Datasets:

1-800-SHARED-TASKS

/

COLING-2025-FINNLP-FMD

like 2

Follow

1-800-Shared-Tasks 32

Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden.

[]

Some conservatives are pushing Gov. Scott Walker to use his second term to enact much deeper changes in Wisconsin government. When Walker got to office, Wisconsin was one of the worst states in the country in which to do business, with one of the highest regulatory and tax burdens,Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,wrote in the conservative National Reviewon Nov. 5, 2014. Some estimates now rate it as number 14 for doing business, but dont be deceived, Loyola wrote under the headline, Walkers Win: Why it was the most important GOP win in the country. He added: Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. As Walker ramps up exploration of a 2016 presidential campaign, lets check the claim about spending and taxation in the Badger state. Well take the easy part first. Taxes Walker and Republican legislators have approved a variety of tax freezes and cuts. In March 2014, we ratedTruea Walker claim that hes delivered $2 billion in tax cuts, mainly by reducing income tax rates and limiting local property tax hikes. But an Oct. 14, 2014report by the Tax Foundationranked Wisconsin among the highest 10 states for business taxes on a scale that included corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes. Census figures on tax collections lag by two years, so they dont account for all of Walkers cuts. But the latest figures showed that property-tax and income-tax collections in Wisconsin run more than 25 percent above the national average,we reported. Theres ample evidence that Wisconsin is among the middle group of states when all sources of revenue are considered. But on taxes alone, the state remains closer to the top. Spending To back up his claim, Loyola, a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, pointed us to thestate expenditure study done in 2013 by the National Association of State Budget Officers. That report doesnt compute per-capita spending, but based on a survey of budget officials it shows a total spending figure from state revenues, federal aid and other sources. We did the math and it backs up the claim: In 2013, Wisconsin state budget spending was about $7,500 per capita compared to about $3,600 in Texas. The study comes from a respected trade group andother organizationsrefer to its findings. The study cautions, however: State governments have specific functional responsibilities that vary among states depending on the role of local governments in providing services. For example, in many states, the funding of elementary and secondary education is considered primarily a local function. We could not replicate the studys findings using U.S. Census surveys of state and local government finances. That Census data is preferred by researchers, though one drawback is that reporting of the data lags about two years. One researcher, Dale Knapp with the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the census figures are better because the Budget Officers study includes some things that we generally dont consider part of the state budget -- the biggest of which is state retirement payments. They also include unemployment payments, lottery prizes, and capital expenditures, which can vary from year to year. When looking just at state spending (and excluding transfers to local governments), Wisconsin state government spends 27.1% more per capita than Texas in 2011, Knapp found. We also asked the Wisconsin Budget Project to run comparisons. Tamarine Cornelius and Jon Peacock of the group told us that Wisconsin per capita direct general expenditures were $1,114 above that of Texas, or 15 percent. That was for state and local expenditures. Wisconsin ranked #21 among the states; Texas was #38. So neither group backs up the claim that Wisconsin state government spends 100% more -- twice as much -- as Wisconsin on a per-capita basis. Still, we found that the numbers in the study cited by Loyola were drawn from the annual financial reports published by Texas and Wisconsin. On a topic where various definitions of state budget are fair game, that gives his claim a reasonable basis. Our rating Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. Loyolas on target on taxes, and cites a credible study on spending that is open to challenge but generally defensible. We rate his claim Mostly True.

['State Budget', 'Taxes', 'Wisconsin']

True

When Walker got to office, Wisconsin was one of the worst states in the country in which to do business, with one of the highest regulatory and tax burdens,Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,wrote in the conservative National Reviewon Nov. 5, 2014.In March 2014, we ratedTruea Walker claim that hes delivered $2 billion in tax cuts, mainly by reducing income tax rates and limiting local property tax hikes.But an Oct. 14, 2014report by the Tax Foundationranked Wisconsin among the highest 10 states for business taxes on a scale that included corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes.Census figures on tax collections lag by two years, so they dont account for all of Walkers cuts. But the latest figures showed that property-tax and income-tax collections in Wisconsin run more than 25 percent above the national average,we reported.To back up his claim, Loyola, a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, pointed us to thestate expenditure study done in 2013 by the National Association of State Budget Officers.The study comes from a respected trade group andother organizationsrefer to its findings.

Is This Nike 'Make America Great Again' Hat Real?

["An image purportedly showing the Nike 'swoosh' symbol on the tag of a 'Make America Great Again' hat is a hoax."]

In early September 2018, an image purportedly showing the Nike "swoosh" symbol on the tag of a "Make America Great Again" hat started spreading online. The image was posted amid a controversy over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new advertising campaign for Nike, a sports apparel company. Kaepernick made headlines in 2016 by kneeling during pregame renditions of the national anthem to protest racial inequality and police brutality. The "take a knee" protests, which caught on with other NFL players and spread to athletes in other sports, were viewed by some (including President Trump) as unpatriotic and disrespectful to veterans. So when Kaepernick appeared in Nike's 30th anniversary "Just Do It" ad campaign, some disgruntled consumers took to social media to share photographs and videos of themselves destroying various pieces of Nike apparel to demonstrate their displeasure. It appears that this image of a Nike-branded "Make America Great Again" cap was posted in an attempt to "troll" pro-Trump conservatives who were upset over Kaepernick's endorsement deal ("Make America Great Again," or "MAGA," is a well-known Trump slogan). When the image was shared by Twitter user @Nicoxw1, for example, it included a message facetiously noting that "133,291,000 Americans will have a stroke today." The image is a hoax, merely a manipulated version of an older viral image showing a "Made in China" tag on a "Make America Great Again" hat. It should be noted that while some third-party companies do produce "Make America Great Again" hats in China, the website DonaldJTrump.com, from which customers can purchase official MAGA merchandise, states that all their products are proudly made in the U.S.A.

['share']

False

The image was posted in the midst of a controversy over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new advertising campaign for Nike, a sports apparel company. Kaepernick made headlines in 2016 by kneeling during pregame renditions of the national anthem to protest racial inequality and police brutality.The "take a knee" protests, which caught on with other NFL players and spread to athletes in other sports, were viewed by some (including President Trump) as unpatriotic and disrespectful to veterans. So when Kaepernick showed up in Nike's 0th anniversary "Just Do It" ad campaign, some disgruntled consumers took to social media to share photographs and videos of themselves destroying various pieces of Nike apparel to demonstrate their displeasure.It appears that this image of a Nike-branded "Make America Great Again" cap was posted in an attempt to "troll" pro-Trump conservatives who were upset over Kaepernick's endorsement deal ("Make America Great Again," or "MAGA," is a well-known Trump slogan). When the image was shared by Twitter user @Nicoxw1, for example, it included a message facetiously noting that "133,291,000 Americans will have a stroke today."It should be noted that while some third-party companies do produce "Make America Great Again" hats in China, the website DonaldJTrump.com, from which customers can purchase official MAGA merchandise, states that all their products are proudly made in U.S.A.

Does This Video Show a Black Friday Fight Over Vegetable Steamers?

["Video of a Black Friday fight over vegetable steamers that culminated in a woman's snatching one from a child was possibly staged."]

On 26 November 2015, YouTube user BlackFriday Fight uploaded a video titled "lady steals from KID! black friday 2015," along with the following comments: "I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to be fired, but I work at this store in Saginaw, and this lady stole a veggie steamer from a KID on Black Friday! Shame." According to the uploader, who wished to remain anonymous, the footage was captured at an unnamed retail location in Saginaw, Michigan, on Black Friday. The video was uploaded on 26 November 2015, one day prior to Black Friday, which fell on 27 November 2015, but it could conceivably have depicted a midnight "doorbuster" sale scenario. The clip shows a crowd of shoppers descending upon a stack of what appear to be vegetable steamers, which, while possibly attractively priced, weren't on par with Cabbage Patch Kids or Furbys in the genre of "Christmas crazes." We searched for major chain store deals on vegetable steamers in 2015 but were unable to locate any incredible deals matching vegetable steaming gadgets in any big box stores. As commenters immediately pointed out, the short clip featured several indicators that it was staged. In addition to plausibility—since even most vegans do not have that much interest in acquiring a vegetable steamer—the "victims" in the clip were first spotted in a frame away from the fracas, walking into the area of the frenzy while carrying identical boxes. The clip opened with a rush of shoppers, all of whom appeared to fall to the ground in a dramatic and entirely unnecessary fashion. The woman whose child was targeted by the box-snatcher did not appear to enter with other customers; instead, she was seen far off in a visible aisle already carrying the boxes. Finally, the purported altercation in which the woman swiped a vegetable steamer box from the hands of a small child occurred while several boxes remained unclaimed nearby. Both shoppers were just inches from the uncontested vegetable steamers, providing no reason for a heartless shopper to target a small child. The circumstances under which the clip was shot have yet to be disclosed, but its early appearance and implausible events suggest that the video was staged for attention or a larger prank. Users across social media commenting on the video widely suspected late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, but no evidence suggested that the clip was his work.

['interest']

NEI

The circumstances under which the clip was shot have yet to be disclosed, but its early appearance and implausible events suggest the video was staged for attention or a larger prank. (Users across social media commenting on the video widely suspected late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, but no evidence suggested the clip was his work.)

The Fresh American Tea Gathering

['Protest against federal spending encourages Americans to mail tea bags to the White House.']

Claim: Protest against federal spending encourages Americans to mail tea bags to the White House. Example: [Collected via e-mail, March 2009] Mailing Tea Bags to Washington, DC What a wonderful idea, I just wish it had been mine. I have a feeling that USPS is going to have a hell of a lot of tea to contend with, after all it only costs 42 cents to send a message, hopefully heard round the world!!! So please mark your Calendars There's a storm abrewin'. What happens when good, responsible people keep quiet? Washington has forgotten they work for us. We don't work for them. Throwing good money after bad is NOT the answer. I am sick of the midnight, closed door sessions to come up with a plan. I am sick of Congress raking CEO's over the coals while they, themselves, have defaulted on their taxes. I am sick of the bailed out companies having lavish vacations and retreats on my dollar. I am sick of being told it is MY responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford. I am sick of being made to feel it is my patriotic duty to pay MORE taxes. I, like all of you, am a responsible citizen. I pay my taxes. I live on a budget and I don't ask someone else to carry the burden for poor decisions I may make. I have emailed my congressmen and senators asking them to NOT vote for the stimulus package as it was written without reading it first. No one listened. They voted for it, pork and all. O.K. folks, here it is. You may think you are just one voice and what you think won't make a difference. Well, yes it will and YES, WE CAN!! If you are disgusted and angry with the way Washington is handling our taxes. If you are fearful of the fallout from the reckless spending of BILLIONS to bailout and "stimulate" without accountability and responsibility then we need to become ONE, LOUD VOICE THAT CAN BE HEARD FROM EVERY CITY, TOWN, SUBURB AND HOME IN AMERICA. There is a growing protest to demand that Congress, the President and his cabinet LISTEN to us, the American Citizens. What is being done in Washington is NOT the way to handle the economic free fall. So, here's the plan. On April 1, 2009, all Americans are asked to send a TEABAG to Washington, D.C. You do not have to enclose a note or any other information unless you so desire. Just a TEABAG. Many cities are organizing protests. If you simply search, "New American Tea Party", several sites will come up. If you aren't the 'protester' type, simply make your one voice heard with a TEABAG. Your one voice will become a roar when joined with millions of others that feel the same way. Yes, something needs to be done but the lack of confidence as shown by the steady decline in the stock market speaks volumes. This was not my idea. I visited the sites of the 'New American Tea Party' and an online survey showed over 90% of thousands said they would send the teabag on April 1. Why, April 1?? We want them to reach Washington by April 15. Will you do it? I will. Send it to; 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C. 20500. Forward this to everyone in your address book. Visit the website for more information about the 'New American Tea Party'. I would encourage everyone to go ahead and get the envelope ready to mail, then just drop it in the mail April 1. Can't guarantee what the postage will be by then, it is going up as we speak, but have your envelope ready. What will this cost you? A little time and a 40 something cent stamp.. What could you receive in benefits? Maybe, just maybe, our elected officials will start to listen to the people. Take out the Pork. Tell us how the money is being spent. We want TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Remember, the money will be spent over the next 4-5 years. It is not too late. Of course, if you agree with the way things are being done now, just delete!!!!! Origins: On the evening of 16 December 1773, a group of American colonists who called themselves "The Sons of Liberty" furtively boarded the ship Dartmouth, which was docked in Boston harbor with a load of East India Company tea. Working through the night, the colonists dumped over 45 tons of tea into the waters of the harbor as a protest against the Tea Act passed by the British government. The event, which came to be known as "The Boston Tea Party," was one of the seminal events of the American Revolution and remains one of the most iconic moments in all of U.S. history. In 2009, the iconic status of that event was referenced in the name of the New American Tea Party, described as a "coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government" who have begun coordinating events around the U.S. with the announced goal of protesting largesse in federal spending. The item quoted above seeks to take up the "Tea Party" spirit by encouraging Americans to mail tea bags to the White House on 1 April 2009 (in order to arrive by 15 April, the day on which income tax filings are due) as a form of symbolic protest against "the way Washington is handling our taxes." (The concept is vaguely reminiscent of a 1955 campaign that had citizens mailing small bags of wheat to President Eisenhower to encourage the U.S. to provide surplus food to flood victims in China.) New American Tea Party events wheat Of course, everyone is free to choose whether or not to participate in symbolic protests, so such actions don't have much in the way of verifiable "true" or "false" aspects the only issue is how effective the chosen form of protest is likely to be. With that in mind, we offer a few caveats for those inclined to participate: An entry in the New American Tea Party blog states that they don't endorse the effort: entry We have received hundreds of questions about an email circulating that urges folks to send tea to Washington on April 1st or April 15th. This effort is not endorsed by the New American Tea Party, so we can't answer any questions about it. Given the more stringent security procedures for mail handling enacted after 9/11, there are no guarantees envelopes containing mailed teabags will get through to the White House without being discarded or significantly delayed, something also noted in the New American Tea Party blog: It is a neat idea, but things like that will likely either be held up getting scanned or end up getting thrown away due to security precautions. (A subsequent New American Tea Party blog entry suggested that just mailing the labels from tea bags might be a way of avoiding this potential pitfall.) entry Envelopes that cannot be run through USPS sorting machines are subject to an additional 20 postage surcharge. A mailed item is considered nonmachinable if: nonmachinable It is a square letter (the minimum size for a square envelope is 5 x 5 inches) It is too rigid does not bend easily It has clasps, string, buttons, or similar closure devices It has an address parallel to the shorter dimension of the letter It contains items that cause the surface to be uneven The length divided by height is less than 1.3 or more than 2.5 The specific aims of the tea bag protest are not clearly articulated in the e-mail quoted above, so senders might wish to include explanatory notes with their envelopes stating the desired outcome, such as: "I enclose this teabag as a protest against the passage of any further economic stimulus packages that provide money to businesses without provisions for strict transparency and accountability in how that money is to be spent" or "I enclose this teabag as a protest against the passage of any further economic stimulus packages that include earmarks." Last updated: 12 March 2009 Idaho Statesman. "Local Group Stages 'Reckless Federal Spending' Protest." 27 February 2009. WJXT-TV [Jacksonville, FL]. "'Tea Party' Protests Wasteful Spending." MSNBC. 2 March 2009.

['taxes']

False

In 2009, the iconic status of that event was referenced in the name of the New American Tea Party, described as a "coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government" who have begun coordinating events around the U.S. with the announced goal of protesting largesse in federal spending. The item quoted above seeks to take up the "Tea Party" spirit by encouraging Americans to mail tea bags to the White House on 1 April 2009 (in order to arrive by 15 April, the day on which income tax filings are due) as a form of symbolic protest against "the way Washington is handling our taxes." (The concept is vaguely reminiscent of a 1955 campaign that had citizens mailing small bags of wheat to President Eisenhower to encourage the U.S. to provide surplus food to flood victims in China.) An entry in the New American Tea Party blog states that they don't endorse the effort:(A subsequent New American Tea Party blog entry suggested that just mailing the labels from tea bags might be a way of avoiding this potential pitfall.) Envelopes that cannot be run through USPS sorting machines are subject to an additional 20 postage surcharge. A mailed item is considered nonmachinable if:

Protection offered by the Secret Service to John Kerry

["Would the Secret Service have to provide lifetime protection for all of John Kerry's homes?"]

Claim: If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions. It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot. These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins: The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate, a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple. The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President. That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents. homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life. Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office. protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly. The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket. The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated: 2 October 2004 Sources: Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet. "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital." [New York] Daily News. 30 December 2000 (p. 6). DeFrank, Thomas. "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker." Fuchs, Marek. "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office." The New York Times. 29 October 2000 (Weekend Calendar; p. 5). Grove, Lloyd. "The Reliable Source." The Washington Post. 12 January 2001 (p. C3).

['asset']

False

John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate, a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple. The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President. That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents. It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life. Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office. In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly. The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket. The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States.For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001.

Did Biden Once Tell Racially Mixed Crowd That Republicans Will 'Put Y'All Back in Chains'?

['Biden spoke at a campaign rally attended by a mixed audience that included hundreds of Black attendees on Aug. 14, 2012. ']

In the early months of 2024, as U.S. President Joe Biden ramped up his campaign for reelection in November, a controversial, years-old quote attributed to him was resurrected on social media. Biden, whose public verbal blunders are so legendary he has described himself as a "gaffe machine," allegedly told a racially mixed audience at a Danville, Virginia, campaign rally in 2012 that the Republican Party was going to "put y'all back in chains." gaffe machine That notorious statement, which surfaced in late April and early May 2019 (shortly after Biden announced his 2020 candidacy), was cited anew on platforms from X to TikTok as an instance of his "playing the race card" to disparage Republicans: X TikTok (@PatriotsStevie / X) Although it's unclear, based on contemporaneous press coverage of the event, whether the audience was most accurately described as "predominantly" or "largely" Black (more about which later), Biden did in fact utter the words attributed to him at an Aug. 14, 2012, rally attended by a racially mixed crowd that included hundreds of Black attendees. The following report is from the New York Times blog "The Caucus," posted the same day as the event: The Caucus Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. created a stir at a campaign speech in Virginia when he told the crowd that Mitt Romney's policies would enable the banking and financial sectors to "put you all back in chains." The remark came roughly two-thirds of the way through Mr. Biden's 30-minute speech, which was delivered to a crowd that included many African-Americans at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, Va. "Romney wants to let the he said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street," Mr. Biden said. "They're going to put you all back in chains." The moment was captured for posterity in a C-SPAN video. C-SPAN video We would probably not be talking about this today had Biden's remark not been widely interpreted as a direct reference to slavery. As such, it drew instant condemnation, beginning with the Romney campaign, which released a statement saying: "After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Governor Romney, the Obama campaign has reached a new low. The comments made by the vice president of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama campaign will say and do anything to win this election." Romney himself echoed that statement in a speech he gave later the same day in which he held President Barack Obama responsible. "His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency," Romney said at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio. "Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower." Though he didn't specifically mention race, Romney accused Obama of pursuing a strategy of divisiveness: "Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces." Media pundits and campaign surrogates were more explicit in their criticism of Biden. In an opinion piece for Breitbart, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said the vice president's statement was "race-baiting at its finest." Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, declared on "Face the Nation" that it was "an absolutely blatant appeal to racism." Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, also a Republican, accused Biden of "play[ing] the race card." Some Democrats agreed with the criticism. "First of all, without question they were appeals to race," said former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder. "The important thing I got out of this was Biden separated himself from what he accused the people of doing. As a matter of fact, what he said is they are going to do something to y'all, not to me. Not us. So he was still involved with that separate American." said CBS News reported that then-U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called Biden's comment "stupid" during a radio interview: reported "Was he talking about slavery? You bet your a** he was. Was he using the vernacular? Yes, he was," said Rangel, a longtime New York Democrat who is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. "Did he think it was cute ... Yes, he did. Was it something stupid to say? You bet your life it was stupid." Rangel added that if an African-American had made the joke, "We would have been laughing, because we would know that deep down, they may be beating the hell out of us but they ain't thinking about putting us into any chains." Ebony magazine contributor Jamil Smith agreed with Rangel's perception that Biden was "using the vernacular," or "code-switching," as Smith called it, "to acclimate to a particular environment or audience." Phonetically rendered, this is what Biden actually said: "They gonna put y'all back in chains." But the vice president stood by the remark in an Aug. 14 campaign stop in Raleigh, North Carolina, insisting that the message he was trying to convey wasn't about race, but rather the negative impact the opposition party's vow to "unshackle Wall Street" would have on middle-class Americans: The last time these guys unshackled the economy, to use their term, they put the middle class in shackles. That's how we got where we are. Nine million jobs lost, wage stagnation, 16 trillion dollars in wealth you all lost, in your home equity, in your 401ks, and your pension plans you're the ones that got nailed. All of America except for the very few. And I'm told when I made that comment earlier today in Danville, Virginia, the Romney Campaign put out a Tweet, you know Tweets, and went on the air, went on the airwaves saying "Biden's outrageous in saying that I think I said, instead of unshackled, unchained or anyway, outrageous to say that, that's what we meant. I'm using their own words. I got a message for them, if you want to know want to know what's outrageous, it's their policies, and the effects of their policies on middle class America, that's what's outrageous. Biden had, in fact, used precisely the same trope before to characterize the impact of Republican economic policies on the middle class. The day after a Republican primary debate in October 2011, Biden said, referring to economic conditions under the George W. Bush administration: "The last time we liberated the economy under their proposals, the last eight years put the middle class in chains. My lord, how many times we have to go back to that horror movie?" said Obama took Biden's side, defending the Danville speech in an interview with People magazine: interview Biden's comment sparked Romney to call the Obama campaign one of "division and hate and anger." But Obama, speaking to PEOPLE in Dubuque, Iowa, seemed unrattled by the controversy. He said Biden's words needed to be considered in context; that he was only saying "you, consumers, the American people, will be a lot worse off if we repeal these [Wall Street reform] laws as the other side is suggesting." "In no sense was he trying to connote something other than that," Obama added. The racial composition of the audience is relevant to this debate, though not decisive, partly because estimates in the press were rough and contradictory. Although it was consistently reported that approximately 900 people were in attendance, and we know, from both press reports and video of the event, that a significant percentage of the attendees were Black, the media couldn't agree on whether more Black people were present than white people, fewer Black people than white people, or roughly the same number of each. The majority of mainstream news outlets reported that the audience was "predominantly," "largely," or "mostly" Black. Among these were the Los Angeles Times, Politico, CBS News, Fox News, The Daily Beast, National Public Radio, and NBC News. Significantly fewer outlets reported that the audience was "about 50%" Black. Some described it as "racially mixed." A small minority of venues said the makeup of the crowd was "partially" Black. We asked Tiffany Holland, a reporter who live-blogged the event for the Richmond Times-Dispatch website, for her impression of the racial makeup of the crowd. "If memory serves, the crowd was about half-African-American and half-white," she said in an email, adding that in her experience, Democratic Party events in Danville usually drew a "healthy mix of diversity." But she also said that this was just the impression she came away with, and could be remembering it wrongly. In any case, even if only 50% of the attendees were Black, Biden would have found himself gazing out over an audience that included hundreds of Black faces. The crowd need not have been "predominantly" Black to inspire a politician so inclined to engage in racial pandering. That Biden uttered the sentence "They gonna put y'all back in chains" before just such a crowd stands confirmed. Whether it should taken as a racially charged, pandering reference to slavery we leave it to readers to judge for themselves. Berg, Rebecca. "Biden Warns Romney Policies Would Put Crowd 'Back in Chains.'" The New York Times ("The Caucus" blog). 14 August 2012. Cain, Andrew. "In Danville, Biden Says Romney's Policies Will 'Put Y'all Back in Chains.'" Richmond Times-Dispatch. 14 August 2012. Condon, Stephanie. "Rangel: Biden's Gaffe Was Clearly About Slavery." CBS News. 24 August 2012. Holland, Steve and Jeff Mason. "Biden Draws Romney's Ire with 'Chains' Comment." Reuters. 14 August 2012. Holland, Tiffany. "Biden: We Need to Finish What Obama Started." Richmond Times-Dispatch. 14 August 2012. Montopoli, Brian. "Joe Biden Clarifies 'in Chains' Remark." CBS News. 14 August 2012. O'Neil, Luke. "I Am a Gaffe Machine': A History of Joe Biden's Biggest Blunders." The Guardian. 25 April 2019. Rainey, James. "Joe Biden Used 'Chains' Metaphor Before to Hit Republicans." Los Angeles Times. 15 August 2012. Roberts, Allison. "Before VP Visit, Lots of Prep." GoDanRiver.com. 17 August 2012. Schwarz, Gabriella. "Biden Hits Cain's '9-9-9' Plan." CNN. 12 October 2011. Shapiro, Ben. "Biden in 49% Black Danville, VA: 'They Gonna Put Y'All Back in Chains." Breitbart. 14 August 2012. Shield, Gerry. "Republicans Blast Biden for 'Chains' Remark." New York Post. 20 August 2012. Smith, Jamil. "Biden 'Unchained.'" Ebony. 17 August 2012. Tau, Byron. "Obama Defends Biden on 'Chains' Remark." Politico. 15 August 2012. Westfall, Sandra Sobieraj. "President Obama: No Apologies, No Scolding for Joe Biden's Remark." < em>People. 15 August 2012. Wise, Scott. "Doug Wilder Criticizes Biden, 'Chains' Comment." WTVR. 16 August 2012. C-SPAN. "Vice President Joe Biden in Danville, Virginia. 14 August 2012. MSNBC. "Obama Campaign Backs Biden's Controversial 'Chains' Remark." 16 August 2012.

