.  31 August 2000.     Deibel, Mary.  "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam."   The Washington Times.  7 October 2000  (p. A2).     Fennell, Edward.  "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie."   The [Charleston] Post and Courier.  24 September 2000  (p. B1).    Foner, Eric.  Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  ISBN 0-060-91453-X  (pp. 70-71, 245-246).     Foner, Eric and John Garraty.  The Reader's Companion to American History.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.  ISBN 0-395-51372-3  (pp. 987-988).      Josar, David.  "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations."   The Detroit News.  28 August 1996  (p. D1).     Kessler, Glenn.  "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery."   The Washington Post.  13 April 2002  (p. A1).     La Hay, Patricia.  "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal."   The Arizona Republic.  9 August 1997  (p. A1).     McLeod, Ramon.  "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  13 April 1996  (p. A17).     Moore, Linda.  "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  15 September 2000  (p. C2).     Oubre, Claude F.  Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership.  Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.  ISBN 0-807-10298-9.     Sherrod, L.G.  "Forty Acres and a Mule."   Essence.  April 1993  (p. 124).     Stiehm, Jamie.  "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations."   The Baltimore Sun.  12 February 2002.     The Associated Press.   "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam."   6 October 2000.     Chicago Sun-Times.  "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance."   17 July 1996  (p. 47).     Chicago Tribune.  "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS."    23 February 1997  (p. C7).     Reuters.  "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims."    15 April 2005. 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.