['economy']

True

In the early months of 2024, as U.S. President Joe Biden ramped up his campaign for reelection in November, a controversial, years-old quote attributed to him was resurrected on social media. Biden, whose public verbal blunders are so legendary he has described himself as a "gaffe machine," allegedly told a racially mixed audience at a Danville, Virginia, campaign rally in 2012 that the Republican Party was going to "put y'all back in chains."That notorious statement, which surfaced in late April and early May 2019 (shortly after Biden announced his 2020 candidacy), was cited anew on platforms from X to TikTok as an instance of his "playing the race card" to disparage Republicans:Although it's unclear, based on contemporaneous press coverage of the event, whether the audience was most accurately described as "predominantly" or "largely" Black (more about which later), Biden did in fact utter the words attributed to him at an Aug. 14, 2012, rally attended by a racially mixed crowd that included hundreds of Black attendees. The following report is from the New York Times blog "The Caucus," posted the same day as the event:The moment was captured for posterity in a C-SPAN video.Some Democrats agreed with the criticism. "First of all, without question they were appeals to race," said former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder. "The important thing I got out of this was Biden separated himself from what he accused the people of doing. As a matter of fact, what he said is they are going to do something to y'all, not to me. Not us. So he was still involved with that separate American."CBS News reported that then-U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called Biden's comment "stupid" during a radio interview:Biden had, in fact, used precisely the same trope before to characterize the impact of Republican economic policies on the middle class. The day after a Republican primary debate in October 2011, Biden said, referring to economic conditions under the George W. Bush administration: "The last time we liberated the economy under their proposals, the last eight years put the middle class in chains. My lord, how many times we have to go back to that horror movie?"Obama took Biden's side, defending the Danville speech in an interview with People magazine:

Did 'Not a Single Republican' Clap When Biden Mentioned Cutting Child Poverty?

["Left-leaning critics accused the GOP of universal callousness during U.S. President Joe Biden's first address to Congress in April 2021."]

In April 2021, after U.S. President Joe Biden's first address to a joint session of Congress, the left-leaning Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a meme that claimed Republican Congress members had abjectly failed to applaud Biden's stated goal of drastically reducing the rate of child poverty in the United States. The meme, posted on April 28, the evening of the speech, contained what appeared to be a screenshot from a video stream, showing the Democratic side of the House of Representatives chamber standing and applauding, while members on the Republican side (circled in red) largely sat and did not appear to applaud. The meme contained the following text: posted Everything you need to know about today's Republican party is that Biden just said that because of his stimulus bill, America is cutting child poverty in half... And not a single Republican clapped. As events with a significant element of ritual and political theater, the newly elected president's first Congressional address and subsequent State of the Union addresses are the frequent subjects of political points-scoring and at times divisive analysis. Partisans on both sides habitually scrutinize the actions and body language of politicians from the opposite side, and Snopes has examined such claims several times in the past. examined such claims It's also worth noting that representatives and senators, in the context of an address by a president from the other party, might choose to applaud or stand, or not, for various reasons, even when the president has made a statement that some might interpret as worthy of universal support or celebration. For example, during then-President Donald Trump's equivalent address to a joint session of Congress, in February 2017, he touted the retention of manufacturing and jobs within the United States, saying various major companies "have announced that they will invest billions and billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs." In response, Republicans stood, cheered, and applauded, while cameras showed that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained impassive. remained impassive A politically motivated interpretation of her body language might be that she failed to applaud because she hates American jobs, or resented economic growth under Trump's tenure. However, a more plausible explanation is that she doubted the underlying sincerity of Trump's commitment to increased employment, that she objected to his presenting those commercial decisions as one of his own accomplishments, and so on. Similarly, during his 2018 State of the Union address, Trump said "Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs," which was greeted with cheering and applause by Republicans, but almost total silence among Democrats. That could be a sign that those Democrats despise job creation, but it's much more likely to mean that they objected to Trump's touting employment figures as one of his own accomplishments, for example. silence Those important disclaimers should be borne in mind when considering the actions and body language of Republicans during Biden's April 2021 address. As is customary, Biden listed what he presented as the achievements of his first 100 days in office: expanded access to health care; the provision of stimulus checks; added investment in veterans' health care; and H.R. 1319, the "American Rescue Plan" a major stimulus and relief package to aid in the federal government's response to the public health and economic crises engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic. H.R. 1319 Biden went on to say: Were making one of the largest one-time ever investments ever in improving healthcare for veterans. Critical investments to address the opioid crisis. And, maybe most importantly, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, were on track to cut child poverty in America in half this year. That declaration was met with a standing ovation and universal applause among Democrats in the chamber: The screenshot included in the Occupy Democrats meme was authentic and showed a snapshot of the reaction to Biden's child poverty remarks on both sides of the chamber. Here's roughly the same view, taken from the CBS News live stream of the speech. Democrats can be seen on the right-hand side, while the Republican side is on the left: live stream However, Occupy Democrats' claim that "not a single Republican" applauded Biden's remarks seriously misrepresented what actually happened. As a result, we are issuing a rating of In reality, our analysis of video footage from the address shows that at least 11 individuals seated in the Republican half of the chamber applauded in response to Biden's remarks on child poverty. We have positively identified two of those as cabinet secretaries Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken, who are not Congressional Republicans and therefore don't factor into our debunking of the Occupy Democrats meme, but for the record, can be seen below, with Austin standing on the left and Blinken standing on the right: The remaining nine individuals who applauded were all highly likely to be Congressional Republicans, providing ample evidence to discredit the "not a single Republican" claim. Those 11 individuals are highlighted in the screenshot below, and we have positively identified the following three Congressional Republicans: To view a larger, more detailed version of this annotated screenshot, click here. click here Although clearly not as enthusiastic as their Democratic counterparts, the extent of Republican applause for Biden's remarks is fully revealed by carefully viewing the following footage: The claim that "not a single Republican clapped" when Biden mentioned halving child poverty was manifestly false. In fact, several of them clearly did, three of whom we have so far been able to positively identify. If and when we confirm the identity of additional Congressional Republicans, we will update this fact check accordingly.

['investment']

False

The meme, posted on April 28, the evening of the speech, contained what appeared to be a screenshot from a video stream, showing the Democratic side of the House of Representatives chamber standing and applauding, while members on the Republican side (circled in red) largely sat and did not appear to applaud. The meme contained the following text:As events with a significant element of ritual and political theater, the newly elected president's first Congressional address and subsequent State of the Union addresses are the frequent subjects of political points-scoring and at times divisive analysis. Partisans on both sides habitually scrutinize the actions and body language of politicians from the opposite side, and Snopes has examined such claims several times in the past. In response, Republicans stood, cheered, and applauded, while cameras showed that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained impassive.Similarly, during his 2018 State of the Union address, Trump said "Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs," which was greeted with cheering and applause by Republicans, but almost total silence among Democrats. That could be a sign that those Democrats despise job creation, but it's much more likely to mean that they objected to Trump's touting employment figures as one of his own accomplishments, for example. As is customary, Biden listed what he presented as the achievements of his first 100 days in office: expanded access to health care; the provision of stimulus checks; added investment in veterans' health care; and H.R. 1319, the "American Rescue Plan" a major stimulus and relief package to aid in the federal government's response to the public health and economic crises engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic. The screenshot included in the Occupy Democrats meme was authentic and showed a snapshot of the reaction to Biden's child poverty remarks on both sides of the chamber. Here's roughly the same view, taken from the CBS News live stream of the speech. Democrats can be seen on the right-hand side, while the Republican side is on the left:To view a larger, more detailed version of this annotated screenshot, click here.

Will There Be a Sequel to 'Napoleon Dynamite'?

['Rumors that there would be a follow-up to the 2004 cult classic actually grew out of a fan-made poster and years-old rumors.']

Have you heard the sweet rumor about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel? Well, don't get your hopes up. It's just another movie sequel hoax. The rumors about a sequel to the oddball cult classic have been periodically reappearing since the original film came out in 2004. This particular version of the rumor is based on a fan-made movie poster paired with an old gossip article: As convincing as it might appear, this poster was not created by a movie studio and was never shared in an official capacity to hype a new sequel. Instead, it was created by graphic designer Jack Gambro and can be found on his web site in the "conceptual" section: Jack Gambro conceptual This section contains conceptual projects unrelated to the organizations or individuals involved. The gallery is a collection of unofficial artwork. A 2006 article from CinemaBlend.com is also frequently shared by sequel-hungry fans: Despite the article's clickbait title and web address, it doesn't actually report that a sequel has been confirmed. Rather, it reported that "there have been talks" about making a sequel (emphasis ours): Napoleon Dynamite cost only $400,000 to make and grossed over $46 million worldwide. When a movie sports that kind of positive cost to profit ratio, youve got to assume there will be a sequel. Evidently the folks behind the movie agree. Efren Ramirez, who played Pedro in Napoleon appeared on the Dallas radio show Pugs & Kelly this afternoon and confirmed that there have been talks about making a Napoleon Dynamite 2. He says most of the rumors circulating about other Napoleon projects, like a television show or a series of comic books are nothing but rumors, but he confirms that they are at least talking about making another movie. There may have been talks about making a follow-up to the 2004 movie at some point, but in the years since its release there have been no official announcements about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel.

['profit']

False

As convincing as it might appear, this poster was not created by a movie studio and was never shared in an official capacity to hype a new sequel. Instead, it was created by graphic designer Jack Gambro and can be found on his web site in the "conceptual" section:

Is this billboard about Elon Musk defending billionaires genuine?

['We found no sign of it.']

In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you." We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Additionally, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as the location of this alleged billboard. The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. Another red flag is that the image contains what appears to be a picture of Musk that can be easily found on the internet, along with a black background that other social media users have used to create their own billboards. While we are very skeptical that this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we are rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard.

['taxes']

NEI

We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located.The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes.While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard.

Star Wreck

["Web comic rekindles interest in 'Star Trek' creator Gene Roddenberry's experience surviving a Pan Am plane crash and fire in 1947."]

On 10 November 2015, the web comic The Oatmeal rekindled interest in an incident from the early life of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry: the 1947 crash of Pan Am Flight 121 during its leg from Karachi to Istanbul, an accident that killed seven crew members and seven passengers and left Roddenberry, who was a member of the flight crew, with "a couple of broken ribs and a bruise or two": interest The Oatmeal comic (which can be viewed in its entirety here) related that after the plane crashed, 26-year-old Gene Roddenberry (a pilot who flew with the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and worked as a commercial pilot for Pan Am airlines after the war) pulled passengers from the burning wreckage and then led them to a village where they were able to call for help. While some readers were skeptical about the fantastical story,The Oatmeal provided a link to its source material,Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry, which recounts the incident at length in Chapter 5. here source Although The Oatmeal described Roddenberry as the "co-pilot" of the flight, other sourcesidentifiedRoddenberry asthe "third officer without flight responsibilities" or "a deadheading" pilot. Nonetheless, Roddenberry did helm a portion the flight while the captain took a break, and there's no disputing the fact that he helped 22 people survive the crash of Pan Am Flight 121 in 1947 after an engine fire forced the flight down in a desert and the plane ignited: sources helped The flight's Third Officer, Eugene Wesley Roddenberry, of River Edge, New Jersey, purser Anthony Volpe and stewardess Jane Bray helped evacuate the wrecked airliner. "We who could jumped out. The other survivors were handed down and we dragged them away and tried to do what we could for them. We had to carry the Rani away. She had a head injury and had lost some teeth and was in a rather bad way, but we finally quieted her,"Bray recalled. "All we could do then was watch while the plane burned, slowly at first and then fiercely. It must have burned for hours, but I do not remember too well. There wasn't any sound but those flames. Everybody who died must have been killed outright." As described in Star Trek Creator, Roddenberry was instrumental in helping to save surviving passengers: The second the plane came to a rest, Roddenberry, Volpe, and Bray quickly began evacuating their charges through the ruptured fuselage. As the fire in the front of the plane approached their section, they knew they only had seconds to get everyone out. Moving as fast as they could, they pushed open the cabin door and guided the uninjured passengers out. Gene and Tony handed down the injured, then the uninjured passengers on the ground dragged them to safety. Even with the composed and focused actions of the surviving crew, the evacuation did not go smoothly. After most of the passengers had been removed, the seatbelt of the Majarani of Pheleton would not release, trapping her in the burning wreckage. The large woman was hysterical. Gene forced the belt open and rescued the Indian royal. She and her son, the prince, were put with the others on the sand, away from the plane and the fire. Gene pulled out several people who were themselves on fire and used a pillow he found on the ground to smother the flames. On board, the flames were growing in intensity, so he could only make a couple of trips into the passenger compartment. The last passenger he pulled out died in his arms. The wind changed, blowing the burning gasoline directly over the ship's wreckage; Gene and Volpe were unable to rescue any more passengers out of the plane. The other passengers safe for the moment, the trio turned their thoughts to their friends on the flight deck. They ran around the burning fuselage and wings to the front of the plane. Looking in the cockpit windows, they could see the flight crew sitting at their stations, slumped over their seats, dead or unconscious. Frantically pounding on the windows, Volpe, Bray, and Roddenberry tried to rouse their friends until the flames drove them back. The Roddenberry Foundation recounted a similar version of the story, noting that the creator ofStar Trek was awarded a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts after the crash: recounted At war's end, he joined Pan American World Airways. It was on a flight from Calcutta that his plane lost two engines and caught fire in flight, crashing at night in the Syrian desert. As the senior surviving officer, Roddenberry sent two Englishmen swimming across the Euphrates River in quest of the source of a light he had observed just prior to the crash impact. The Englishmen reached a Syrian military outpost, which sent a small plane to investigate. Roddenberry returned with the small plane to the outpost, where he broadcast a message that was relayed to Pan Am, which sent a stretcher plane to the rescue. Roddenberry later received a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts during and after the crash.

['interest']

True

On 10 November 2015, the web comic The Oatmeal rekindled interest in an incident from the early life of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry: the 1947 crash of Pan Am Flight 121 during its leg from Karachi to Istanbul, an accident that killed seven crew members and seven passengers and left Roddenberry, who was a member of the flight crew, with "a couple of broken ribs and a bruise or two":The Oatmeal comic (which can be viewed in its entirety here) related that after the plane crashed, 26-year-old Gene Roddenberry (a pilot who flew with the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and worked as a commercial pilot for Pan Am airlines after the war) pulled passengers from the burning wreckage and then led them to a village where they were able to call for help. While some readers were skeptical about the fantastical story,The Oatmeal provided a link to its source material,Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry, which recounts the incident at length in Chapter 5.Although The Oatmeal described Roddenberry as the "co-pilot" of the flight, other sourcesidentifiedRoddenberry asthe "third officer without flight responsibilities" or "a deadheading" pilot. Nonetheless, Roddenberry did helm a portion the flight while the captain took a break, and there's no disputing the fact that he helped 22 people survive the crash of Pan Am Flight 121 in 1947 after an engine fire forced the flight down in a desert and the plane ignited:The Roddenberry Foundation recounted a similar version of the story, noting that the creator ofStar Trek was awarded a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts after the crash:

No state gets back less from Washington than New York state.

['Cuomos assertion aligns with a widely cited study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government that looked at every states balance of payments with the federal government between 2015 and 2018., However, that same study notes a slightly different result over the same four-year period when population is taken into account.', 'On a per-capita basis, New York ranked fourth, after Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts.']

Does New York get the short end of the stick when it comes to federal funding? Governor Andrew Cuomo said so in a tweet on January 14. New Yorkers are tired of subsidizing other states with our tax dollars. New York subsidizes 42 other states. No state receives less back from Washington than New York. The federal government must stop shortchanging New York, Cuomo tweeted. Is Cuomo correct that no state gets back less from Washington than New York? We looked at a comprehensive independent analysis and found that Cuomo's assertion was close to accurate. Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Budget, told PolitiFact that Cuomo was referencing a widely cited analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy arm of the State University of New York. The report, published in January 2020, shows four-year totals of funding flows from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2018. The report found that New Yorkers cumulatively sent $116 billion more to the federal government during that period than New York received from the federal government. The four major categories of federal spending analyzed by the report are direct payments for individuals under programs such as Social Security and Medicare, federal grants to state and local governments, federal contracts and procurement, and wages paid to federal workers. The institute found that during that period, only 11 states received fewer dollars in funding than they sent to the federal government in tax payments, and of these, New York's cumulative shortfall was easily the largest. The other 10 states with negative balances with the federal government during that four-year period were, in descending order, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Illinois, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, Utah, and New Hampshire. In the most recent year studied in the report, 2018, New York sent almost $22 billion more to the federal government than it received. That's a larger sum than the combined shortfalls of the next two states, New Jersey and Massachusetts. However, when adjusted for population, New York isn't the biggest loser; it ranks fourth, after three of its smaller neighbors: Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Cuomo's mention of 42 states stems from the 2018 figures in the report, which states, "Forty-two states had a positive balance of payments with the federal government in 2018." Broadly speaking, federal money flows from high-income states to low-income states through spending by programs such as Medicaid. The system isn't designed to return each state the equivalent of what its residents and businesses paid. Because New York is home to a large critical mass of very high-income households, as well as a considerable number of merely affluent (mid-six-figure) residents, the Empire State's residents generate a disproportionately large share of federal revenues through a tax system that is, after all, based on a progressive income tax, said E.J. McMahon, founder and research director of the Empire Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank. New York's balance of payments with the federal government could worsen in the coming years unless a change made to the tax code in 2017 is reversed. In the Republican-backed tax bill signed that year by President Donald Trump, lawmakers limited the size of the federal deduction for state and local taxes paid. This change to the state and local tax deduction meant that some taxpayers in high-tax states like New York would pay more in federal taxes. Cuomo stated that no state gets back less from Washington than New York. This aligns with a widely cited study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government that looked at every state's balance of payments with the federal government from 2015 to 2018. However, that same study notes a slightly different result when population is taken into account. On a per-capita basis, New York ranked fourth, after Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. We rate the statement Mostly True.

['State Budget', 'New York']

True

Does New York get the short end of the stick when it comes to federal funding? Gov. Andrew Cuomo said so in atweeton Jan. 14.New Yorkers are just tired of subsidizing other states with our tax dollars.New York subsidizes 42 other states.No state gets back less from Washington than New York State.The federal government must stop shortchanging NY.#SOTS2021Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Budget, told PolitiFact that Cuomo was referencing a widely citedanalysisfrom the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy arm of the State University of New York.New Yorks balance of payments with the federal government could worsen in the coming years unless a change made to the tax code in 2017 is reversed. In the Republican-backed tax bill signed that year by President Donald Trump, lawmakers limited the size of the federal deduction for state and local taxes paid. This change to thestate and local tax deductionmeant that some taxpayers in high-tax states like New York would pay more in federal taxes.

Does an Impeached US President Lose Benefits?

['Being removed from office is not the only potential consequence of impeachment. ']

In the days following the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, several lawmakers began calling for U.S. President Donald Trump to be impeached for a second time, this time, according to one draft of the impeachment articles, for "incitement of insurrection." As the momentum for impeachment built, some social media users argued that it wasn't worth impeaching Trump again, as he would be leaving office in a few days regardless. However, according to a viral message from Twitter user @BenCostiloe, the potential consequences of impeachment extended beyond removal from office. This message, which was shared more than 150,000 times, claimed that impeaching Trump would also strip him of several post-presidency benefits, such as a lifetime pension, security detail, and the ability to run for office in the future. This message is generally accurate. However, it should be noted that a president is only stripped of these benefits if they are impeached and removed from office. As of this writing, Trump, who was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2019, will still receive presidential benefits, as he was not convicted by the Senate and removed from office. U.S. President Bill Clinton, for example, still receives the benefits bestowed on former presidents even though he, too, was impeached. The benefits a president receives after leaving office are outlined in the Former Presidents Act of 1958. That law states that former presidents shall receive a lifetime pension (of approximately $200,000 annually), travel-related expenses up to $1 million each fiscal year, and protection from the Secret Service. It also notes that these benefits shall not be awarded to presidents whose service was terminated by removal "pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America." Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Mother Jones reported that the 1958 Former Presidents Act assures that no president leaves office without being set for life; it guarantees a pension, access to health insurance, office space, and staff. There is, however, one exception: These perks are only granted to presidents who are not removed from office in an impeachment trial. There is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose protection from the Secret Service. The Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 authorizes "the Secret Service to protect former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes." This act does not state any exceptions for an impeached and removed president. As this is uncharted territory, it's unclear how the term "former president" would be interpreted in this instance. We reached out to various historians for comment and will update this article accordingly. The final item listed in the viral tweet, "loses his ability to run in 2024," is a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion in the case of an impeachment conviction in the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that a president "shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted." However, it is up to the Senate's judgment as to whether a removed president should be barred from holding future office. Here's an excerpt from the U.S. Senate website (emphasis ours): In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called managers, acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office. In short, if Trump is impeached and removed from office, he would lose many of the benefits awarded to former presidents. Updated [13 January 2021]: Article updated to note that there is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose Secret Service protection.

['insurance']

NEI

In the days following the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6. 2021, several lawmakers started calling for U.S. President Donald Trump to be impeached for a second time, this time, according to one draft of the impeachment articles, for "incitement of insurrection."But according to a viral message from Twitter user @BenCostiloe, the potential consequences of impeachment extended further than removal from office. This message, which was shared more than 150,000 times, claimed that impeaching Trump would also strip him of several post-presidency benefits, such as a lifetime pension, security detail, and the ability to run for office in the future:As of this writing, Trump, who was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2019, will still receive presidential benefits as he was not convicted by the Senate and removed from office. U.S. President Bill Clinton, for example, still receives the benefits bestowed on former presidents even though he, too, was impeached. The benefits a president receives after leaving office are outlined in the Former Presidents Act of 1958. That law states that former presidents shall receive a lifetime pension (of approximately $200,000 annually), travel-related expenses up to $1 million each fiscal year, and protection from the Secret Service. It also notes that these benefits shall not be awarded to presidents whose service was terminated by removal "pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America."Article II of Section 4 of the Constitution, reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."Mother Jones reported:There is some debate as to whether an impeached, convicted, and removed president would also lose protection from the Secret Service. The Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 authorizes "the Secret Service to protect former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes." This act does not state any exceptions for an impeached and removed president. As this is ahistorical territory, it's unclear how the term "former president" would be interpreted in this instance. We reached out to various historians for comment and will update this article accordingly.Here's an excerpt from the U.S. Senate website (emphasis ours):

Was Donald Trump at Ground Zero Searching for Survivors Two Days After 9/11 with Workers He Paid For?

["A meme echoes President Trump's 2001 comments about having hundreds of workers search for survivors after the terrorist attacks in Lower Manhattan."]

On 11 September 2018, our readers asked for verification of a meme circulating on social media that reported Donald Trump had helped with search-and-rescue efforts in the rubble of the Twin Towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 17 years prior: "2 days after the September 11th attacks Donald Trump was at ground zero with hundreds of workers that he payed for to help find and identify victims. Share this photo to remind people exactly what kind of American our President is!" Although the image used in the meme above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments Trump made two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help: taken Well I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we'll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they're doing is amazing. And we'll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct. Trump made similar remarks to an NBC News reporter: NBC News Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we're bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they've never done work like this before. And they're hard-working people but they've never seen anything like it. And they've never done work like this before, it's terrible. Reporter: Have you spoken to any of your men? Do you know how they're reacting to this, because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult. Trump: Well there are a lot of them but they've never seen bodies like this -- bodies all over. The great thing is when they find somebody that's alive like the five firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that's the great thing, and that's what they were all striving for. But generally speaking that's not the case. So, they are working very, very hard, but it's a very depressing situation for these folks. President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019, saying he went down to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks "with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could." described it a little differently Trump's statements were vague, so they didn't provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he "paid for" their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015. Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. "This is the first Im hearing of it," Alles told us by phone. "There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered." Alles added that the construction crews he saw at Ground Zero who came to help rescue workers were from the trade unions and were not hired by Trump. John Feal, founder of the 9/11 first responder health advocacy non-profit the FealGood Foundation, responded to Ground Zero on 12 September 2001 as a construction demolitions expert. He also told us he didn't see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. "There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge," he told us. (Feal was forced off the site as of 17 September 2001 when he suffered a life-threatening injury caused by a 4-ton piece of steel falling on his foot, crushing it and resulting in a major infection.) non-profit forced off According to the New York Times, the entire Trump organization didn't even encompass enough people in 2001 to have assisted in the manner described: New York Times [Timothy] OBrien, the author [of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald], said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was a little bit over a dozen people, which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort. Hes very comfortable propagandizing that event for political purposes, Mr. OBrien said. Even in the face of tragedy, he cant help but self-promote and self-aggrandize. We reached out to the White House Press Office and the Trump Organization asking for corroborating evidence of these claims but received no response, although we don't know of anyone who raised questions about the veracity of his statements at the time they were made. But now that Trump is president, his political opponents seized on the opportunity to proclaim that he was lying about having helped in the aftermath of 9/11: Heres video of @realDonaldTrump claiming he helped look for survivors & clear rubble on 9/11. He didn't. He was lying. #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ @realDonaldTrump #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018 September 11, 2018 It's not the first time Trump's accounts of his experiences in New York related to the 11 September terrorist attacks have been called into question. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, some critics cited a TIME magazine report that placed Trump in Chicago at the time of the attacks -- but that was due to an error in the report. For his part, Trump claimed at a campaign rally in 2015 that he watched from his apartment in Trump Tower as people jumped from the burning WTC buildings to their deaths, but multiple news organizations pointed out that would have been an impossibility because Trump Tower is four miles away from Ground Zero: some error pointed out I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center, because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan. And I watched as people jumped, and I watched the second plane come in Trump also famously but falsely claimed repeatedly that he witnessed Muslim Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the WTC buildings came down: falsely claimed Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. Keneally, Meghan and Liz Kreutz. "Where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Were on 9/11." ABC News. 9 September 2016. Waldman, Paul. "Trumps Long History of Lying About 9/11 and Exploiting It for Personal Gain." The Washington Post. 11 September 2018. Hind, John. "21 Awful Truths About 9/11." The Telegraph. 5 September 2001. Neilan, Terrence. "Hopes Are Raised, And Dashed, About Rescue of Firefighters." The New York Times. 13 September 2001. Balsalmo, Michael and Nancy Benac. "Trump's Claims About 9/11 Don't Hold Up to Scrutiny." Associated Press. 20 April 2016. Rogers, Katie. "Fact-Checking Trumps Claim He Spent a Lot of Time With 9/11 Responders." The New York Times. 29 July 2019.

['profit']

NEI

Although the image used in the meme above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments Trump made two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help:Trump made similar remarks to an NBC News reporter:President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019, saying he went down to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks "with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could."John Feal, founder of the 9/11 first responder health advocacy non-profit the FealGood Foundation, responded to Ground Zero on 12 September 2001 as a construction demolitions expert. He also told us he didn't see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. "There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge," he told us. (Feal was forced off the site as of 17 September 2001 when he suffered a life-threatening injury caused by a 4-ton piece of steel falling on his foot, crushing it and resulting in a major infection.)According to the New York Times, the entire Trump organization didn't even encompass enough people in 2001 to have assisted in the manner described:Heres video of @realDonaldTrump claiming he helped look for survivors & clear rubble on 9/11. He didn't. He was lying. #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, some critics cited a TIME magazine report that placed Trump in Chicago at the time of the attacks -- but that was due to an error in the report. For his part, Trump claimed at a campaign rally in 2015 that he watched from his apartment in Trump Tower as people jumped from the burning WTC buildings to their deaths, but multiple news organizations pointed out that would have been an impossibility because Trump Tower is four miles away from Ground Zero:Trump also famously but falsely claimed repeatedly that he witnessed Muslim Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the WTC buildings came down:

Does the CDC operate as a 'Nonprofit Corporation' that is privately owned?

['The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC Foundation are two separate entities. ']

Since November 2020, an identically worded piece of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim originated on the website Armstrong Economics, which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong, and it became a widely shared piece of "copypasta," reproduced in part below: Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services, which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs, and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively government-funded, which is very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still appear on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters on that post were evidently confused. The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation—the CDC Foundation—that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for the promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives. "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups, and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC Foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC Foundation are an indirect route, as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed as long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes—both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself—has caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26 million to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for the CDC's efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector, we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. The CDC's gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress. Even from a rhetorical standpoint, it would be a stretch to argue that the CDC is proportionally awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity).

['funds']

False

Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below:Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused:The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation the CDC Foundation that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives. "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC.The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions."For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents:The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples:The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014.While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress:

Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education.

[]

A budget storm is brewing in Tallahassee, and Senate President Mike Haridopolos is making clear that no agency, program or area may be spared from impending cuts.Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, met with reporters on Jan. 12, 2011, to offer his outlook regarding Florida's $3.62 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Haridopolos predicted that it would be difficult to pursue any significant tax cuts -- like those being championed by Gov. Rick Scott -- and that everyone should expect spending cuts.That includes education funding, he warned.More than $3 billion in federal stimulus funds have helped the state fill education budget holes for the past two years, but those funds sunset this spring. And while some additional federal funds are coming available, about $555 million, Florida's budget picture remains bleak, Haridopolos said.Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education, Haridopolos was quoted as saying in theOrlando Sentinel. It's a very difficult spot to be in, and the reason we wanted to make the adjustments to the class-size amendment defeated by voters in November. Haridopolos was referring to an amendment proposed by the Legislature to ease class-size requirements at Florida schools so the state could save money. That measure failed to receive the needed 60 percent voter approval to pass.For this fact check, we decided to zero in on Haridopolos' claim that half of state general revenue goes to fund education.Understanding the state budget and education fundingIn his claim, Haridopolos is talking about a subset of the state budget, which is a subset of state's share of education funding in Florida, which is a subset of overall education funding in Florida. Oh, and he's not just talking about K-12 spending, but also state spending on the state university system, pre-Kindergarten and student aid programs.We'll walk you through it.Let's start with the state budget, which you can imagine by picturing a three-legged stool.Leg one: General revenue (what Haridopolos is talking about). General revenue makes up about 34 percent of the current state budget. The money mostly comes from sales taxes -- though some comes from telephone and cable taxes, corporate income taxes (which Scott has vowed to phase out), and taxes on property transactions. The state has broad discretion on how general revenue is spent.Leg two: State trust funds. State trust funds make up about 27 percent of the current state budget. That is money collected by the state to be used for a specific purpose. The state gas tax is funneled into a transportation trust fund, for example, to pay for road building projects. Florida Lottery proceeds roll into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. (The Legislature, at times, has raided trust funds to help balance the budget. )Leg three: Federal dollars. Federal dollars this year comprise about 39 percent of the state budget. Federal dollars primarily fund the state's Medicaid program, but also help fund education, road projects and the criminal justice system.So while each leg helps fund education programs from pre-K through college, Haridopolos is focusing on the general revenue fund. In the current budget, 56 percent of all state education spending came out of general revenue, and it's the portion of state spending the Legislature can most easily control.Now, here's a second important primer.The state doesn't fund education all by itself. Hardly. Local school districts contribute billions of dollars on their own through local property taxes. Most of those property taxes, believe it or not, are set at rates mandated by the Legislature through something called the Required Local Effort. In short, school districts are forced to collect the amount of property taxes the Legislature decides, or the districts won't get to share in state funding.In addition, there are other property taxes individual school districts have discretion over. None of those funds are technically state revenues for the purpose of this analysis.If this isn't confusing enough already, the context of Haridopolos' statement also is important. He's talking about potential cuts in education funding because of less federal dollars and lower sales tax receipts that are affecting the state's bottom line. One way to offset those cuts would be to raise the Required Local Effort, but the Republican-led Legislature that sets the tax has been opposed to that idea. Drilling down on general revenueNow, sticking to Haridopolos' statement and examining only general revenue, the Senate president is correct.Of the $23.8 billion of general revenue budgeted to be spent between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, $12.5 billion was directed to education -- pre-K through college.Divide one into the other and you see that education spending currently equals more than 52 percent of general revenue. You can see the full breakdown of general revenue spending on Page 5 ofthis report.Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said the state expects to receive $22.6 billion in general revenue for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.If you look at the overall state budget, education funding made up about 32 percent ($22.4 billion) of the entire $70 billion state budget in 2010-2011. RulingAs Haridopolos talked in Tallahassee about the grim state budget prospects for this coming year, he said state education funding might see cuts. Part of the problem is just how much of the budget is tied to education funding, he said -- half of the state's general revenue fund.To be honest, Florida's education funding structure is way more complicated than Haridopolos let on. But he's right that the state general revenue fund, which is a little more than a third of the overall state budget, is being used primarily to fund education.We rate this statement True.

['Education', 'State Budget', 'Florida']

True

A budget storm is brewing in Tallahassee, and Senate President Mike Haridopolos is making clear that no agency, program or area may be spared from impending cuts.Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, met with reporters on Jan. 12, 2011, to offer his outlook regarding Florida's $3.62 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Haridopolos predicted that it would be difficult to pursue any significant tax cuts -- like those being championed by Gov. Rick Scott -- and that everyone should expect spending cuts.That includes education funding, he warned.More than $3 billion in federal stimulus funds have helped the state fill education budget holes for the past two years, but those funds sunset this spring. And while some additional federal funds are coming available, about $555 million, Florida's budget picture remains bleak, Haridopolos said.Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education, Haridopolos was quoted as saying in theOrlando Sentinel. It's a very difficult spot to be in, and the reason we wanted to make the adjustments to the class-size amendment defeated by voters in November. Haridopolos was referring to an amendment proposed by the Legislature to ease class-size requirements at Florida schools so the state could save money. That measure failed to receive the needed 60 percent voter approval to pass.For this fact check, we decided to zero in on Haridopolos' claim that half of state general revenue goes to fund education.Understanding the state budget and education fundingIn his claim, Haridopolos is talking about a subset of the state budget, which is a subset of state's share of education funding in Florida, which is a subset of overall education funding in Florida. Oh, and he's not just talking about K-12 spending, but also state spending on the state university system, pre-Kindergarten and student aid programs.We'll walk you through it.Let's start with the state budget, which you can imagine by picturing a three-legged stool.Leg one: General revenue (what Haridopolos is talking about). General revenue makes up about 34 percent of the current state budget. The money mostly comes from sales taxes -- though some comes from telephone and cable taxes, corporate income taxes (which Scott has vowed to phase out), and taxes on property transactions. The state has broad discretion on how general revenue is spent.Leg two: State trust funds. State trust funds make up about 27 percent of the current state budget. That is money collected by the state to be used for a specific purpose. The state gas tax is funneled into a transportation trust fund, for example, to pay for road building projects. Florida Lottery proceeds roll into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. (The Legislature, at times, has raided trust funds to help balance the budget.)Leg three: Federal dollars. Federal dollars this year comprise about 39 percent of the state budget. Federal dollars primarily fund the state's Medicaid program, but also help fund education, road projects and the criminal justice system.So while each leg helps fund education programs from pre-K through college, Haridopolos is focusing on the general revenue fund. In the current budget, 56 percent of all state education spending came out of general revenue, and it's the portion of state spending the Legislature can most easily control.Now, here's a second important primer.The state doesn't fund education all by itself. Hardly. Local school districts contribute billions of dollars on their own through local property taxes. Most of those property taxes, believe it or not, are set at rates mandated by the Legislature through something called the Required Local Effort. In short, school districts are forced to collect the amount of property taxes the Legislature decides, or the districts won't get to share in state funding.In addition, there are other property taxes individual school districts have discretion over. None of those funds are technically state revenues for the purpose of this analysis.If this isn't confusing enough already, the context of Haridopolos' statement also is important. He's talking about potential cuts in education funding because of less federal dollars and lower sales tax receipts that are affecting the state's bottom line. One way to offset those cuts would be to raise the Required Local Effort, but the Republican-led Legislature that sets the tax has been opposed to that idea.Drilling down on general revenueNow, sticking to Haridopolos' statement and examining only general revenue, the Senate president is correct.Of the $23.8 billion of general revenue budgeted to be spent between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, $12.5 billion was directed to education -- pre-K through college.Divide one into the other and you see that education spending currently equals more than 52 percent of general revenue. You can see the full breakdown of general revenue spending on Page 5 ofthis report.Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said the state expects to receive $22.6 billion in general revenue for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.If you look at the overall state budget, education funding made up about 32 percent ($22.4 billion) of the entire $70 billion state budget in 2010-2011.

We're destroying more businesses in the United States now than are being created for the first time in our history.

[]

Americas economy cant get a proper foothold to start growing quickly again, in part because the country is losing businesses faster than it creates them, Republican presidential contender Carly Fiorina said. Talking to George Stephanopoulos onABCsThis Weekon July 12, 2015, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said her GOP rival Jeb Bushs talk of 4 percent economic growth is a good goal. But Fiorina said a dearth of new small businesses is preventing more than anemic growth at the moment. In fact, we're destroying more businesses in the United States now than are being created for the first time in our history, she said. PolitiFacthas looked atthis claim before, and when we asked Fiorinas campaign where they found their statistic, they pointed to the same source -- the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statistics data. Fiorina is accurate to say that more business firms are closing than are opening, but the data cant say for sure whether this is the first time thats happened in the 239-year history of the United States. A Fiorina spokeswoman sent us aSeptember 2014 articlefrom Gallup that examined the data, which showed that the startup rate for new businesses first dipped below the closure rate in 2008. The trend has remained through 2011, the latest year of available data. Heres a chart illustrating Fiorinas point, from aMay 2014 Brookings Institution studyof the same data: As you might notice, the chart only goes back to 1978. Why? Because the Business Dynamics Statistics database only goes back to the 1970s. Before then, there was no official metric recorded -- by the federal government or anyone else -- for business startups and deaths. Economists say that really limits the ability to judge claims like Fiorina's, who talked about the entire history of the country. Business failures may have exceeded startups at other points, such as during the Great Depression, but its impossible to say without reliable data. Claims like Fiorinas are somewhere between plausible and impossible to prove, Robert Litman, a Brookings economics fellowwho has studiedthe number of business openings and closings, told PolitiFact. He suggested it would be more accurate to say that for the first time since the government began tracking these things, fails have exceeded starts. The reasons for this trend are harder to determine. Despite all this research, there has been no definitive answer as to why the rate of U.S. startups has declined so precipitously, the Gallup story concedes. Fiorina told Stephanopoulos the problem was crony capitalism and a very large, powerful, complicated government that made it difficult for smaller businesses to survive while bigger, established business have thrived. Litman, in his research, noted that it is clear that these trends fit into a larger narrative of business consolidation occurring in the U.S. economy -- whatever the reason, older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones. As HPs CEO, Fiorina oversaw a controversial$25 billion acquisitionof Compaq in 2001. The move resulted in30,000 layoffsas the two companies merged operations. HPs board of directors fired Fiorina in 2005 for poor stock performance and missed earnings targets. Our ruling Fiorina said, In fact, we're destroying more businesses in the United States now than are being created for the first time in our history. The data shes relying on, however, only looks back to 1978, and economists say its going a bit too far to say this is the first time such a trend has occurred in all of U.S. history. The fact is we simply dont have definitive data to prove it either way. Fiorinas statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Small Business']

NEI

Talking to George Stephanopoulos onABCsThis Weekon July 12, 2015, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said her GOP rival Jeb Bushs talk of 4 percent economic growth is a good goal. But Fiorina said a dearth of new small businesses is preventing more than anemic growth at the moment.PolitiFacthas looked atthis claim before, and when we asked Fiorinas campaign where they found their statistic, they pointed to the same source -- the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statistics data. Fiorina is accurate to say that more business firms are closing than are opening, but the data cant say for sure whether this is the first time thats happened in the 239-year history of the United States.A Fiorina spokeswoman sent us aSeptember 2014 articlefrom Gallup that examined the data, which showed that the startup rate for new businesses first dipped below the closure rate in 2008. The trend has remained through 2011, the latest year of available data.Heres a chart illustrating Fiorinas point, from aMay 2014 Brookings Institution studyof the same data:Claims like Fiorinas are somewhere between plausible and impossible to prove, Robert Litman, a Brookings economics fellowwho has studiedthe number of business openings and closings, told PolitiFact. He suggested it would be more accurate to say that for the first time since the government began tracking these things, fails have exceeded starts.As HPs CEO, Fiorina oversaw a controversial$25 billion acquisitionof Compaq in 2001. The move resulted in30,000 layoffsas the two companies merged operations. HPs board of directors fired Fiorina in 2005 for poor stock performance and missed earnings targets.

Jaden Smith Commits Suicide

['A hoax article reported that the actor (and teenaged son of Jada Pinkett Smith and Will Smith) had killed himself.']

In July 2016, news raced through social media that Jaden Smith, actor and son of Will and Jada Pinkett-Smith, had committed suicide: The news was not true, and didn't come from a legitimate source. In fact, users who clicked the above-displayed message were greeted with a popup message requesting permission from a Facebook app to post on their behalf, making the article appear less like a hoax and more like an outright scam: Messages about Jaden Smith's alleged suicide were shared from various sites, and led to a variety of dodgy-sounding Facebook apps, including "Smart Mobiles," "Gadgy Land," "Pakiza," "Top Feeds" and several others. Intrepid internet users who clicked the link and gave the app permission were eventually greeted with one of several "news" story claiming that Jaden Smith had committed suicide. The web sites responsible for this hoax have published dozens of fake news stories and graphics with this false claim: Users who granted these apps permission to post to Facebook on their behalf quickly found this death hoax posted to their own Facebook feeds, thereby replicating itself across social media. Jaden Smith himself has been active on his social media accounts, seemingly unaware that he's supposed to be dead. He posted a photograph of himself on 27 July 2016: posted Clickbait stories such as celebrity death hoaxes are common ways for dubious web sites and apps to spread malware. Even if the sites don't spread invasive software outright, your computer or social media accounts can still be easily hijacked so that unscrupulous companies can profit from a seemingly large social media presence. malware

['profit']

False

Jaden Smith himself has been active on his social media accounts, seemingly unaware that he's supposed to be dead. He posted a photograph of himself on 27 July 2016:Clickbait stories such as celebrity death hoaxes are common ways for dubious web sites and apps to spread malware. Even if the sites don't spread invasive software outright, your computer or social media accounts can still be easily hijacked so that unscrupulous companies can profit from a seemingly large social media presence.

The Koch network (is) spending more money (in a Senate race) in Ohio than anywhere else in the country.

[]

Voters in Ohio are enduring a deluge of fundraising emails from political groups ahead of the November election, including one from Friends of Sherrod Brown. The senator, in the middle of his second term, is hoping to garner support for fellow Democrat Ted Strickland. Outside special interests like to spend money in Ohio, Brown's email stated. Back in 2012, they spent $40 million trying to buy my seat in the Senate. Right now, the special interests have spent $30 million against Ted, with the Koch network investing more money in Ohio than anywhere else in the country. Strickland, the former Ohio governor, is running for Senate against incumbent Republican Sen. Rob Portman in one of the tightest races in the country. The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, of Koch Industries, are tied as the sixth-richest people in the world, each worth an estimated $42 billion. As political and policy influencers advancing a free-market agenda, their network includes the nonprofit Americans for Prosperity and the super PAC Freedom Partners Action Fund. The Kochs can usually be counted on to fund conservative causes, but they have recoiled from the 2016 presidential race. Is down-ballot spending in Ohio the Kochs' biggest imprint so far in the 2016 elections? We turned first to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics for its tallies of outside contributions. The Koch brothers, through their political action network, have spent approximately $8 million in the Senate race in Ohio, with almost $2 million from Americans for Prosperity and a little over $6 million from Freedom Partners Action Fund. That is more than the Koch-backed groups have spent in any other race in the country, according to OpenSecrets records. The Koch network's next-largest spending, by comparison, is in North Carolina, where Americans for Prosperity has spent a mere $200,000 against Rep. Renee Ellmers, and in Pennsylvania, where Freedom Partners Action Fund has spent almost $3 million in opposition to Katie McGinty. In opposition spending by Freedom Partners, Strickland has taken the most punishment in 2016 to date, the Center for Responsive Politics reported. So the Koch network is contributing substantially to help Portman keep his seat. But where did Brown get the $30 million spent against Ted? Here are the numbers for outside spending contributions in the Ohio Senate race, according to OpenSecrets.org: If you add the total outside spending for Portman and the spending against Strickland, you get $19,232,784. (We're leaving out the primary race spending for the other Democratic candidate, P.G. Sittenfeld, whom Strickland beat—that's the difference between our total and the $19,990,270 above.) Where does the other $10 million come from? Strickland spokesman David Bergstein told PolitiFact Ohio that, in tracking money spent against the candidate, the campaign monitors announcements of advertising purchases, some of which come from 501(c)(4) organizations that don't have to report to the Federal Election Commission. Those dollars, therefore, don't appear on sites like OpenSecrets.org. Counting announcements of spending from these nonprofits, the conservative estimate is closer to $30 million, the campaign said. Bergstein provided a spreadsheet confirming that figure. Strickland's campaign isn't suffering from a lack of outside spending as much as Brown's email might suggest. Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to putting Democrats in Senate seats, has spent $8.4 million against Portman and $1.8 million for Strickland. We shared our analysis with Freedom Partners Action PAC, and the group did not dispute our findings. Our ruling: A fundraising email in support of Strickland stated that the billionaire-backed Koch network has devoted the most money to oppose the Ohio Senate candidate than in any other race in the country. Americans for Prosperity and the Freedom Partners Action Fund have spent about $8 million to oppose Strickland, which is more than they have spent in any other race this election season to date. Strickland's campaign, while hardly immune to special interests, is the Koch network's biggest target in an election year that has seen conservative benefactors steer clear of the main ticket. We rate the claim True.

['Ohio', 'Campaign Finance', 'Elections']

True

The Kochs can usually be counted on to fund conservative causes, but they haverecoiledfrom the 2016presidentialrace.The Koch brothers, through their political action network, have spent approximately $8 million in the senate race in Ohio, with almost$2 millionfrom Americans for Prosperity and a little over$6 millionfrom Freedom Partners Action Fund. That is more than the Koch-backed groups have spent in any other race in the country, according to OpenSecrets records.The Koch networks next-largest spending, by comparison, is in North Carolina, where Americans for Prosperity has spent a mere $200,000 againstRep. Renee Ellmers, and in Pennsylvania, where Freedom Partners Action Fund has spent almost $3 million in opposition toKatie McGinty.In opposition spending by Freedom Partners, Strickland has taken the most punishment in 2016 to date, the Center for Responsive Politicsreported.Strickland spokesman David Bergstein told PolitiFact Ohio that, in tracking money spent against the candidate, the campaign monitorsannouncementsof advertising purchases, some of which come from 501(c)(4) organizations that dont have to report to the Federal Election Commission. Those dollars, therefore, dont appear on sites like OpenSecrets.org. Counting announcements of spending from these nonprofits, the conservative estimate is closer to $30 million, the campaign said. Bergstein provided a spreadsheet confirming that figure.Stricklands campaign isnt suffering from a lack of outside spending as much as Browns email might suggest.Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to putting Democrats in Senate seats, has spent $8.4 million against Portman and $1.8 million for Strickland.

Does This Flyer Accurately Represent Derek Chauvin's Police Actions?

["The trial of the former police officer charged in George Floyd's death was scheduled to begin in March."]

Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, died in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020, after a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, pinned him to the ground and kneeled on his neck while Floyd repeatedly said, "I can't breathe." A bystander recorded the confrontation in a video that swiftly spread across social media as a deadly example of what many viewers dubbed racism by American cops. video The footage ultimately sparked an international reckoning over racism, marked by weeks of protests that largely began peaceful during the day and then escalated to chaos at night, with many U.S. cities reporting property damage, fires, and violent clashes between law-enforcement officers and protesters. protests violent clashes At the center of the civil rights movement were four former police officers charged in Floyd's death particularly Chauvin, 44, whom authorities arrested and charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter. A judge ruled he would stand trial on his own, separate from the other three defendants, beginning March 8, 2021, according to The Associated Press. (No, he did not commit suicide, like some rumors online claim.) The Associated Press some rumors online claim.) Photo by Ramsey County Sheriff's Office What follows is everything we know about Chauvin, a 19-year veteran of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), based on court records, news reports, and police documents evidence that pieces together a policing record that includes complaints against him, as well as several shootings of civilians. We should note at the outset that the office of Chauvin's former attorney, Tom Kelly, did not respond to Snopes' request for comment and his current attorney, Eric Nelson, declined to be interviewed. Additionally, Sgt. John Elder, a spokesman for MPD, declined to answer questions about Chauvin's career with that department (which ended with Chauvin's termination the day after Floyd died), asserting that, "We dont comment on former employees," and "Anything we say" could affect the current investigation into Floyds death. To structure our examination into Chauvin's career with MPD, we measured the validity of each point in the below-displayed flyer titled "Who is Derek M. Chauvin?" that went viral shortly after Floyd's death. That's a question the jury trial will legally determine. Prosecutors have charged Chauvin with second-degree murder and manslaughter after they say he kept Floyd pinned to the ground and knelt on his neck for almost eight minutes, including for nearly three minutes after Floyd became non-responsive. almost eight minutes Prosecutors also charged the three officers who watched the fatal confrontation between Floyd and Chauvin Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane with aiding and abetting second-degree murder (maximum prison sentence is 40 years) while committing a felony, and with aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter (maximum prison sentence is 10 years). As of this writing, they were scheduled to be tried together separate from Chauvin's case beginning Aug. 23, The Associated Press reported. reported According to the complaints, which will serve as the basis to prosecutors' arguments to try to convince jurors to convict the former police officers, Lane and Kueng responded to a 911 call reporting that someone had used a counterfeit $20 bill at a South Minneapolis convenience store. According to video evidence cited in the court documents, upon arriving at the scene the two officers approached Floyd, who was sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle also occupied by two other persons. As Lane began speaking with Floyd, the officer pulled his gun out and instructed Floyd to show his hands. Floyd complied with the order, whereupon the officer holstered his gun. Lane then ordered Floyd out of the car and "put his hands on Floyd, and pulled him out of the car," handcuffing him, the complaint stated. Minutes later, while the officers tried walking Floyd to their squad car, "Floyd stiffened up and fell to the ground," and told the officers he was claustrophobic, the court documents allege. Chauvin and Thao arrived at the scene at that point. The officers tried again to get Floyd into a squad car but were unsuccessful in doing so, according to the complaints. While the officers tried to force Floyd into the vehicle, he began asserting that he could not breathe. "Floyd did not voluntarily sit in the backseat and the officers physically struggled to try to get him into the vehicle," read the complaint outlining the charges against Chauvin. It continued: The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed...The defendant placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd's head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, "I can't breathe" multiple times and repeatedly said, "Mama" and "please," as well. At one point, Mr. Floyd said "I'm about to die." The defendant and the other two officers stayed in their positions. Floyd was later pronounced dead at a hospital. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office, which encompasses Minneapolis, ruled Floyd's manner of death a homicide. manner of death It is important to note here: In the county office's preliminary autopsy report, medical investigators said Floyd's underlying health conditions, such as coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease, contributed to his death in similar ways as Chauvin's restraint. But an autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family had different results; it determined he did, in fact, die of asphyxiation. (Read more about those findings here.) preliminary autopsy report similar ways here All of that said, in reference to the first claim in the flyer, attorneys representing Chauvin are likely to argue in the upcoming trial that he did not murder Floyd but rather operated within the law as an officer. Prosecutors and viewers of the viral video have said otherwise. You can read the full charges against Chauvin here; Thao here; Kueng here, and Lane here. Chauvin here Thao here Kueng here Lane here The second claim in the flyer (that the restraint technique used was not part of MPD training) was false. At the time of Floyd's death, MPD's Policy & Procedure Manual (which governs everything from how officers should dress on the job to what tactics are OK to use during arrests) included the below-displayed section obtained by Snopes. In other words, department policy permitted officers to use what it considered a "non-deadly force option" by kneeling on a suspect's neck if they had received lessons in how to do so without applying pressure to the suspect's airway. Officers could use "light or moderate pressure" to get someone under "control" or "adequate pressure" to make someone unconscious in situations they deemed appropriate. Policy & Procedure Manual However, in the aftermath of Floyd's death, MPD agreed to ban officers from using chokeholds and neck restraints at the request of state authorities. As a result of that change, the police manual now reads: agreed request The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA), which provides legal services to police by drawing from about a dozen attorneys, is providing legal representation for Chauvin. Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association And initially, yes, the association had assigned Tom Kelly to Floyd's case. Kelly was one of the defense attorneys who represented St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez, who was acquitted on all charges in connection to the fatal shooting of Philando Castile, a Black man, during a traffic stop in 2017. who represented acquitted Philando Castile But on June 3, 2020, Eric Nelson of the Halberg Criminal Defense firm took over Chauvin's case, Reuters reported. Kelly told that news outlet the association had originally assigned the case to him because he was the on-call attorney at the time of Chauvin's arrest. But he gave up the case for medical-related reasons. Reuters reported In short, Kelly, a lawyer who indeed argued Yanez's case, also represented Chauvin but only for about nine days. The flyer's claim was outdated. By and large, this assertion is true. Below, we lay out everything we know about the shooting of Leroy Martinez in 2011, which the flyer claimed was "an inappropriate police shooting" involving Chauvin and resulted in MPD placing him on administrative leave. According to news reports, on Aug. 8, 2011, Chauvin and other officers chased down Martinez, 23, in a public housing complex in South Minneapolis after they said they heard gunshots and saw Martinez running with a gun. (The Indian County-Today news outlet confirmed that Martinez is an Alaskan Native.) Indian County-Today One of the officers shot Martinez in the torso, and as he recovered in the hospital, Martinez faced second-degree assault charges in connection with a shooting that had taken place before police arrived on the scene. Here's how The Star Tribune newspaper reported the incident: According to that newspaper's coverage, a witness who said she watched the shooting from her balcony in the housing complex maintained to journalists that police weren't telling the full story. The witness said Martinez had thrown down his gun and was holding his hands in the air when one of the officers (not Chauvin) shot him, after warning that he would open fire. reported police All officers involved, including Chauvin, were placed on three-day administrative leave, which is standard procedure in officer-involved shootings, and eventually exonerated of any wrongdoing. Whether the flyer is correct in describing the shooting as "inappropriate" is a subjective issue. The police chief at the time said he believed the officers acted "appropriately and courageously," suggesting they had acted within department policy under the circumstances, The New York Times reported. The New York Times reported This claim in the flyer is largely true. Here's what we know about that incident: incident While responding to a call of domestic violence at a South Minneapolis apartment in May 2008, Chauvin opened fire on a 21-year-old Black man, Ira Latrell Toles. The Associated Press reported at the time: Ira Latrell Toles For a period of time there was an open 911 line into the residence and the 911 operator could hear a woman yelling for someone to stop hitting her, police said. Officers were refused entry when they arrived at the residence but could hear the assault continuing so they forced their way in. Police say Toles tried to run from officers, and when they tried to subdue him he tried to take an officer's gun. They say the officer shot him to prevent that from happening. The two officers on the scene are on paid administrative leave, which is standard in shootings. Police have not released their names. Toles, who survived the shooting and later faced criminal charges, recalled the incident differently. Following Floyd's death, he told The Daily Beast that yes, the mother of his child had called police on him that night, and that he had locked himself in the bathroom with an unlit cigarette after officers broke down the apartment door. Then, Toles alleged, Chauvin busted in the bathroom door and started hitting the 21-year-old without warning. Daily Beast Chauvin later told investigators that, because Toles supposedly failed to comply with officers' commands, he attempted to hit the young man in the head with the butt of his handgun and then opened fire when he thought Toles reached for his gun, The Star Tribune reported. Toles ex-girlfriend reported that Chauvin fired his firearm about two seconds after he entered the bathroom after Toles. The Star Tribune reported In summary, the flyer's point is accurate, with the caveat that only Toles' account suggested that he was unarmed at the time of the confrontation. This claim is true. In 2006, Chauvin and five other officers opened fire on a truck in South Minneapolis while investigating a reported stabbing, killing 42-year-old Wayne Reyes. According to MPD's account of the incident, Reyes pulled out a shotgun when police pulled him over to ask him questions about the reported assault; the officers believed Reyes had stabbed his girlfriend and another friend in a domestic dispute, according to news reports. In total, the six officers fired 42 rounds in four seconds, according to the The Washington Post. Reyes (who the Canadian national news outlet, APTN News, reported was a member of the Leech Lake Ojibwe Band in Minnesota) was struck multiple times and died. However, it was unclear if Chauvin fired any of the fatal shots. The Washington Post reported In the end, a grand jury ruled the officers' actions appropriate, and Chauvin was recommended for a Medal of Valor following the shooting, according to The Star Tribune. The Star Tribune In reference to the flyer accusing Chauvin and the other officers of striking Reyes with 16 bullets, exactly, no reports corroborated that number. Otherwise, however, the claim about Reyes circulating after Floyd's death was accurate. This accusation is largely unproven based upon the available evidence. Here's what we can confirm: Roughly four years into Chauvin's MPD career, in 2005, he and another officer used a squad car on duty to chase a car that ended up crashing into another vehicle, killing three people, according to news reports. news reports But we have not yet uncovered further details on why the officers were chasing the car, or whether the other drivers (and their conditions) were major factors in the collision. So in reference to the flyer, while it was true Chauvin and another officer were involved in a deadly car chase, no trusted evidence showed the officers' actions indeed caused the three fatalities. Although MPD has not fulfilled requests for records to determine why, or under what circumstances, conduct complaints were filed against Chauvin prior to Floyd's death, this claim was somewhat true. Snopes obtained Chauvin's Employee Complaint Profile Card, which provided few details other than a tally of 17 complaints against him throughout his MPD career. Employee Complaint Profile Card, The only allegation that resulted in disciplinary action (two letters of reprimand) was filed in 2007, when Chauvin allegedly pulled over a woman for going 10 mph over the speed limit, frisked her, and put her in his squad car, according to news reports. The woman's baby and dog were reportedly inside the vehicle during the traffic stop. news reports reportedly Another complaint was filed by a 48-year-old man who said officers (one of whom was later identified as Chauvin) banged on his car window with a flashlight and attempted to force him to the pavement during a traffic stop in 2013, The Star Tribune reported. The man, a mental health worker, said he was driving home from working a double shift at Hennepin County Medical Center and believed officers had mistaken him for someone who had been using his name. In other words, it was undetermined based on verifiable evidence whether all the complaints against Chauvin accused him of using excessive use of force, or whether they included allegations that he had violated other aspects of MPD policy. Anyone can file a complaint against a police officer for any reason. Also unclear was whether, or to what extent, the complaints were connected to the incidents described above that resulted in civilian deaths or injuries. After graduating high school in 1994, Chauvin worked restaurant jobs as a prep cook, joined the U.S. Army, and eventually attended St. Paul's Metropolitan State University, The Star Tribune reported. There, his focus shifted to police work -- he eventually earned a degree in law enforcement -- and he joined MPD's ranks in 2001, at age 25. The Star Tribune reported We also know that Chauvin and Floyd both worked at the same Minneapolis nightclub, El Nuevo Rodeo. Maya Santamaria, who owned the building that housed the club, confirmed with Snopes that both men worked at the business during periods that overlapped (Chauvin worked as an off-duty police officer), but it was unknown whether they ever ran into each other or were introduced. confirmed MPD leaders commended Chauvin's work at various points throughout his career, according to the news archives. For example, they awarded him a Medal of Commendation in 2008 after he apparently disarmed a man during one of his nightclub security shifts. news archives In 2010, Chauvin married his wife, Kellie Chauvin. The two had met at Hennepin County Medical Center, where she worked as a radiologic technician and he brought someone one night for a health check before an arrest, she told The Pioneer Press for a story about her preparation to compete in Mrs. Minnesota America. story Additionally, the couple owned and rented two homes in Woodbury, a suburb east of St. Paul, before they bought a home in Oakdale, Washington County, according to property records compiled by The Star Tribune. In 2011, they also bought a townhouse near Orlando, Florida, where voting records showed Derek Chauvin is registered to vote. Woodbury Just weeks after Floyd's death, Kellie Chauvin filed for divorce and sought to change her last name. As of this writing, the court sealed access to records in the case, citing privacy and safety concerns. Nonetheless, the couple's financial situation emerged in international news headlines in July, when authorities accused them of failing to report income from various jobs. international news headlines Washington County prosecutors charged Derek and Kellie Chauvin with aiding and abetting tax evasion and tax fraud. According to the criminal complaint, they failed to report more than $460,000 in Minnesota income over five years and failed to pay almost $38,000 in taxes owed during that time frame, according news reports. news reports Lastra, Ana and Eric. Rasmussen. "George Floyd, Fired Officer Overlapped Security Shifts at South Minneapolis Club." KSTP-TV. 28 May 2020. Richmond, Todd. "Officer Accused in Floyds Death Opened Fire on 2 People." The Associated Press. 29 May 2020. Evelyn, Kenya. "George Floyd Killing: Two Officers Involved Previously Reviewed for Use of Force." The Guardian. 28 May 2020. Van Berkel, Jessie. George Floyds Death Returns Spotlight to Sen. Amy Klobuchar Prosecutor Past." [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 29 May 2020. Bierschbach, Briana. "Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin in Custody After Death of George Floyd." [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 29 May 2020. [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. "Buildings Damaged in Minneapolis, St. Paul after Protests." 29 May 2020. Xiong, Chao and Paul Walsh. "Ex-Police Officer Derek Chauvin Charged with Murder, Manslaughter in George Floyd Death." [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 29 May 2020. Furber, Matt et. al. "Minneapolis Police, Long Accused of Racism, Face Wrath of Wounded City. The New York Times. 27 May 2020. Scher, Isaac. "The Police Officer Who Knelt on George Floyds Neck Has Been Involved in Shootings and Was the Subject of 10 Complaints." Business Insider. 28 May 2020. Melendez, Pilar. "Minneapolis Man: Cop Who Kneeled on George Floyd Tried to Kill Me in 2008." The Daily Beast. 29 May 2020. Pioneer Press. "Minneapolis Police Officer Involved in Weekend Shooting ID'd." 26 May 2008. Minneapolismn.gov. MPD Frequently Requested Public Information. Accessed 29 May 2020. WCCO-TV. "Lawyer: Wife of Charged Ex-MPD Officer Derek Chauvin Files for Divorce". 29 May 2020. This report was updated to include information about Chauvin and his jury trial set to begin in spring 2021 that emerged after the initial publication of this report.

['taxes']

NEI

Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here.George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, died in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020, after a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, pinned him to the ground and kneeled on his neck while Floyd repeatedly said, "I can't breathe." A bystander recorded the confrontation in a video that swiftly spread across social media as a deadly example of what many viewers dubbed racism by American cops.The footage ultimately sparked an international reckoning over racism, marked by weeks of protests that largely began peaceful during the day and then escalated to chaos at night, with many U.S. cities reporting property damage, fires, and violent clashes between law-enforcement officers and protesters.At the center of the civil rights movement were four former police officers charged in Floyd's death particularly Chauvin, 44, whom authorities arrested and charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter. A judge ruled he would stand trial on his own, separate from the other three defendants, beginning March 8, 2021, according to The Associated Press. (No, he did not commit suicide, like some rumors online claim.) Photo by Ramsey County Sheriff's Office That's a question the jury trial will legally determine. Prosecutors have charged Chauvin with second-degree murder and manslaughter after they say he kept Floyd pinned to the ground and knelt on his neck for almost eight minutes, including for nearly three minutes after Floyd became non-responsive. As of this writing, they were scheduled to be tried together separate from Chauvin's case beginning Aug. 23, The Associated Press reported.Floyd was later pronounced dead at a hospital. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office, which encompasses Minneapolis, ruled Floyd's manner of death a homicide.It is important to note here: In the county office's preliminary autopsy report, medical investigators said Floyd's underlying health conditions, such as coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease, contributed to his death in similar ways as Chauvin's restraint. But an autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family had different results; it determined he did, in fact, die of asphyxiation. (Read more about those findings here.)You can read the full charges against Chauvin here; Thao here; Kueng here, and Lane here. At the time of Floyd's death, MPD's Policy & Procedure Manual (which governs everything from how officers should dress on the job to what tactics are OK to use during arrests) included the below-displayed section obtained by Snopes. In other words, department policy permitted officers to use what it considered a "non-deadly force option" by kneeling on a suspect's neck if they had received lessons in how to do so without applying pressure to the suspect's airway. Officers could use "light or moderate pressure" to get someone under "control" or "adequate pressure" to make someone unconscious in situations they deemed appropriate.However, in the aftermath of Floyd's death, MPD agreed to ban officers from using chokeholds and neck restraints at the request of state authorities. As a result of that change, the police manual now reads:The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA), which provides legal services to police by drawing from about a dozen attorneys, is providing legal representation for Chauvin.And initially, yes, the association had assigned Tom Kelly to Floyd's case. Kelly was one of the defense attorneys who represented St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez, who was acquitted on all charges in connection to the fatal shooting of Philando Castile, a Black man, during a traffic stop in 2017.But on June 3, 2020, Eric Nelson of the Halberg Criminal Defense firm took over Chauvin's case, Reuters reported. Kelly told that news outlet the association had originally assigned the case to him because he was the on-call attorney at the time of Chauvin's arrest. But he gave up the case for medical-related reasons.According to news reports, on Aug. 8, 2011, Chauvin and other officers chased down Martinez, 23, in a public housing complex in South Minneapolis after they said they heard gunshots and saw Martinez running with a gun. (The Indian County-Today news outlet confirmed that Martinez is an Alaskan Native.)One of the officers shot Martinez in the torso, and as he recovered in the hospital, Martinez faced second-degree assault charges in connection with a shooting that had taken place before police arrived on the scene. Here's how The Star Tribune newspaper reported the incident: According to that newspaper's coverage, a witness who said she watched the shooting from her balcony in the housing complex maintained to journalists that police weren't telling the full story. The witness said Martinez had thrown down his gun and was holding his hands in the air when one of the officers (not Chauvin) shot him, after warning that he would open fire.Whether the flyer is correct in describing the shooting as "inappropriate" is a subjective issue. The police chief at the time said he believed the officers acted "appropriately and courageously," suggesting they had acted within department policy under the circumstances, The New York Times reported.This claim in the flyer is largely true. Here's what we know about that incident:While responding to a call of domestic violence at a South Minneapolis apartment in May 2008, Chauvin opened fire on a 21-year-old Black man, Ira Latrell Toles. The Associated Press reported at the time:Following Floyd's death, he told The Daily Beast that yes, the mother of his child had called police on him that night, and that he had locked himself in the bathroom with an unlit cigarette after officers broke down the apartment door. Then, Toles alleged, Chauvin busted in the bathroom door and started hitting the 21-year-old without warning.Chauvin later told investigators that, because Toles supposedly failed to comply with officers' commands, he attempted to hit the young man in the head with the butt of his handgun and then opened fire when he thought Toles reached for his gun, The Star Tribune reported. Toles ex-girlfriend reported that Chauvin fired his firearm about two seconds after he entered the bathroom after Toles.In total, the six officers fired 42 rounds in four seconds, according to the The Washington Post. Reyes (who the Canadian national news outlet, APTN News, reported was a member of the Leech Lake Ojibwe Band in Minnesota) was struck multiple times and died. However, it was unclear if Chauvin fired any of the fatal shots.In the end, a grand jury ruled the officers' actions appropriate, and Chauvin was recommended for a Medal of Valor following the shooting, according to The Star Tribune. Here's what we can confirm: Roughly four years into Chauvin's MPD career, in 2005, he and another officer used a squad car on duty to chase a car that ended up crashing into another vehicle, killing three people, according to news reports.Although MPD has not fulfilled requests for records to determine why, or under what circumstances, conduct complaints were filed against Chauvin prior to Floyd's death, this claim was somewhat true. Snopes obtained Chauvin's Employee Complaint Profile Card, which provided few details other than a tally of 17 complaints against him throughout his MPD career.The only allegation that resulted in disciplinary action (two letters of reprimand) was filed in 2007, when Chauvin allegedly pulled over a woman for going 10 mph over the speed limit, frisked her, and put her in his squad car, according to news reports. The woman's baby and dog were reportedly inside the vehicle during the traffic stop.After graduating high school in 1994, Chauvin worked restaurant jobs as a prep cook, joined the U.S. Army, and eventually attended St. Paul's Metropolitan State University, The Star Tribune reported. There, his focus shifted to police work -- he eventually earned a degree in law enforcement -- and he joined MPD's ranks in 2001, at age 25. We also know that Chauvin and Floyd both worked at the same Minneapolis nightclub, El Nuevo Rodeo. Maya Santamaria, who owned the building that housed the club, confirmed with Snopes that both men worked at the business during periods that overlapped (Chauvin worked as an off-duty police officer), but it was unknown whether they ever ran into each other or were introduced.MPD leaders commended Chauvin's work at various points throughout his career, according to the news archives. For example, they awarded him a Medal of Commendation in 2008 after he apparently disarmed a man during one of his nightclub security shifts.In 2010, Chauvin married his wife, Kellie Chauvin. The two had met at Hennepin County Medical Center, where she worked as a radiologic technician and he brought someone one night for a health check before an arrest, she told The Pioneer Press for a story about her preparation to compete in Mrs. Minnesota America.Additionally, the couple owned and rented two homes in Woodbury, a suburb east of St. Paul, before they bought a home in Oakdale, Washington County, according to property records compiled by The Star Tribune. In 2011, they also bought a townhouse near Orlando, Florida, where voting records showed Derek Chauvin is registered to vote.Nonetheless, the couple's financial situation emerged in international news headlines in July, when authorities accused them of failing to report income from various jobs.Washington County prosecutors charged Derek and Kellie Chauvin with aiding and abetting tax evasion and tax fraud. According to the criminal complaint, they failed to report more than $460,000 in Minnesota income over five years and failed to pay almost $38,000 in taxes owed during that time frame, according news reports.

Is Morgan Freeman a Beekeeper?

['An anecdote from a 2014 late-night interview still has readers abuzz.']

In late March and early April 2021, Snopes readers inquired about memes circulating on Facebook claiming that legendary actor Morgan Freeman had converted his 124-acre ranch in Mississippi into a bee sanctuary. The text of the meme read, "Concerned about the loss of bees, Morgan Freeman converted his 124-acre Mississippi ranch into a bee refuge. He hired gardeners, filled acres with clover, planted hundreds of flowering trees, purchased 26 hives, and has turned himself into a beekeeper." Posts and articles on various websites stating the "Shawshank Redemption" star is a beekeeper with a bee sanctuary at his Mississippi residence have been circulating for years. They are sourced from an interview given by Freeman to late-night comedy host Jimmy Fallon in 2014. During the interview, Freeman acknowledged that he lived in Mississippi and stated he was new to beekeeping, having just purchased his bees from Arkadelphia, Arkansas, two weeks prior: interview The website Mother Nature News in 2014 quoted Freeman talking about his beekeeping project, reporting that he made the following remarks during a media tour promoting the film "Lucy": quoted There's a concerted effort to bring bees back onto the planet ... We do not realize that they are the foundation, I think, of the growth of the planet, the vegetation... I have so many flowering things and I have a gardener too. Because she takes care of the bees too, all she does is figure out, 'OK, what would they like to have?', so we've got acres and acres of clover, we're planting stuff like lavender, I've got like, maybe 140 magnolia trees, big blossoms. In these comments attributed to him, Freeman mentioned environmental concerns associated with the survival of bees and making efforts to ensure his bees thrive. But he didn't actually state in those remarks that he converted his ranch into a "bee sanctuary" for the purpose of helping the environment. Over the years, news articles have cropped up sourcing Freeman's 2014 comments and reporting that he had converted his ranch in Mississippi to a bee sanctuary. In 2019, a large number of articles were aggregated from a Forbes story with the headline, "Morgan Freeman Converted His 124-Acre Ranch Into A Giant Honeybee Sanctuary To Save The Bees." But the Forbes story also cites Freeman's 2014 interview on Fallon. news articles cropped up Forbes story We were unable to find recent comments by Freeman confirming whether he currently keeps bees at his Mississippi residence, as of this writing. We reached out to Freeman's agency CAA and asked whether Freeman is still beekeeping and whether his effort would be described as a bee sanctuary meant to help the environment, but didn't get a response in time for publication. We will update this story if we hear back.

['loss']

NEI

Posts and articles on various websites stating the "Shawshank Redemption" star is a beekeeper with a bee sanctuary at his Mississippi residence have been circulating for years. They are sourced from an interview given by Freeman to late-night comedy host Jimmy Fallon in 2014. During the interview, Freeman acknowledged that he lived in Mississippi and stated he was new to beekeeping, having just purchased his bees from Arkadelphia, Arkansas, two weeks prior:The website Mother Nature News in 2014 quoted Freeman talking about his beekeeping project, reporting that he made the following remarks during a media tour promoting the film "Lucy":Over the years, news articles have cropped up sourcing Freeman's 2014 comments and reporting that he had converted his ranch in Mississippi to a bee sanctuary. In 2019, a large number of articles were aggregated from a Forbes story with the headline, "Morgan Freeman Converted His 124-Acre Ranch Into A Giant Honeybee Sanctuary To Save The Bees." But the Forbes story also cites Freeman's 2014 interview on Fallon.

Famous Baby Giraffe Passes Away Only a Month After Birth?

['A Facebook post created using a "prank" web site fooled many into believing that internet star April the Giraffe\'s calf had died.']

In May 2017 a widely-shared Facebook post spread the claim that Tajiri, the calf born to internet star April the Giraffe at the Animal Adventure Park in New York, had passed away only a month after his birth: claim Earlyview.net is one of many "prank" web sites. These sites allow you to create your own fake news story with a few clicks. Users choose a picture, write a headline and description, and then the web site formats the information so that it resembles a genuine news item, which you can then share on Facebook: April the giraffe became an internet sensation in 2017 thanks to a web cam installed at the Animal Adventure Park. The birth of Tajiri on 15 April 2017 was viewed by more than 1.2 million people on YouTube: YouTube We have our name! Tajiri the baby Giraffe. Tajiri is Swahili for HOPE. We will call him "Taj" pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp April The Giraffe (@AprilTheGiraffe) May 1, 2017 May 1, 2017 April and Tajiri still bring in big crowd (both online and in person) and the zoo regularly posts pictures of them on their social media pages. Furthermore, a local Fox affiliate visited the giraffes on 23 May 2017, long after this death hoax first circulated on social media: Fox

['share']

False

In May 2017 a widely-shared Facebook post spread the claim that Tajiri, the calf born to internet star April the Giraffe at the Animal Adventure Park in New York, had passed away only a month after his birth:April the giraffe became an internet sensation in 2017 thanks to a web cam installed at the Animal Adventure Park. The birth of Tajiri on 15 April 2017 was viewed by more than 1.2 million people on YouTube:We have our name! Tajiri the baby Giraffe. Tajiri is Swahili for HOPE. We will call him "Taj" pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp April The Giraffe (@AprilTheGiraffe) May 1, 2017April and Tajiri still bring in big crowd (both online and in person) and the zoo regularly posts pictures of them on their social media pages. Furthermore, a local Fox affiliate visited the giraffes on 23 May 2017, long after this death hoax first circulated on social media:

Was a Man Named Carl Twinly Arrested For Pretending to be a Cow?

['The mugshot included in this rumor is genuine, but the story?']

In April 2022, an image of a person in a cow costume was circulated on social media along with a decidedly NSFW claim about its origins. The person in the photograph was named Carl Twinly, the meme claimed, and he had been arrested after tricking people into fondling him while he pretended to be a cow in a milking contest: This is not a genuine news story. This image is a screenshot of a fictional story that was published on the satire site Ringsssss.com in December 2021. This satire story started: Ringsssss.com in December 2021 Carl Twinly of Beaumont Texas has been arrested on charges of public indecency and masturbation by deception. Mr. Twinly posed as a dairy cow during the local 4-H milking competition. Carl was milked by a total of 13 contestants before his ruse was uncovered. While Ringsssss states in a disclaimer that it is a "fabricated satirical newspaper and comedy website," many people encountered this story after it was removed from its original context and started spreading online detached from any explicit indication that it was a satire story. Ringsssss states in a disclaimer The story about "Carl Twinly" is a work of fiction. However, the mugshot shown above is real. It was taken in 2008 and shows a woman who was arrested in Middleton, Ohio. According to Fox 19, she had been hired to dress up as a cow to promote a local haunted trail. She was arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct after she allegedly got drunk, chased some children, and interrupted traffic. Fox 19 reported: "A Middletown woman is behind bars, charged with disorderly conduct after she was arrested while wearing a cow suit ... Police say Michelle Allen was getting in the way of traffic and chasing children while wearing her cow suit. She's also accused of urinating on a neighbor's front porch." Fox 19 reported Man Pretends To Be A Cow In Milking Competition, Gets Jacked-Off For Hours. Ringsssss, 24 Dec. 2021, https://ringsssss.com/human-interest/man-pretends-to-be-a-cow/. Police: Woman in Cow Suit Had Been Arrested Many Times. Https://Www.Fox19.Com, https://www.fox19.com/story/9097572/police-woman-in-cow-suit-had-been-arrested-many-times. Accessed 12 Apr. 2022.

['interest']

False

This image is a screenshot of a fictional story that was published on the satire site Ringsssss.com in December 2021. This satire story started:While Ringsssss states in a disclaimer that it is a "fabricated satirical newspaper and comedy website," many people encountered this story after it was removed from its original context and started spreading online detached from any explicit indication that it was a satire story. Fox 19 reported: "A Middletown woman is behind bars, charged with disorderly conduct after she was arrested while wearing a cow suit ... Police say Michelle Allen was getting in the way of traffic and chasing children while wearing her cow suit. She's also accused of urinating on a neighbor's front porch."

Is USPS Purposefully Slowing Mail To Help Reelect Trump?

['U.S. Postal Service workers nationwide reported backlogs of letters and packages in summer 2020. But was the issue political?']

As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION. The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report. Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house. Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president. home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below) took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year or the end of September without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services. XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes contradicting previous rules for deliveries and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said: contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that temporarily we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020 a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November". The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War". NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War". NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?" Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability". 27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts". USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service". The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery". The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser". NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable". News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General". Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck". Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization". The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day". Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service". 28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes". 20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring". The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service". The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting". The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election". The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes." Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement." 18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail."

['finance']

NEI

As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term.In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged:The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines.Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive.Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house.Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website.The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars since the early days of his presidency.In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president.In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below) took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service.That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service.Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency.At the same time, the Postal Service which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours.For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year or the end of September without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.)The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money.On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it.For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services. Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc.She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read:As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000.On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests.By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position.Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics.A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example:The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses.But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes contradicting previous rules for deliveries and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said:We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day.The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said:Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted.Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said:What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined...Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said.Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read:

Coke Donates to Israel

["Has Coca-Cola announced that it will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel?"]

Coca-Cola has announced that it will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I have heard various rumors about the nature of the relationship between Coca-Cola and the State of Israel. Today, I received a text message on my cell phone stating: "NBC states that the income that Coca-Cola will get in the coming four days starting from Monday will be donated to Israel." Origins: The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East creates a precarious business climate, where any company operating in both Israel and other Middle Eastern countries risks being denounced by one side as a supporter of the other. Companies dealing in relatively inexpensive, ubiquitous products such as soft drinks or fast food are particularly visible targets for those who call for boycotts to protest financial support of one side or the other. American-based companies, in particular, often become the focus of such boycotts, as the USA is home to many of the world's most well-known brands and has been one of the few countries to openly support Israel. McDonald's and Coca-Cola frequently find themselves at the center of boycott calls; the former became a target a few years ago when Saudi Arabian McDonald's outlets donated a portion of their proceeds to Palestinian children's hospitals, while the latter is currently facing backlash due to false claims that they will be "donating four days' worth of income to Israel." Pepsi is also included in this short list, with claims sometimes taken literally that it is a 'Jewish product' whose name is an acronym for 'Pay Every Penny to Save Israel' or 'Pay Every Penny to the State of Israel.' As the Associated Press once noted, "Calling Pepsi a 'Jewish product' is ironic, given that Pepsi was one of many multinationals that wouldn't do business in Israel during the 40-year Arab commercial boycott of the Jewish state." Recently, a series of graphics employing Coca-Cola imagery has been circulated to garner support for an Arab boycott of American companies such as Coca-Cola. At least one such image, which depicts the Dome of the Rock emblazoned with a Coca-Cola logo, has caused an uproar among Muslims who have mistaken it for a bona fide Coca-Cola advertisement, lending support to the unfounded rumor that Coca-Cola will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel. It is hard to imagine that this rumor could be anything but a deliberate lie concocted to smear an American-based company that does business in both Israel and Middle Eastern countries, as no Coke-related business is currently engaged in any sponsorship that could reasonably be misunderstood as constituting a financial "donation" to the state of Israel. As The Coca-Cola Company itself has stated, the company does not support or oppose political or religious causes and does not take a stance on issues that do not directly affect the soft drink industry. The Coca-Cola Company operates worldwide in nearly 200 countries and territories with different cultures, political systems, religions, and histories. People from all around the world own shares in The Coca-Cola Company, and the company employs individuals from many different backgrounds and nationalities. Our partners who bottle, distribute, and sell our products are local business people who hire individuals in their local markets. We cannot and do not take the side of one country over another in any dispute. It's unfortunate that the incredible power of the Internet is being misused to spread false information. Moreover, since Ramallah is home to a Coca-Cola bottling facility that employs about 400 local residents (and indirectly creates employment for hundreds more), and Coca-Cola industries throughout the Middle East are operated as local businesses, any boycott of Coca-Cola in Middle Eastern countries is likely to cause more monetary harm to Arabs and Palestinians than it is to Americans or Israelis. Unfortunately, the maxim that the first casualty in war is truth still holds sway. Last updated: 2 December 2007.

['income']

False

Israel. McDonald's and Coca-Cola are frequent subjects of boycott calls, the former becoming a target a few years ago when Saudi Arabian McDonald's outlets donated a portion of their proceeds to Palestinian childrens' hospitals, and the latter a current victim due to false claims that they will be "donating four days' worth of income to Israel." (Pepsi is also a member of this short list, with claims sometimes taken literally that Pepsi is a 'Jewish product' whose name is an acronym for 'Pay Every Penny to Save Israel' or 'Pay Every Penny to the State of Israel.' As the Associated Press once noted, "Calling Pepsi a 'Jewish product' is ironic, given that Pepsi was one of many multinationals that wouldn't do business in Israel during the 40-year Arab commercial boycott of the Jewish state.")Lately a series of graphics employing Coca-Cola imagery (like the one to the right of this text, which is itself a deception within a deception, as it uses a controversial photograph of a Jewish student who was mistakenly identified as a Palestinian) has been circulated to garner support for an Arab boycott of American companies such as Coca-Cola (at least one such image, which depicts the Dome of the Rock emblazoned with a Coca-Cola logo, has caused an uproar among Muslims who have mistaken it for a bona fide Coca-Cola advertisement), lending support to the unfounded rumor that Coca-Cola will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel. It's hard to imagine that this rumor could be anything but a deliberate lie concocted to smear an American-based company that does business in both Israel and Middle Eastern countries, as (unlike the case of the McDonald's brouhaha mentioned above) no Coke-related business is currently engaged in any sponsorship that could reasonably be misunderstood as constituting a financial "donation" to the state of Israel. As The Coca-Cola Company itself has stated:Moreover, since Ramallah is home to a Coca-Cola bottling facility that employs about 400 local residents (and indirectly creates employment for hundreds more), and Coca-Cola industries throughout the Middle East are operated as local businesses, any boycott of Coca-Cola in Middle Eastern countries is likely to cause more monetary harm to Arabs and Palestinians than it is to Americans or Israelis.

Rubio admitted he would have accepted the stimulus money.

[]

It's a move straight out of the campaign playbook: If your opponent criticizes you for something, accuse him of doing the same thing.That's what Charlie Crist's campaign for U.S. Senate is trying to do to opponent Marco Rubio about supporting the $862 billion economic stimulus package.Rubio has repeatedly criticized Gov. Crist for supporting the plan, which used tax cuts and federal spending to try to jump-start the economy. Rubio has said that Crist breathed air into the sails of the failed Democrat plan, while deflating Republican efforts to rally behind an alternative.To turn the tables, Crist's campaign issued a satirical news release writtenas a speechthat Rubio supposedly would give to the Conservative Political Action Conference. In it, Rubio would acknowledge that he had said in a recent interview that I would have accepted the stimulus money. The news release was satire, but the point was serious -- that Rubio said he would have accepted stimulus money. We were surprised by that because Rubio has been so critical of the stimulus, so we decided to see what he had actually said. The Crist campaign is referring to a Rubio interview by Keith Cate of WFLA-TV in Tampa on Dec. 9, 2009. Asked whether he would not have accepted the stimulus money, Rubio said that ultimately I would have accepted those portions of the money that would not have put Florida in a worse position off in the future than it is right now.That's not exactly a hearty endorsement, but Rubio is definitely saying that he would take at least some of the money.When the statement set off blog frenzy, the Rubio campaign tried to explain. Alex Burgos, Rubio's spokesman, toldPoliticothat Theres a big different (sic) between what Charlie Crist did by accepting the Obama stimulus as the best that Congress could do, actively promoting it, advocating for it among his fellow Republicans ... and what other governors ultimately did governors like Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbor by reluctantly accepting federal funds after the fact.Rubio toldNational Journal's Hotline on Callthat advocating for the stimulus plan and accepting those dollars are not the same. The stimulus was a disaster and I would have fought it in every way possible.As far as we can tell, Rubio has been consistent with his position that there is a distinction between accepting money and actually endorsing the stimulus. Speaking with The Weekly Standard in May 2009, Rubio said that It's one thing to say you'll accept the funds from the federal government ... it's another to actively advocate those policies, which I think are disastrous for America.And indeed, even in the aforementioned interview, when asked whether he would have attended the presidential visit from Barack Obama -- referring to a February 2009 town hall meeting in Fort Myers, which Crist attended -- Rubio said he would have avoided it because that rally was in support of a specific plan.To recap: Crist's campaign claimed that Rubio admitted that he would have accepted the stimulus money. And indeed, in the WFLA interview, Rubio said he would have accepted those portions of the money that would not have put Florida in a worse position off in the future than it is right now.We rate this Mostly True.

['Economy', 'Florida']

True

It's a move straight out of the campaign playbook: If your opponent criticizes you for something, accuse him of doing the same thing.That's what Charlie Crist's campaign for U.S. Senate is trying to do to opponent Marco Rubio about supporting the $862 billion economic stimulus package.Rubio has repeatedly criticized Gov. Crist for supporting the plan, which used tax cuts and federal spending to try to jump-start the economy. Rubio has said that Crist breathed air into the sails of the failed Democrat plan, while deflating Republican efforts to rally behind an alternative.To turn the tables, Crist's campaign issued a satirical news release writtenas a speechthat Rubio supposedly would give to the Conservative Political Action Conference. In it, Rubio would acknowledge that he had said in a recent interview that I would have accepted the stimulus money.

Trump expressed a wish for his political enemies to suffer in Hell in his Christmas Day 2023 post.

['Readers asked Snopes if it was true that the former U.S. president had ended a Christmas message with the words, "May they rot in hell."']

On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA." The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election. Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/.

['inflation']

True

The full post (archived) read as follows:Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles.On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner.

Did Kevin Sorbo of 'Hercules' Fame Die in 2020?

['This was not the first time a living actor was featured in a misleading advertisement.']

Kevin Sorbo appeared in at least one strange online advertisement in early 2021 that read: "Celebrities Who Passed Away in 2020." The actor is perhaps best known for his work on "Hercules." However, Sorbo was not dead. As of Jan. 29, 2021, the actor was alive and tweeting. tweeting The ad led to a lengthy slideshow story on the website Definition.org with the headline: "All the Celebrities We've Lost in the Past Year." Definition.org Like it or not, death comes for us all. Many of us never know when our time will come, and rightfully so, but some of our friends and family have gone too soon. While they may not be our friends from down the street but we still a connection to the lost celebrities that have entertained us for years or decades. Whether they be from the world of sports, red carpets of Hollywood, behind the glass in the recording studio, or simply on the television and movie screens, these lost celebrities are sorely missed. Some of these celebrities have been around since our parents were children, others have sprung up in the last few years but all have made notable contributions to our entertainment and influences. Let us remember each and every one of these lost celebrities for their selfless contributions to their respective fields. Their work still continues to inspire us each and every day. The person or people who managed the page recently updated the end of the article to include pages for late sports icon Hank Aaron and actress Cloris Leachman. Both had died recently before this fact check was published. Hank Aaron Cloris Leachman Sorbo was perhaps best known for his work as Hercules in "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys." He also starred in the "Andromeda" television series as well as "Let There Be Light" and "God's Not Dead." This was not the first time a living actor was featured to trick readers into clicking an ad about dead celebrities. A picture of Nick Stahl, who also was not dead, had also been used in advertisements for Definition.org. Stahl was perhaps best known for starring in the 2003 film "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" and the HBO series "Carnivle." picture of Nick Stahl In sum, an online advertiser used a picture of "Hercules" actor Sorbo to draw clicks and profits in a lengthy article about recently deceased celebrities. 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

['profit']

False

However, Sorbo was not dead. As of Jan. 29, 2021, the actor was alive and tweeting.The ad led to a lengthy slideshow story on the website Definition.org with the headline: "All the Celebrities We've Lost in the Past Year."The person or people who managed the page recently updated the end of the article to include pages for late sports icon Hank Aaron and actress Cloris Leachman. Both had died recently before this fact check was published.This was not the first time a living actor was featured to trick readers into clicking an ad about dead celebrities. A picture of Nick Stahl, who also was not dead, had also been used in advertisements for Definition.org. Stahl was perhaps best known for starring in the 2003 film "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" and the HBO series "Carnivle."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.

Police Interview Room Suicide

['Video shows a suspect in a police shooting committing suicide in an interview room.']

Claim: Video shows a suspect in a police shooting committing suicide in an interview room. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Is this video real? GRAPHIC IMAGE WARNING: Video shows a suicide by gunshot. Origins: Movies and television have planted sensationalized images of certain phenomena into the public consciousness, to the extent that when most of us see the real thing, we're disappointed that it seems so mundane. In films and television programs, automobile crashes are always slam-bang affairs that inevitably end with one or more cars bursting into flames and exploding; thunder is always a very loud, sharp, and short report that occurs simultaneously with a bolt of lightning (rather than a slow, distant, gradually increasing rumbling that arrives well after the lightning flash); and gunshots are usually depicted as producing ear-splitting volumes of sound and, when aimed at another human being, resulting in plenty of gore and splatter. It's no wonder, then, that when the above-displayed video of a detainee shooting himself while in police custody began to circulate, many viewers were skeptical of its authenticity. By Hollywood standards, it's so tame as to be almost surreal. As depicted in the video, an uncuffed suspect enters an interrogation room and sits down in a chair, followed by an officer who dumps some keys and sunglasses on a table, checks his cell phone, and leaves the room momentarily. The officer returns several seconds later with a bottle of water and a cup of coffee, then hands the water bottle to the suspect, checks his cell phone again, picks up the coffee, and exits the room a second time, leaving the suspect alone and unrestrained, with the door open. The suspect takes a couple of swigs of water, then calmly reaches into his pants with his other hand, pulls out a large-caliber handgun, and shoots himself in the left temple. But what we see in the video is nothing like what most of us might expect. The soon-to-be suicide victim is neither visibly nervous nor distraught as he freely pulls out a gun and places it against his head. (He even replaces the cap on the water bottle before pulling the trigger.) The weapon does not produce an ear-shattering concussive sound in the small room; blood and brain matter don't splatter all over the walls, and the victim's body isn't hurtled out of the chair and onto the floor. The gun makes a sharp popping sound as the suspect shoots himself, blood streams from the victim's head and mouth, his hands drop the gun and water bottle to the floor, and his body slumps slightly in the chair. Even more unusual to many viewers is the officer's reaction to this event. He doesn't respond with any of the emotions most of us might feel, such as fear, panic, terror, or disgust. Nor does he rush to the victim's aid, check him for signs of life, summon help, or otherwise raise an alarm. "Oh, fuck," he exclaims as he re-enters the room, puts his coffee down on the table, and surveys the scene for a second or two, then adds, "Holy fuck." When a second (unseen) officer inquires, "What did he do?" he responds with, "Nobody shook him" (i.e., nobody searched the suspect for weapons), then calmly retrieves the keys and sunglasses and leaves the room. Throughout the short video, the officer's actions seem almost nonchalant: he doesn't act the least bit shocked or horrified that a human being has just died a violent death right in front of him. Instead, the foremost thought on his mind seems to be concern that someone's going to get into big trouble for the oversight of allowing a detainee to retain a weapon. (We realize, of course, that all of this would be viewed quite differently from a police perspective. Officers undergo thorough instruction in the handling and use of firearms, they generally see far more blood and violence on the job than most of us will experience in our lifetimes, and they're trained to respond to emergency situations by following proper procedure rather than reacting with fear or panic. We're simply presenting the average person's reaction to this video, as reflected in the e-mail we've received from readers who have viewed it.) The circumstances behind this video took place on 19 December 2003, when 47-year-old Ricardo Alfonso Cerna was stopped for a traffic violation at about 9:30 A.M. in Muscoy (a residential suburb of San Bernardino County, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles). Cerna fled the scene (in his car and then on foot) before shooting the pursuing officer, sheriff's deputy Michael Parham, twice in the abdomen. (Deputy Parham survived the shooting.) Cerna was soon arrested by San Bernardino police and taken to sheriff's headquarters on Third Street, where he was placed in an interview room just before 11 A.M. in preparation for questioning by Bobby Dean, head of the San Bernardino County sheriff's homicide unit. When Dean stepped out of the room briefly to speak with a detective in the hallway, Cerna pulled the .45-caliber handgun out of his pants and shot himself in the head. Evidently, a chain of mistakes led to Cerna, a shooting suspect, being taken into custody without either the arresting officers or the booking officers discovering he had a large, heavy handgun concealed on his person: [Sheriff Gary] Penrod said deputies failed to adequately search Cerna before he was put in a car, and again when he was transferred to the homicide division office. Each receiving deputy may have wrongly assumed the previous officer adequately searched the man, he said. Penrod said confusion among the three agencies involved—the Highway Patrol, San Bernardino police, and the Sheriff's Department—may have contributed to the oversight. "Obviously there was a mistake made," Penrod said by phone. "It was hectic, and it was a guy who was cuffed by somebody other than the transporting officer." (This apparently egregious oversight led to conspiracy-theory speculation in some quarters that Cerna had been "executed" by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, or that the sheriff returned the gun to Cerna and urged him to commit suicide with it—the completely implausible scenario of officers deliberately handing a loaded gun to a suspect who had already shot one policeman notwithstanding.) As to how the video of Cerna's suicide made it onto the Internet, sheriff's spokesman Chip Patterson said: [A] ranking official at the department was authorized to show the video during a presentation on officer safety at the FBI's training academy in Quantico, Va., several months ago. Following the presentation, dozens of copies of the video were made at the request of law-enforcement agencies across the country. Officials of those agencies wanted the copies for training purposes. Sheriff's officials do not know who might have leaked the video to the public. Some of the officers involved in Cerna's arrest and handling were subjected to disciplinary action, but sheriff's officials wouldn't comment on the specifics of that action or identify the officers involved. Last updated: 19 January 2014 Nelson, Joe. "Sheriff's Detainee's Suicide Put on Web." San Bernardino County Sun. 21 December 2004. Associated Press. "Arrestee Pulls Hidden Gun, Kills Self." CNN.com. 20 December 2003.

['returns']

True

(This apparently egregious oversight led to conspiracy-theory speculation in some quarters that Cerna had been "executed" by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, or that the sheriff returned the gun to Cerna and urged him to commit suicide with it the completely implausible scenario of officers' deliberately handing a loaded gun to a suspect who had already shot one policeman notwithstanding.)

Dick Hawley Speech

["Did former USAF General Dick Hawley deliver a speech about thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed'?"]

Former USAF General Dick Hawley delivered a caustic speech about "thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed." Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they are: 1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean, "We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The Producers." 2) "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E-Well, you get the idea. 3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community have failed us." For 25 years, we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites. "After all," they reasoned, "you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate. Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part. It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places in the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say, "Hiya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella." Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years. 4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us." Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power. Mohamed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds (I'm sorry, one of the "alleged hijackers," according to CNN—they stopped using the word "terrorist," you know), is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. At least, that was my excuse. It's the same today. Take the Anti-Global-Warming (or is it World Trade? Oh—who knows what the hell they want demonstrators). They all charged their black outfits and plane tickets on dad's credit card(!) before driving to the airport in their SUVs. 5) "Any profiling is racial profiling." Who's killing us here, the Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar. I'm crushed. I think we're all crushed. Please come back. With a cherry on top? Why don't they just change their names, anyway? It's happened in the past. Think about it. How many Adolfs do you run into these days? Shortly after that, I remember watching TV with my jaw on the floor as a government official actually said, "That little old grandmother from Sioux City could be carrying something." Okay, how about this: No, she couldn't. It would never be the grandmother from Sioux City. Is it even possible? What are the odds? Winning a hundred Powerball lotteries in a row? A thousand? A million? And now a Secret Service guy has been tossed off a plane, and we're all supposed to cry about it because he's an Arab? Didn't it have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that he filled out his forms incorrectly three times? And then left an Arab history book on his seat as he strolled off the plane? And came back? Armed? Let's please all stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute and think practically. I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt. Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't offend them." SO HERE'S what I resolve for the New Year: Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters. Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says, "You First. No More Pearl Harbors." Dick Hawley Origins: Yes, Gen. Richard E. Hawley is a real person, a United States Air Force general who served as commander of the USAF's Air Combat Command until his retirement in 1999, but no, he didn't write or deliver the speech quoted above. This "speech" is actually a column by humorist Larry Miller which appeared in The Daily Standard. People have been making New Year's resolutions for a long time. Usually, they're personal and last no longer than a smoke ring or one of Tom Daschle's smiles. You know the drill: "I'm going to cut down on my drinking, lose a few pounds, and read more books." Of course, by January 3rd, you get drunk, order a pizza, and buy a satellite dish. This year, though, my resolutions won't be personal, and they won't look forward. They'll look back. Four months back. As you know, since September 11, our leaders and soldiers have done a fine job, frequently a brilliant job. (I mean, please, how about that Rumsfeld? If he were a woman, I'd—Wait. Come to think of it, I'd still do nothing.) I don't even care that so many of our fellow Americans have been contrary and mealy-mouthed. What makes me want to scream like an actress and throw things is this: Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they are: [ .] So here's what I resolve for the new year: To never forget our murdered brothers and sisters. To never let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says, "You First. No More Pearl Harbors." I resolve to be more vigilant and watchful. A good warning sign that these mutts were nuts was when they started dressing their women in heavy-duty, baby-blue bubble wrap. Any man who doesn't want to glance at a woman is, by definition, already very easy to talk into killing himself. Then again, to be fair, we haven't seen their women. To scream, "Keep going!" when everyone else says, "Stop." I'll just cut down on my drinking next year. Hell, I really wasn't planning to, anyway. General Hawley said of the words now mistakenly attributed to him: There is a piece zooming around the internet that attributes some pretty forceful statements to me, Dick Hawley—one-time fighter pilot, General, thoughtful consultant, neophyte strategist, master of the artful compromise. The words did not flow from my pen, but if the e-mails mean anything, those words are now indelibly linked to my name. So do me a favor—if you receive this, please send it on to the same people to whom you forwarded the one that I did not write. It's not that I don't share many, if not most, of the sentiments attributed to me, but the piece is just not my style. Here's what I would have said if I'd been asked to comment on those five important issues. 1) Goodness, Evil, and Relativity: There are some really good people in this world. They volunteer to help those who need it and ask nothing in return. There are also some really bad people in this world. They exploit those who need help or who have less wit or "charisma" and motivate them to join in committing unspeakable acts of cruelty against people they don't even know. Then there are the rest of us. Average people who try each day to do no harm, to provide for their families, to do an occasional act of kindness. The evil that was perpetrated against our land on 9/11 was the product of Mullahs who see our prosperity and power as a threat to their control over the uneducated Muslim masses on whose shoulders they ride through life. And so they preach hate. They are evil. 2) Violence begets violence: It's true. Violence does beget violence. But sometimes there is no alternative but to confront those who would perpetrate evil acts against us. This is one of those times. We are blessed to have courageous men and women willing to put their lives on the line to track down and annihilate those who have been so imbued with evil as to be beyond redemption. But violence is not a strategy. It is a necessary and fully justified reaction to an unimaginable threat. But it is not a strategy. If we are to win this war, we must defeat the Mullahs. And to defeat the Mullahs, we must find ways to separate them from their uneducated flocks. We cannot kill all those who have been taught to hate us, nor should we wish to. Far better to change their minds than to change their state of being. 3) The intelligence community let us down: Well, maybe just a little. Lots of senior and not-so-senior intelligence people became just as enamored of high-tech gadgets as their political masters. The protests over our evisceration of the human intelligence component of the agency were not very loud or forceful. Keeping spies on the ground is a high-risk and often dirty business, and it wasn't just liberal politicians who didn't have much stomach for it. 4) Poverty is the breeding ground for terrorists: No, it isn't; but religious extremism is. The Mullahs fear our wealth and power because it shows that a secular society with democratic institutions and a free market economy can do a better job of taking care of its peoples' needs, both spiritual and physical, than the oppressive Islamic regimes that they aspire to lead. The Mullahs are the problem, not poverty, but poverty does make it easier for the Mullahs to spread their evil—as do governments that tolerate and even reinforce their hateful message. 5) Profiling: We are at war here! We are not talking about traffic stops. If we were at war with Iceland, I would expect those charged with our defense to pay very close attention to any Icelander who ventured near our shores. In this war, I expect them to pay very close attention to Muslims with ties to the places that spew hatred against us. Random checks when there are no such obvious targets available are a good way to keep the evil ones guessing, but let's not make small children and grandmothers take their shoes off while we watch far more likely candidates walk aboard unchecked. 6) Resolutions: a. Never forget that what happened on September 11, 2001, was an act of war. b. Never sit silently by while someone tries to justify what happened on that day as an understandable reaction to U.S. policies in the Middle East or elsewhere. c. Fly our nation's flag proudly—it represents this world's greatest hope to move beyond the pain and suffering that inflict so many across the globe. Richard E. Hawley General, USAF, Retired Former Commander, Air Combat Command Last updated: March 8, 2008 Sources: Miller, Larry. "You Say You Want a Resolution." The Daily Standard. January 14, 2002.

['economy']

False

Origins: Yes, Gen. Richard E. Hawley is a real person, a United States Air Force general who served as commander of the USAF's Air Combat Command until his retirement in 1999, but no, he didn't write or deliver the speech quoted above. This "speech" is actually a column by humorist Larry Miller which appeared in The Daily Standard

Did Elmo Ask To Use a Slur on 'Sesame Street'?

['The children\'s show "Sesame Street" has dealt with some difficult topics including racism over the years.']

In March 2021, the Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit behind the children's TV show "Sesame Street," introduced two new Black characters as part of its "ABCs of Racial Literacy" program. As Elmo and the other the muppets welcomed Wesley and Elijah Walker to the show, a suspicious screenshot started to circulate on social media that supposedly showed Elmo asking if it was OK to use a slur if he was singing it in a song. introduced suspicious screenshot This is not a genuine Elmo quote from "Sesame Street." The above-displayed screenshot shows a message that was originally posted in jest by "Ol QWERTY Bastard" (@TheDillonOne). originally posted in jest While some who encountered the post may have quickly realized that this was a step too far for the children's show, others may have found this quote plausible, as "Sesame Street" truly has tackled some difficult topics, including racism, in its 50-year history. tackled some difficult topics The above-displayed image, in fact, comes from a scene that dealt with race, albeit in a much less controversial fashion. The following clip, entitled "Explaining Race with Elmo & Wes," features Elmo asking some innocent questions about why Elijah and Wesley have brown skin. Wesley tells Elmo that his skin is brown because of melanin. Wes' father Elijah goes on to say: "Melanin is something that we each have inside our bodies that make the outside or our bodies the skin color that it is. It also gives us our eye and our hair color ... The more melanin you have the darker your skin looks. The color of our skin is an important part of who we are. But we should all know that it's ok that we all look different in so many ways." Here's the full clip from the Sesame Street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk_HYAiS26I&t=2s When the Sesame Workshop announced its new ABCs of Racial Literacy content, they explained that one of the goals of the program was to use "age-appropriate language and strategies to answer sometimes-tough questions around race and racism." announced Kay Wilson Stallings, executive vice president of creative and production for Sesame Workshop, said: "Sesame Workshop has always stood for diversity, inclusion, equity, and kindness. As a trusted source for families, we have a responsibility to speak out for racial justice and empower families to have conversations about race and identity with their children at a young age ... The work to dismantle racism begins by helping children understand what racism is and how it hurts and impacts people. Sadly, todays announcement comes at a time of racial and social discord when many families are in need of support in talking to their children about racism. Were proud to reaffirm our Coming Together commitment to racial justice, which will be woven into new Sesame Workshop content for years to come.

['equity']

False

In March 2021, the Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit behind the children's TV show "Sesame Street," introduced two new Black characters as part of its "ABCs of Racial Literacy" program. As Elmo and the other the muppets welcomed Wesley and Elijah Walker to the show, a suspicious screenshot started to circulate on social media that supposedly showed Elmo asking if it was OK to use a slur if he was singing it in a song. This is not a genuine Elmo quote from "Sesame Street." The above-displayed screenshot shows a message that was originally posted in jest by "Ol QWERTY Bastard" (@TheDillonOne).While some who encountered the post may have quickly realized that this was a step too far for the children's show, others may have found this quote plausible, as "Sesame Street" truly has tackled some difficult topics, including racism, in its 50-year history. When the Sesame Workshop announced its new ABCs of Racial Literacy content, they explained that one of the goals of the program was to use "age-appropriate language and strategies to answer sometimes-tough questions around race and racism."

Long Distance Bill Revenge

['Woman gets revenge on former boyfriend by calling long-distance number and leaving his phone off the hook.']

This typical female revenge legend, which describes a woman's effective (but non-violent) way of striking back at her (former) partner, has been around since at least 1981. Legends such as these (see The $50 Porsche, for example) often feature a clever method of causing financial loss without the destruction of property. Examples: [Smith, 1986] A young couple living in the Bristol area had been experiencing marital problems, primarily due to the husband's bad temper and the constant fighting and arguing that had persisted for several months. Things finally came to a head one morning when the husband, just before leaving on a three-week business trip, told his wife that they were finished and that she had better get out of his house for good before he returned. When he arrived home, his wife had gone, leaving the house in a terrible mess. While he was cleaning up, he noticed that the telephone was off the hook. He replaced it and thought no more about it. Several weeks later, the quarterly telephone bill arrived, and it was astronomical, running into several thousands of pounds. He immediately queried it, only to be told that the phone had been connected to the speaking weather report in Australia for a three-week period. [Marsano, 1987] In Hollywood, a man dumped his live-in girlfriend by telling her that he was off on a business trip and expected her to have cleared out of the house by the time he returned. Pretty cold, right? The woman left, but when the man returned, he learned that she had found what Paul Simon might call the fifty-first way to leave your lover. The house was in good order, and the only thing amiss was that the phone was off the hook. When he picked it up, he heard incomprehensible babbling, so he hung up. When his next phone bill arrived, it explained a couple of things. The strange language he had heard was Japanese, and it was giving the correct time. It had been giving the correct time enough to run up a bill of $80,000. Variations: Sightings: An episode of the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses ("The Second Time Around," original air date 29 September 1981) features the evicted woman leaving a note announcing she's dialed the speaking clock in America. Eskapa, Roy. Bizarre Sex. London: Quartet Books, 1987. ISBN 0-7043-2518-7 (pp. 82). Fiery, Ann. The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends. Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7624-107404 (pp. 81-86). Holt, David and Bill Mooney. Spiders in the Hairdo. Little Rock: August House, 1999. ISBN 0-87483-525-9 (p. 97). The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 183). Barreca, Regina. Sweet Revenge: The Wicked Delights of Getting Even. New York: Harmony Books, 1995. ISBN 0-517-59757-8 (p. 45). Brunvand, Jan Harold. Curses! Broiled Again! New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. ISBN 0-393-30711-5; (pp. 216-217). Brunvand, Jan Harold. Too Good To Be True. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. ISBN 0-393-04734-2 (pp. 79-80). Hardy, David. What a Mistake! Secaucus, NJ: Octopus Books, 1983. ISBN 1-55521-164-X (p. 78). Marsano, William. Man Suffocated By Potatoes. New York: Signet, 1987. (pp. 149-150). Smith, Paul. The Book of Nastier Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986. ISBN 0-7102-0573-2 (p. 85).

['loss']

True

This typical female revenge legend, describing a woman's effective (but non-violent) way of striking back at her (former) partner, has been around since at least 1981. Legends such as these (see The $50 Porsche, for example) often feature a clever method of causing financial loss without the destruction of property: Fiery, Ann. The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7624-107404 (pp. 81-86). Holt, David and Bill Mooney. Spiders in the Hairdo. Little Rock: August House, 1999. ISBN 0-87483-525-9 (p. 97). The Big Book of Urban Legends New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 183).Barreca, Regina. Sweet Revenge: The Wicked Delights of Getting Even. New York: Harmony Books, 1995. ISBN 0-517-59757-8 (p. 45).Brunvand, Jan Harold. Curses! Broiled Again! New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. ISBN 0-393-30711-5; (pp. 216-217).Brunvand, Jan Harold. Too Good To Be True. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. ISBN 0-393-04734-2 (pp. 79-80).Smith, Paul. The Book of Nastier Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986. ISBN 0-7102-0573-2 &nbsp. (p. 85).

SCAM ALERT: Walmart Is Not Giving Away Vouchers To Celebrate Going Plastic Bag-Free

['Though the retail giant has made a commitment to reduce the use of plastic bags, stores around the world still offer them.']

A scam that circulated on Facebook in late March 2021 claimed that anyone who shared and commented on a post would receive a bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher after validating their entry at a link included in the post (archived here). The text in the post read: "To celebrate the great news of Walmart becoming plastic bag-free by the end of 2021, we are giving one of these Walmart gift bags to everyone who has shared and commented by 7 PM on March 24. Each person who does this will receive one of these gift bags full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher. After that, validate your entry at https://bit.ly/2Qq4gwy." Snopes spoke with a representative from the chain supermarket, who confirmed that the post was fake. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by Walmart. "We take any fraud impacting our customers seriously and continue to implement and improve upon measures designed to help guard against various consumer scams," Walmart spokesperson Casey Staheli told Snopes. The scam may have been inspired by an announcement made by Walmart on February 21, declaring it was reducing its use of plastic bags. As part of the Beyond the Bag Challenge, an international consortium of large-scale vendors, Walmart announced that stores in Mexico and Central America would go fully bagless, and nearly three-quarters of stores in Mexico had stopped providing plastic bags by December 2020. Walmart stores also launched a pilot program in Vermont by implementing a reusable bags-only requirement after it banned the use of plastic shopping bags in all stores effective July 2020, reported Vermont Biz. However, the retailer did not make a promise to ban plastic bags from all its stores, nor did it offer any sort of gift bag or store credit for those who shared and commented on a Facebook post. For help identifying other potential scams, Walmart encourages consumers to visit the Fraud Alerts section on its website. Correction [March 25, 2021]: Vermont's "paper bag only" requirement was updated to reflect its newly imposed reusable bag-only policy.

['credit']

False

A scam that circulated on Facebook in late March 2021 claimed that anyone who shared and commented on a post would receive a bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher after validating their entry at a link included in the post (archived here).The scam may have been inspired by an announcement made by Walmart on Feb. 21 declaring it was reducing its use of plastic bags. As part of the Beyond the Bag Challenge, an international consortium of large-scale vendors, Walmart announced that stores in Mexico and Central America would go fully bagless and nearly three-quarters of stores in Mexico had stopped providing plastic bags by December 2020.Walmart stores also launched a pilot program in Vermont by implementing a reusable bags only requirement after it banned the use of plastic shopping bags in all stores effective July 2020, reported Vermont Biz.However, the retailer did not make a promise to ban plastic bags from all its stores, nor did it offer any sort of gift bag or store credit for those that shared and commented on a Facebook post. For help identifying other potential scams, Walmart encourages consumers to visit the Fraud Alerts section on its website.

Is This the NFL's New COVID-19 Helmet?

['The 2020 NFL season will certainly be unique in some ways. ']

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 In June 2020, as professional sports in the U.S. worked on strategies to return to work amidst the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, an image was circulated on social media that supposedly showed the NFL's new COVID-19 series helmets: This is not the official design of the NFL's helmets for the 2020 season. This is a piece of fan art showing what the helmets could look like if the sport returns during the pandemic. This image did not originate with any of the NFL's official channels, nor was it shared by Nike, the company that is providing the uniforms for the NFL this year. This image originated on the Stadium Facebook page, where it was shared with the caption: "NFL players might sport #COVID19 helmets this fall ... What do you think? ?" The keyword in the previous sentence, of course, is might, but even that implies too strong of a connection between this image and the NFL. The above-displayed image was created by manipulating a real picture released in 2012 of Nike's latest NFL uniform designs: While the COVID-19 series NFL helmet shown above is an unofficial concept design, the NFL is reportedly working on new helmet face guards to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. The Mercury News reported: reported With an eye toward getting back on the field during a pandemic, the NFL is working on a helmet face guard that might provide the same sort of protection as a surgical mask. Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, who heads up the leagues competition committee, said the issue was raised during a conference call about a month ago. A lot of players have played with a clear shield to protect their eyes, McKay said Tuesday during a video conference call with Atlanta media. This would be extended even further. Thom Mayer, who is medical director of the NFL Players Association, said league engineers and sports equipment company Oakley are testing prototypes of a modified face mask that might contain surgical or N95 material. As of this writing, the NFL has not released any images showing what these COVID-19 helmets could look like. Bousky, Patrick. "Nike Unveils New Chicago Bears Uniforms, Monsters of the Midway Look Stays." Bleacher Report. 3 April 2012. Mercury News. "COVID-19 Has NFL Considering Helmet Face Guards That Work Like Surgical Masks." 20 May 2020.

['returns']

False

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. The Mercury News reported:

Has the owner of Progressive Insurance contributed millions of dollars to the ACLU?

["Progressive's former CEO, Peter Lewis, personally donated to liberal political causes; but he's been dead for years."]

In 2009, Forbes magazine ranked Peter Lewis at #366 on its list of the richest Americans, estimating his net worth at just over $1 billion. Lewis acquired his wealth primarily through his stewardship of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance, a company co-founded by his father in 1937. When he assumed the position of CEO of Progressive in 1965, Lewis took over a business with about 100 employees and $6 million in yearly revenue; forty years later, Progressive had become the third-largest auto insurer in the United States, employing over 27,000 people with yearly revenues topping $13 billion. This success spawned chain emails and memes decrying Lewis's supposed political leanings and involvement: "This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. They’re the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America. He's your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels 'guilty' for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy." Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of America's Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts that have drug testing policies. In other words, this individual wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work under the influence every day. Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main organization used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union members who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network. It's disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR. What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He's banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it's time we expose this individual. Peter Lewis personally donated a significant amount of money to various philanthropic efforts over the years, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum. He has also given large amounts of money to various political organizations, including donations of $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003. (The former donation went to the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the ACLU's endowment fund; the latter was described by the ACLU as being earmarked "to fight Bush Administration policies that trample on civil liberties." According to the Boston Globe, Lewis stipulated that $5 million of his 2001 donation go "to the ACLU's drug-policy litigation project, which deals with drug-testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana.") Lewis also made donations of $3 million and $2.5 million (both of which were reportedly matched by billionaire activist George Soros) to America Coming Together (a liberal political action group which has since disbanded) and MoveOn.org (a progressive/liberal political action committee and public policy group) in 2004. Among his other causes, Lewis was an advocate for the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use, particularly for medicinal purposes (he was himself arrested and charged in New Zealand for possession of marijuana in 2000), adding his name to a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the initiation of a "truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies," and becoming the largest donor (including $3 million in 2007 alone) to the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Progressive Insurance company, as opposed to Peter Lewis personally, supports multiple non-political charitable causes.) However, the "heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance" reproduced above, originally circulated in 2010, is now woefully out of date: Lewis stepped down from his role as Progressive Insurance's CEO in 2000 and after that date was neither an executive of that company nor involved in its day-to-day management. Although after 2000 he continued to hold the position of chairman of the board of the Progressive Corporation and was that entity's single largest individual shareholder, he passed away in November 2013 and therefore obviously no longer has any connection with Progressive Insurance. As well, some of the statements made in the above-quoted call for a boycott of Progressive Insurance were inaccurate and misleading: [A school board] policy required any teacher who suffered an injury on the job to submit to a drug test even if that "injury" resulted from being punched by a student. The drug test of two-time East Baton Rouge Teacher of the Year Peggy Reno illustrates how the School Board's now-defunct drug-testing policy was put into effect. Ms. Reno, a veteran and respected teacher, never in her life used an illegal drug, and her school never suspected otherwise. A student punched Ms. Reno on September 24, 2008. Although there was no suspicion that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Ms. Reno was forced by a School Board official to submit to an invasive drug test. Countless other teachers who have never used drugs and who have never been suspected of using drugs have been subjected to similar unconstitutional searches. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights forbids government searches when there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

['funds']

NEI

In 2009, Forbes magazine ranked Peter Lewis at #366 on its list of the richest Americans, pegging his net worth at just over $1 billion. Lewis acquired his wealth primarily through his stewardship of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance, a company co-founded by his father in 1937.Peter Lewis personally donated a good deal a money to various philanthropic efforts over the years, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum. He has also given large amounts of money to various political organizations, including donations of $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003. (The former donation went to the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the ACLU's endowment fund; the latter was described by the ACLU as being earmarked "to fight Bush Administration policies that trample on civil liberties." According to the Boston Globe, Lewis stipulated that $5 million of his 2001 donation go "to the ACLU's drug-policy litigation project, which deals with drug-testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana.")Lewis also made donations of $3 million and $2.5 million (both of which were reportedly matched by billionaire activist George Soros) to America Coming Together (a liberal political action group which has since disbanded), and MoveOn.org (a progressive/liberal political action committee and public policy group) in 2004.Among his other causes, Lewis was an advocate for the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use, particularly for medicinal purposes (he was himself arrested and charged in New Zealand for possession of marijuana in 2000), adding his name to a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the initiation of a "truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies," and becoming the largest donor (including $3 million in 2007 alone) to the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Progressive Insurance company, as opposed to Peter Lewis personally, supports multiple non-political charitable causes.)

According to statistics, a large majority of individuals born in the 1940s experienced greater financial success than their parents. However, in contrast, individuals born in the 1980s, often criticized as Millennials, face only an even chance of surpassing their parents' level of financial success, despite being the most educated generation in history.

[]

Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

['Economy', 'Education', 'Jobs', "The 2018 California Governor's Race", 'California']

True

Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone.People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote.Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s.We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016.SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity ProjectDavid Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion.The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33.SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity ProjectTom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data.Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Is This a Real Photograph of Donald Trump's Older Sons?

['A cartoonish photograph purportedly showing presidential sons Eric and Donald Trump, Jr. was digitally manipulated.']

A photograph purportedly showing an image of Eric and Donald Trump Jr., the two older sons of President Donald Trump, has been circulating on social media in various forms since at least June 2017. One such post stated, "@realDonaldTrump Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it." The image, which provides an oddly grotesque look at President Trump's older sons, has been repurposed in various memes to mock the First Family. For instance, it has been turned into a movie poster for "Dumb and Dumber," shared in a meme comparing the two Trump children to the "sloth" character from the movie "The Goonies," and frequently circulated with captions like "They look like that 'h'yucc' sound Goofy be making" or "Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it." However, this picture (despite the Getty Images watermark) is not a genuine photograph of Donald Trump's sons, but a digitally altered version of one. The original photograph was taken on November 12, 2005, during Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding reception at his father's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was captioned: "Donald Trump Jr. poses with his brother Eric Trump after the wedding ceremony at the Mar-a-Lago Club on November 12, 2005, in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by C. Allegri/Getty Images)." Several subtle changes were made to the original image in order to distort the appearance of the Trump brothers. For instance, Donald Trump Jr.'s upper lip was enlarged, his bottom teeth were hidden, his right eye was moved off-center, and his left ear was lowered. Eric Trump's eyes were also widened, and some extra fat was added to his neck. Here's a comparison of the fake image (left) and the real image (right):

['share']

False

A photograph purportedly showing an image of Eric and Donald Trump, Jr., the two older sons of President Donald Trump, has been circulating on social media in various forms since at least June 2017:@realDonaldTrump Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it. pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn Linda Radtke (@lradtke77) June 9, 2017The image, which provides an oddly grotesque look at President Trump's olders sons, has been re-purposed in various memes to mock the First Family. For instance, it has been turned into a movie poster for Dumb and Dumber, was shared in a meme comparing the two Trumps children into to the "sloth" character from the movie The Goonies, and was frequently shared with the captions "They look like that "h'yucc" sound Goofy be making" or "Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it."The original photograph was taken on 12 November 2005, during Donald Trump, Jr.'s wedding reception at his father's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was captioned: "Donald Trump, Jr. pose with his brother Eric Trump after the wedding ceremony at the Mar-a-Lago Club on November 12, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by C. Allegri/Getty Images)"

Obama mandated that banks provide loans to individuals with low income.

["Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to 'make loans to poor people'?"]

In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Citibank, demanding that loans be made to poor people and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires "fair and equal" treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor, indigent, or unemployed people was, on its face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course, many went into default, partly explaining why we are in the financial mess we are in. It is easy for some people to point the finger of blame at President George Bush for this crisis because he is sitting in the hot seat. What many people do not know is that the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer who filed the suit was none other than Barack Hussein Obama. This item seeks to place much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to "poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." Although there is a vague element of fact underlying this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully incorrect in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a Black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives—a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay. Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case; Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions, and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm. "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech; it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank, and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton, and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament, and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though they agree he did not say much in the courtroom. On February 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank—which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees—$467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated: September 5, 2012. Associated Press. "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney." February 20, 2007.

['loan']

NEI

The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay). Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages.

Does This Photo Show a Shirtless Mike Pence?

['For years, this photo has circulated online with captions claiming that it documents Pence\'s "gay past."']

In November 2016, a photograph purportedly showing a young Mike Pence with his chest exposed was circulated on social media along with the claim that it documented the vice president's "gay past": circulated The man pictured on the right above is not Vice President Mike Pence, nor does the person depicted particularly resemble him. The individual seen in the right-hand photo is Brad Patton, a porn actor, and the original image was shared on MySpace by acolleague, Martin Mazza: MySpace Several stories have also appeared concerning Mike Pence and his support of "conversion therapy" for gay people. These are somewhat inaccurate: while Pence did once support the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior," he did not support electroshocktherapy, nor did hecredit conversiontherapy for having savedhis marriage. conversion therapy therapy therapy

['credit']

False

In November 2016, a photograph purportedly showing a young Mike Pence with his chest exposed was circulated on social media along with the claim that it documented the vice president's "gay past":The man pictured on the right above is not Vice President Mike Pence, nor does the person depicted particularly resemble him. The individual seen in the right-hand photo is Brad Patton, a porn actor, and the original image was shared on MySpace by acolleague, Martin Mazza:Several stories have also appeared concerning Mike Pence and his support of "conversion therapy" for gay people. These are somewhat inaccurate: while Pence did once support the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior," he did not support electroshocktherapy, nor did hecredit conversiontherapy for having savedhis marriage.

Is Alleged Capitol Rioter Kevin Seefried a 'Registered Democrat and Biden Supporter'?

['Seefried was photographed brandishing a Confederate flag inside the halls of Congress. Claims that he is a secret Biden supporter are sorely lacking in evidence.']

In January 2021, Snopes received several inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely shared meme that claimed Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man charged with taking part in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-U.S. President Donald Trump, was in fact a registered Democrat and supporter of President Joe Biden. Seefried came to the attention of the FBI after photographs showed him carrying a Confederate flag inside the halls of Congress. The meme consisted of one of those photographs, along with the following text: "This 'domestic terrorist,' who brought a Confederate flag into the Capitol during this outrageous attack on America has been arrested in his home state of Delaware. His name is Kevin Seefried. He's a registered Democrat and Biden supporter. Is Pelosi going to impeach Biden now too?" The popularity of the meme can be seen in the following screenshot, which shows just a selection of Facebook posts containing it: Facebook posts As evidence in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat, some Facebook users cited a listing for a "Kevin D Seefried" on the website VoterRecords.com: listing However, the only credible evidence available strongly indicates that Seefried is a supporter of Trump, who took part in a destructive effort to overturn the lawful and legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, which Biden won. In court filings, an FBI special agent wrote that Seefried had said he traveled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 "to hear President Trump speak." Furthermore, the only supposed evidence presented in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat and Biden supporter is fatally flawed. The voter registration listing came from an unofficial source, and in any case referred to a voter born in 1986, and therefore decades younger than Seefried, who is 51 years old. Since we don't have voter registration information for Seefried, we can't definitively say that he is not a registered Democrat, and so we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." However, the available evidence strongly indicates that, whatever his voter registration might be, Seefried acted in support of Trump and took part in an effort to overturn Biden's legitimate victory hardly in keeping with the meme's baseless description of him as a "Biden supporter." The Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, which led to several deaths, damaged the reputation of the movement spearheaded by Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election using baseless conspiracy theories that falsely alleged widespread electoral fraud. widespread electoral fraud As a result, some Trump supporters attempted to distance that movement from the events of that day, falsely claiming that the attack had been planned or perpetrated by left-wing agents provocateurs, in particular antifa (short for "anti-fascist"). We have addressed and debunked several strands of that conspiracy theory, and the "Biden supporter Seefried" meme appears to be just another such example. addressed debunked several strands On Jan. 14, Seefried and his 23-year-old son Hunter were charged with the following three offenses each: charged An affidavit written by an FBI special agent stated that: both Seefried and his son were captured on video breaking into the Capitol through a broken window; that Hunter Seefried had cleared glass from that semi-broken window in order to clear a path for entry; and that once inside, Seefried brandished a Confederate flag through the halls of the Capitol. affidavit According to the FBI affidavit, the two men were identified because of a tip-off from one of Hunter's co-workers, who claimed Hunter had bragged about his participation in the attack on the Capitol. The co-worker also recognized Hunter's face from a police flier requesting information from the public about persons of interest from the riot. According to the FBI, both men confirmed their involvement in the attack on the Capitol during interviews conducted on Jan. 12. The affidavit states that Kevin Seefried told federal agents he had travelled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 in order to hear Trump speak at a rally at the Ellipse, near the White House, and that he had subsequently marched from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Seefried reportedly told the FBI he had brought the Confederate flag with him from Delaware, where it normally flies outside his house. Worcester County, Maryland court records list Kevin Seefried's month and year of birth as March 1969, meaning he was 51 years old when he was charged. The address listed in those records is located in Laurel, Delaware, and matches the location of his family home, which the Delaware News Journal visited and described in a Jan. 15, 2021 report. report The same residential address is found in Worcester County court records for Hunter Seefried, and those records list his month and year of birth as November 1997, meaning he was 23 years old when charged. Given that Kevin Seefried is 51 years old, he could not be the same individual listed as a registered Democrat on VoterRecords.com the only piece of supposed evidence put forward to support the claim that Seefried is a secret Biden supporter. However, Seefried's actual voter registration information, if it exists, was not readily available, so we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that he is registered as a Democrat, notwithstanding his current political views. Snopes contacted attorneys for both Kevin and Hunter Seefried, in an effort to clear up those uncertainties, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. If we receive information that clarifies Seefried's voter registration status, we will update this fact check accordingly. For now, we're issuing a rating of "Unproven."

['interest']

NEI

The popularity of the meme can be seen in the following screenshot, which shows just a selection of Facebook posts containing it:As evidence in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat, some Facebook users cited a listing for a "Kevin D Seefried" on the website VoterRecords.com:The Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, which led to several deaths, damaged the reputation of the movement spearheaded by Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election using baseless conspiracy theories that falsely alleged widespread electoral fraud.As a result, some Trump supporters attempted to distance that movement from the events of that day, falsely claiming that the attack had been planned or perpetrated by left-wing agents provocateurs, in particular antifa (short for "anti-fascist"). We have addressed and debunked several strands of that conspiracy theory, and the "Biden supporter Seefried" meme appears to be just another such example.On Jan. 14, Seefried and his 23-year-old son Hunter were charged with the following three offenses each:An affidavit written by an FBI special agent stated that: both Seefried and his son were captured on video breaking into the Capitol through a broken window; that Hunter Seefried had cleared glass from that semi-broken window in order to clear a path for entry; and that once inside, Seefried brandished a Confederate flag through the halls of the Capitol. Worcester County, Maryland court records list Kevin Seefried's month and year of birth as March 1969, meaning he was 51 years old when he was charged. The address listed in those records is located in Laurel, Delaware, and matches the location of his family home, which the Delaware News Journal visited and described in a Jan. 15, 2021 report.

Fraudulent Free Dunkin' Donuts Coupon Offer

["An online Dunkin' coupon offering that promises a free box of donuts is part of an anniversary giveaway scam."]

Social media users are frequently targeted by anniversary giveaway and survey scams, with one common form of bait being fake coupon offers for free boxes of Dunkin' Donuts: Such scams typically provide links which lead to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Dunkin' Donuts) displaying the Dunkin' logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing those pages and writing thank you in the comments field. The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). A representative for Dunkin' Donuts wrote on the company's official Facebook page that the online "free dozen" coupon was not one offered by the chain: The Better Business Bureau issued guidelines warning specifically of identical scams on Facebook that target shoppers: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website. Promotions

['banking']

False

The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends:Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website.

Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.

[]

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is urging lawmakers to make Medicaid more flexible, effective, and cheaper for states to run. Under the Medicaid system, the rules are set in Washington, but much of the funding is managed in our state capitals, he said during his Feb. 5 "Make Life Work" speech at a conservative think tank in Washington. Collectively, states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education. Cantor's staff informed us that this information came from a report published by the National Association of State Budget Officers last fall, which detailed where states receive and spend their money. The study found that states planned to spend a total of $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2012. Of this amount, 39.8 percent would come from general fund revenues collected through statewide taxes, 31.2 percent from federal grants, and the remaining 29 percent from other state funds and bonds. Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, was expected to be the most expensive item in the collective state budgets. States were projected to spend $406 billion on the service, or 23.9 percent of their total budgets. Elementary and secondary education came in second, drawing $336 billion, or 19.8 percent of total expenses. However, there is a caveat to these figures: The federal government provides states with about 56 percent of what they spend on Medicaid, according to the NASBO report. Therefore, Cantor is including as state expenses approximately $228 billion that the federal government allocates to the states for Medicaid. The picture changes if we examine only the portions of Medicaid and public education that states pay from their general funds. Public schools rise to the top of the expense list, receiving an expected $235 billion last fiscal year, or 34.7 percent of all general fund spending. Medicaid falls to a distant second, with an estimated $133 billion, or 19.6 percent of general fund outlays. Experts we spoke to did not express a preference for one accounting method over the other. "We include both methods in our report," said Stacy Mazer, senior staff associate at NASBO. "One reason we've been using total funds is that some states define their funds differently. Another issue is that even though it's not all your money, you're still administering it." Tracy Gordon, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, noted that most health care industry analysts use the total figure cited by Cantor but acknowledge that it includes federal dollars. Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, stated that his organization tracks states' general fund spending and considers K-12 education to be the greatest recipient of state money. Our ruling: Cantor said states are spending more on Medicaid than on education. His statement is correct, although it should be noted that a substantial portion of the dollars states are spending on Medicaid comes from the federal government. We rate Cantor's statement True.

['Education', 'Medicaid', 'State Budget', 'Virginia']

True

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is urging lawmakers to make Medicaid more flexible, effective and cheaper for states to run.Under the Medicaid system the rules are set in Washington, but much of the bills are paid in our state capitals, he said during his Feb. 5 Make Life Workspeechat a conservative think tank in Washington Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.We looked into the claim that states are paying more for Medicaid than public education. Cantors staff told us the information came from areport, published by the National Association of State Budget Officers last fall, that tallied where states get and spend their money.The study found that states planned to spend a total $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2012. Of the sum, 39.8 percent would come from general fund moneys that are collected through statewide taxes, 31.2 percent from federal grants and the remaining 29 percent from other state funds and bonds.Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, was expected to be the most expensive item in the collective state budgets. States were projected to spend $406 billion on the service, or 23.9 percent of their total budgets. Elementary and secondary education came in second, drawing $336 billion, or 19.8 percent of total expenses.But theres a catch to these figures: The federal government provides states with about 56 percent of what they spend on Medicaid, according to NASBO report. So Cantor is including as state expenses about $228 billion that Uncle Sam sends to the states for Medicaid.The picture changes if we simply examine the portions of Medicaid and public education that states pay out of their general funds. Public schools rise to the top of the expense list, drawing an expected $235 billion last fiscal year, or 34.7 percent of all general fund spending. Medicaid falls to a distant No. 2, receiving an estimated $133 billion, or 19.6 percent of general fund outlays.Experts we spoke to didnt express a preference for one accounting method or the other.We include both methods in our report, said Stacy Mazer, senior staff associate at NASBO. One reason weve been using total funds is that some states define their funds differently. And one of the other issues is that even though its not all your money, youre still administering it.Tracy Gordon, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said most health care industry analysts use a total figure cited by Cantor, but note that it includes federal dollars.Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said his organization tracks states general fund spending and considers K-12 education to be the greatest recipient of state money.Our rulingCantor said states are spending more on Medicaid than on education. His statement is correct, although it should be noted that a substantial portion of the dollars states are spending on Medicaid come from the federal government.We rate Cantors statement True.

Did Congressman Jason Lewis Call for a Dress Code for American Women?

['In his career as a radio host, Lewis said he should be able to call women "sluts" but did not demand they be dressed demurely and "fully-clothed."']

In late July 2018, Facebook users circulated a meme bearing the image of U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minnesota) with text stating that he had "called for a dress code for American women." The meme referenced comments Lewis made in 2012, five years before he assumed office, when his primary occupation was hosting the syndicated talk radio program "The Jason Lewis Show." Those comments resurfaced on July 18, 2018, when CNN published excerpts from Lewis's former radio program (which ended in 2014) in the lead-up to his bid for reelection in the November 2018 midterms. In recordings from March 2012 released by CNN, Lewis "repeatedly expressed disbelief that people could no longer refer to women as 'sluts,'" even if those women were sexually active or dressed provocatively. He stated, "Well, the thing is, can we call anybody a slut? This is what begs the question. Take Sandra Fluke out of it, take Rush [Limbaugh] out of it for a moment ... Does a woman now have the right to behave, and I know there's a double standard between the way men chase women and running around, you know, I'm not going to get there, but you know what I'm talking about. But it used to be that women were held to a little bit of a higher standard. We required modesty from women. Now, are we beyond those days where a woman can behave as a slut, but you can't call her a slut?" He continued, "Now Limbaugh's reasoning was, look, if you're demanding that the taxpayers pay for your contraception, you must use a lot of them and therefore, ergo, you're very sexually active, and in the old days, what we used to call people who were in college or even graduate school who were sexually active, we called them sluts." He also questioned, "But have we really got to the point where you can't refer to Madonna as a slut without being sued? I mean, Madonna has had a series of lovers, as have many in Hollywood. Now in the old days, what did we call this? Madonna dresses up in these sorts of prostitute-like outfits on stage, and she goes there and she sings and she shows half of her body. What did we call those people 30 years ago? 40 years ago? 50 years ago? You can't do that today; it's too politically incorrect?" Lewis was referring to a then-current controversy over comments made by fellow conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who had termed Sandra Fluke, then a law student at Georgetown University, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for speaking before a House committee in support of mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives. Although Lewis may have been, in a very broad sense, suggesting a "dress code" for women by criticizing figures such as Madonna for "running around [in] slutty outfits" and making statements such as "Only we can tell our young women, 'don't look like some slut and you won't get hit on,'" we found no instance of him advocating the imposition of a mandatory (i.e., legislatively established) mode of dress for women. We reached out to Lewis's spokespeople and received no response, but Lewis's campaign spokeswoman Becky Alery told CNN that Lewis's comments as a radio host were old news: "This has all been litigated before, and as Congressman Lewis has said time and time again, it was his job to be provocative while on the radio."

['insurance']

NEI

The meme referenced comments Lewis made in 2012, five years before he assumed office, when his primary occupation was hosting the syndicated talk radio program "The Jason Lewis Show." Those comments resurfaced on 18 July 2018, when CNN published excerpts from Lewis' former radio program (which ended in 2014) in the lead-up to Lewis's bid for reelection in the 2018 November midterms."Well, the thing is, can we call anybody a slut? This is what begs the question. Take "Sandra Fluke out of it, take Rush [Limbaugh] out of it for a moment ... Does a woman now have the right to behave and I know there's a double standard between the way men chase women and running and running around you know, I'm not going to get there, but you know what I'm talking about. But it used to be that women were held to a little bit of a higher standard. We required modesty from women. Now, are we beyond those days where a woman can behave as a slut, but you can't call her a slut?"Lewis was referring to a then-current controversy over comments made by fellow conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who had termed Sandra Fluke, then a law student at Georgetown University, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for speaking before a House committee in support of mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives.

An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views.

[]

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, presidential candidate Donald Trump singled out the evangelical and religious community for their assistance in getting him nominated. They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits, he said. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away, Trump said. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans. We were curious about the issue and whether an amendment constitutional or otherwise prevents the practice for religious institutions. For this fact-check, we're relying largely scholarly articles in theDenver University Law Review, theCase Western Reserve Law Review,Boston College Law Review. The restriction is actually a law, not an amendment, and it isn't exclusive to religious institutions. Lyndon Johnson is best known as America's 36th president, the Texan who assumed the office when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Texas politics can be rough, and Johnson knew how to play that game. Therein lies the origin of the Johnson amendment. The restriction was championed by LBJ in 1954 when Johnson was a U.S. senator running for re-election. A conservative nonprofit group that wanted to limit the treaty-making ability of the president produced material that called for electing his primary opponent, millionaire rancher-oilman Dudley Dougherty, and defeating Johnson. There was no church involved. Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations,includinggroups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics. There was no record of any debate around the amendment. The logical argument favoring such an amendment is that those corporations qualifying for the section 501(c)(3) tax subsidy should not be permitted to directly or indirectly use that subsidy to support candidates for office, said Michael Hone in the Case Western article. However it was likely, he said, that Johnson was motivated by a desire to exact revenge on the foundation he believed supported his opponent and to prevent it and other nonprofit corporations from acting similarly in the future. Nonetheless, Subsequently it proved to have a profound effect on how thousands of tax-exempt organizations including churches dealt with issues relating to political campaigns, according to Patrick O'Daniel of the University of Texas School of Law in the Boston College article. Thelaw saysall such organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. That includes contributions to political campaigns and any form of public statement for or against a candidate or group of candidates. Violating the restriction could result in the revocation of the organization's tax exempt status and the imposition of taxes. Nonpartisan, unbiased voter education or similar activities such as church-organized voter registration drives are allowed. Historically, that hasn't stopped some religious organizations from issuing endorsements anyway. O'Daniel has a list of examples. To cite two from 2000: Rev. Jerry Falwelltold worshippersat the Genoa Baptist Church in Ohio to vote for the Bush of your choice and We simply have to beat (Al) Gore. That same year, a pastor at a Bronx church who supported Hillary Clinton's run for the U.S. Senate at the time, substituted her opponent's name for Satan during a hymn. In the face of lackluster opposition by the Internal Revenue Service, the Democrats and Republicans . continue to use the literal bully pulpits of the churches to preach to the party faithful, O'Daniel wrote. Nonetheless, the threat of losing tax-exempt status persists as long as the law is in place, and politically-minded religious groups, particularly evangelicals, have regarded it as a suppression of free speech and an entanglement of the IRS in the operation of their religion. In 2008, for example, pastors in 20 states organized to give politically-oriented sermons to protest the law,according to the Pew Research Center. The GOP platform has picked up that cudgel,calling for the repealof that portion of the tax law. The Johnson amendment survived court challenges in 1983, 1990 and 2000,according to Pew. Our ruling Trump said, An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Trump is correct that the law was pushed by Johnson and that religious groups that advocate for candidates risk losing their tax exempt status. It's important to note that the prohibition is not just restricted to religious institutions. It's nonprofit charitable organizations in general. But overall, we rate the statement as True.

['National', 'History', 'Human Rights', 'Legal Issues', 'Religion', 'Taxes']

True

For this fact-check, we're relying largely scholarly articles in theDenver University Law Review, theCase Western Reserve Law Review,Boston College Law Review.Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations,includinggroups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics.Thelaw saysall such organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. That includes contributions to political campaigns and any form of public statement for or against a candidate or group of candidates.Rev. Jerry Falwelltold worshippersat the Genoa Baptist Church in Ohio to vote for the Bush of your choice and We simply have to beat (Al) Gore.In 2008, for example, pastors in 20 states organized to give politically-oriented sermons to protest the law,according to the Pew Research Center.The GOP platform has picked up that cudgel,calling for the repealof that portion of the tax law.The Johnson amendment survived court challenges in 1983, 1990 and 2000,according to Pew.

Farting Burns 67 Calories?

['Contrary to Internet search engine wisdom, farting does not burn 67 calories and is not a practical weight loss mechanism.']

In mid-November 2015, many Internet users became aware that Google returned an interesting search result to those who asked the search engine if farting burned calories: aware Although Google may return the results shown above to such a query, the source the search engine cited for this information, a Facebook page called "F A C T," does not offer any evidence proving this claim. In fact, the only source provided by "F A C T" was Google itself: "Google is your friend if you think these facts are false." page The Facebook page "F A C T," however, didn't pull this number out of thin air. The claim that a single fart burns approximately 67 calories has been floating around the internet since at least 2009, when an Internet troll responded to a question on ChaCha thusly: question How many calories does farting burn? The amount of calories burned by farting would depend on how long the fart lasts and how much energy you use to do it. Some people believe you can burn up to 67 calories by releasing gas. It should be noted that similar inquiries posed via ChaCha also prompted answers of less than one calorie, not very many calories, and no calories. less not very many no So how many calories do you burn during a single fart? Unsurprisingly, we weren't able to uncover much scientific research on the subject. But according to a post on the web site Fat Loss School, the number is much lower than 67: number Some people get a bit desperate when it comes to weight loss. They start wondering which of their daily activities burns enough calories to warrant increasing the frequency. We get questions about calorie consumption in a host of different scenarios. But perhaps the strangest question posed to date is: how many calories do you burn by farting? If you take a moment to think about this, the answer is rather obvious: none! When you fart, your muscles relax and the gas pressure in your bowels do all the work in expelling the gas. The only way you would achieve a measureable figure in the calories burned farting is if you really strained yourself to the limit.

['loss']

False

In mid-November 2015, many Internet users became aware that Google returned an interesting search result to those who asked the search engine if farting burned calories:Although Google may return the results shown above to such a query, the source the search engine cited for this information, a Facebook page called "F A C T," does not offer any evidence proving this claim. In fact, the only source provided by "F A C T" was Google itself: "Google is your friend if you think these facts are false."The Facebook page "F A C T," however, didn't pull this number out of thin air. The claim that a single fart burns approximately 67 calories has been floating around the internet since at least 2009, when an Internet troll responded to a question on ChaCha thusly: It should be noted that similar inquiries posed via ChaCha also prompted answers of less than one calorie, not very many calories, and no calories.So how many calories do you burn during a single fart? Unsurprisingly, we weren't able to uncover much scientific research on the subject. But according to a post on the web site Fat Loss School, the number is much lower than 67:

Even with a permanent income tax increase... the budget is more than $1 billion out of balance

[]

Illinois record budget standoffended July 6with legislative Democrats, joined by a handful of Republicans, approving a $36 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that began July 1, which is underpinned by a 32 percent hike in the state income tax rate. Enactment came July 6 over the objections of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who two days earlier hadvetoed the budget. Even with the (House Speaker Michael) Madigan permanent 32% income tax increase, this budget remains $2 billion out of balance for fiscal year 2018, Rauner wrote in his July 4 veto statement. More than two months later -- after a summer in whichtension over school fundingmade the budget debate seem a faint and distant memory -- Rauner has revived his claim that the Legislature has placed the state on a path to fiscal doom. Even with a permanent income tax increase costing the average Illinois household more than $1,000 a year, the budget is more than $1 billion out of balance, Rauner said in aSept. 7 press release. However, his office cautions not to read too much into the downward revision of the unbalanced budget claim from $2 billion in July to $1 billion now. The difference, the administration says, is due to technical reasons and doesnt mean the budget is in better shape than the governor originally asserted. The not-so-subtle subtext of Rauners claims in both his July veto message and his renewed criticism is that Democrats significantly jacked up taxes to impose a woefully deficient budget. Unpacking the governors argument requires a trip into the weeds of budget minutia, not to mention a detour into political hypocrisy. When it comes to budgeting, Rauner has been clearly guilty of some of the same sins he is now complaining about. But being inconsistent and being wrong arent necessarily the same thing. Is Rauner correct that the General Assembly has produced a budget deeply in the red? We took a look at the numbers. TheIllinois Constitutiondefines a budget as balanced when spending doesnt exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year. But estimated has given politicians license to stretch or shrink their definition of balanced to suit their needs. The Civic Federation, a Chicago-based government fiscal watchdog, noted in aSept. 7 analysisthat the budget as passed on July 6 -- which contained a $360 million operating surplus -- met the textbook definition of balanced. On paper, the budget enacted by the General Assembly on July 7 in an override of another gubernatorial veto has a modest surplus, noted the federations Institute for Illinois Fiscal Sustainability. But the budget is built on assumptions and making it work will depend on whether Rauner and the General Assembly can make those assumptions hold up, said Civic Federation President Laurence Msall. Governor and ILGA should work together to create credibility of States FY2018 surplus for borrowing plan to proceedhttps://t.co/thNHqFGLBK Two of those assumptions form the bulk of Rauners claim that the budget is in the red by more than $1 billion. The first involves a Rauner-driven change in state pension options that Democrats came to embrace. Referred to as Tier 3, it gives state workers a choice to divert some of their traditional benefits into a 401(k) style savings plan. The budget enacted over Rauners veto projects Tier 3 will save $500 million this fiscal year. But Rauner spokesman Jason Schaumburg said savings from this plan wont happen during this budget year. And Illinois Teachers Retirement System Executive Director Dick Ingramtold the Better Government Associationthat TRS anticipates an effective date of July 1, 2019, for the new plan. That means savings wont show up until FY 2020. This validates a significant part of Rauners out of balance claim, but the irony here cant go unmentioned. The $500 million savings figure in the current budget came from an estimate originally presented in Raunersill-fated budget proposalfrom last February. That budget also contained $4.6 billion in phantom money identified only as Working together on grand bargain. And it washardly the only timeRauner has pushed a budget full of the same sort of holes he now condemns. Thefirst budget Rauner proposed in 2015anticipated $2.2 billion in savings from a sweeping overhaul of pensions that at the time was of questionable constitutionality and was soon rendered invalid by the Illinois Supreme Court. TheSept. 7 press releasein which Rauner made his claim about the budget imbalance also announced that the state would issue $6 billion in bonds to pay down part of the$16 billion bill backlogthat accrued during the budget impasse of 2015-2017. The Illinois Comptrollers Office said at the end of FY 2017 that the state was paying late payment penalties of 9 and 12 percent on $5.5 billion contained in the backlog. This costs the state about$2 million a day, according to the comptroller. By borrowing, the state can lower that rate by up to half while also getting payment quickly to creditors. Thus, the budget enacted in July contained a provision empowering the governors office to borrow up to $6 billion for this purpose. But as the Civic Federation noted, the small projected budget surplus was estimated to support only $3 billion in borrowing capacity. Rauner was more pointed in his press release: (A) $6 billion issuance would require 12 annual principal payments of $500 million, plus interest payments depending on the interest rate. The legislature-passed budget did not account for the increase in debt service costs to cover the bill backlog bond issuance. Schaumburg put the total figure at $600 million annually, which roughly squares with the Civic Federations statement. The governor's office is identifying several hundred million dollars in possible spending reductions to address this budgetary shortfall, Rauners press release said. The governor also would like the General Assembly to return to Springfield this fall to work with him to balance the budget and enact structural reforms that could save much more. But one of the budgets chief architects, Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, said Rauner is trying to make a crisis from what should be a source of fiscal relief. Though the budget gives the governors budget office the authority to borrow up to $6 billion, Rauner need not do it all at once. If the administration borrows $3 billion and uses it to pay down outstanding Medicaid bills, it will get $3 billion in matching funds from the federal government that can go toward paying down the backlog, Harris said. A huge portion of the bills are Medicaid, Harris said. Thats money thats just sitting there. Medicaid bills make up $4.1 billion of the $16 billion backlog, according to the Illinois Comptrollers Office. But an even bigger chunk of the backlog comes from bills owed to providers in the State Employee Group Insurance Program. In itsMay monthly report, the General Assemblys Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability said the state owed $4.65 billion in group health insurance payments plus $462 million in late fees. The comptrollers office now estimates group health insurance costs make up $5.1 billion of the total backlog. The Civic Federation report also emphasizes that the $360 million surplus claimed in the budget (and disputed by Rauner) is fragile at best. It is built in large part on proceeds of $240 million from the sale of the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago. The sale of the 17-story behemoth in the heart of Chicagos Loop has been stymied by political fighting ever sinceRauner first proposed itin October 2015. The (budget) surplus could be reduced if it takes longer than expected to find a buyer or if the structure is sold for less than the projected price, the report says. Rauners office also complains that new revenue projections provided in August by the Illinois Department of Revenue to the Governors Office of Management and Budget show more trouble ahead. The General Assemblys budget was based on an earlier revenue projection from April, but FY17 revenues continued to underperform for the remainder of FY17, Schaumburg said. As a result, the GOMB estimate is $500 million lower than the General Assemblys FY18 revenue estimate. This argument, however, ignores the budget-making calendar in the Illinois Constitution, which puts a May 31 deadline on passing a budget with a simple majority in the Legislature. The tone of Rauners news release makes clear that there will be tension in Springfield in the months to come as lawmakers work to, as Msall puts it, make the budgets assumptions hold up. This is not an unfamiliar position for Rauner and the Legislature, even though for the entirety of Rauners term they have yet to agree on a full budget. In March 2015, state government faced the prospect of running out of money unless the governor and lawmakers closed a gap of $1.6 billion. Working together, Rauner and the Legislature hammered out a solution that appeared, briefly, to signal good things for future bipartisan cooperation. Then as now, the effort involved salvaging an existing budget. Thats a departure from the two fiscal years in between, when government operating without any budget controls ran up the $16 billion bill backlog. Gov. Bruce Rauner said Illinois current operating budget is is more than $1 billion out of balance The head of the Illinois Teachers Retirement System confirms Rauners claim that the new pension plan expected to generate $500 million in anticipated savings wont be enacted during the current fiscal year (or even the next one). The Civic Federation reports that the small surplus in the budget will finance only $3 billion of the $6 billion Rauner plans to borrow. But putting $3 billion toward past-due Medicaid bills would generate $3 billion in federal matching funds -- something Rauner has not discussed. Failure to sell or get the expected price for the Thompson Center are possible scenarios that could further imperil the budget. Some of the assumptions identified as sources of the trouble originated in Rauners own budget, a fact that Rauner does not acknowledge and that needs to be considered here. Whether or not the imbalance reaches more than $1 billion is debatable, but Rauner is correct that there remains much work to do. We rate his statement Mostly True.

['State Budget', 'Taxes', 'Illinois']

True

Illinois record budget standoffended July 6with legislative Democrats, joined by a handful of Republicans, approving a $36 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that began July 1, which is underpinned by a 32 percent hike in the state income tax rate. Enactment came July 6 over the objections of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who two days earlier hadvetoed the budget.More than two months later -- after a summer in whichtension over school fundingmade the budget debate seem a faint and distant memory -- Rauner has revived his claim that the Legislature has placed the state on a path to fiscal doom.Even with a permanent income tax increase costing the average Illinois household more than $1,000 a year, the budget is more than $1 billion out of balance, Rauner said in aSept. 7 press release. However, his office cautions not to read too much into the downward revision of the unbalanced budget claim from $2 billion in July to $1 billion now. The difference, the administration says, is due to technical reasons and doesnt mean the budget is in better shape than the governor originally asserted.TheIllinois Constitutiondefines a budget as balanced when spending doesnt exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year. But estimated has given politicians license to stretch or shrink their definition of balanced to suit their needs.The Civic Federation, a Chicago-based government fiscal watchdog, noted in aSept. 7 analysisthat the budget as passed on July 6 -- which contained a $360 million operating surplus -- met the textbook definition of balanced.Governor and ILGA should work together to create credibility of States FY2018 surplus for borrowing plan to proceedhttps://t.co/thNHqFGLBKBut Rauner spokesman Jason Schaumburg said savings from this plan wont happen during this budget year. And Illinois Teachers Retirement System Executive Director Dick Ingramtold the Better Government Associationthat TRS anticipates an effective date of July 1, 2019, for the new plan. That means savings wont show up until FY 2020.The $500 million savings figure in the current budget came from an estimate originally presented in Raunersill-fated budget proposalfrom last February. That budget also contained $4.6 billion in phantom money identified only as Working together on grand bargain.And it washardly the only timeRauner has pushed a budget full of the same sort of holes he now condemns. Thefirst budget Rauner proposed in 2015anticipated $2.2 billion in savings from a sweeping overhaul of pensions that at the time was of questionable constitutionality and was soon rendered invalid by the Illinois Supreme Court.TheSept. 7 press releasein which Rauner made his claim about the budget imbalance also announced that the state would issue $6 billion in bonds to pay down part of the$16 billion bill backlogthat accrued during the budget impasse of 2015-2017. The Illinois Comptrollers Office said at the end of FY 2017 that the state was paying late payment penalties of 9 and 12 percent on $5.5 billion contained in the backlog. This costs the state about$2 million a day, according to the comptroller. By borrowing, the state can lower that rate by up to half while also getting payment quickly to creditors.Medicaid bills make up $4.1 billion of the $16 billion backlog, according to the Illinois Comptrollers Office. But an even bigger chunk of the backlog comes from bills owed to providers in the State Employee Group Insurance Program. In itsMay monthly report, the General Assemblys Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability said the state owed $4.65 billion in group health insurance payments plus $462 million in late fees. The comptrollers office now estimates group health insurance costs make up $5.1 billion of the total backlog.The Civic Federation report also emphasizes that the $360 million surplus claimed in the budget (and disputed by Rauner) is fragile at best. It is built in large part on proceeds of $240 million from the sale of the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago. The sale of the 17-story behemoth in the heart of Chicagos Loop has been stymied by political fighting ever sinceRauner first proposed itin October 2015.

Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

[]

It's a political fact of life: incumbency has its perks. You're already in a position of power, name recognition is not a problem, and if you're president, your arrival at a venue—whether for campaign reasons or not—is bound to generate headlines. That's the underlying complaint of a tweet sent out on July 5 by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as his presumptive Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, was preparing to join President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One for a campaign trip to North Carolina. "Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Obama and Hillary Clinton," Trump said. We wondered if it was true that the trip was going to be made at taxpayer expense. To some degree, it is, and that's out of necessity. The president doesn't stop being president just because he's campaigning for himself or someone else. Even if he flew to a campaign stop on a commercial jet, he would need a host of support services and personnel to keep him connected and in charge, and that doesn't include the requirements for security. Thus, the president always uses Air Force One, which is one of two specially designed Boeing 747s built in 1986 to include a command center, a medical suite, a bedroom, an office, two food preparation galleys, and plenty of room for staff and reporters. It's not cheap to operate. According to CNN, the Air Force reported two years ago that it cost $206,337 an hour to operate the jet. It's not clear what that covers. A General Accounting Office analysis of three overseas presidential trips in 1998 reported an hourly cost of $34,400, which would be $50,700 per hour in 2016 dollars. Technically, if the president makes a campaign trip, the campaign or the political party is supposed to reimburse the government for the use of the plane to some degree. (The full cost is not reimbursed because some of the costs are directly connected to the responsibilities of being president.) These days, the amount is the price of chartering a 737, which is a bit over $11,000 an hour, according to the Washington Post. Prior to 2010, the required reimbursement was nothing more than the cost of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline. When someone travels on behalf of a campaign, such as Clinton and any staffers who might be accompanying her, the accounting can get even more complicated. But how it's calculated by the White House Airlift Operations office isn't known. The government does not release details of how it figures such costs, and that's been a secret going back to the 1970s, according to CNN. The amount is even more complicated when the president mixes business with politics, such as flying somewhere to give a policy speech or performing another official act while also spending time attending a purely political event, such as a fundraiser. (The North Carolina appearance, in contrast, was purely political.) How much taxpayers end up paying when business is mixed with politics isn't clear because, once again, the formula for calculating the share paid by the campaign and the government is secret. The White House Counsel's office makes a determination on how political a trip is, according to Time magazine. Mark Knoller, the CBS News White House correspondent who has been tracking presidential trips for years, noted in a tweet that presidents have repeatedly told the press that such costs will not be revealed. Prior administrations also refused, he noted in a follow-up tweet. But they didn't claim to be the most transparent administrations ever. The closest you can get to an estimate is to see what the campaigns pay the government. For his re-election in 2004, George W. Bush's campaign paid just under $1 million, according to the Post. But that was when the cost was based on a first-class commercial airline ticket. By 2012, after the rules were changed to be based on chartering a 737, Obama spent just over $3 million. In this case, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said the campaign will cover its portion of the costs, although he indicated those costs had not been determined. The Trump campaign didn't respond to an email, but Trump is well aware that campaigns are required, by federal law, to reimburse for expenses. During his trip to Scotland last month, Trump went to great lengths to repeatedly state that federal law requires his campaign to pay for everything, even if it's the use of a conference room in Trump Towers, which he said he would gladly let his campaign use for free. "I'm forced, you know, legally, I have to pay myself back," he said. "If I use one of my resorts in the United States and we have a press conference or something, by law I have to pay myself back." Our ruling: Trump said, "Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by Obama and Clinton." How people define a fortune is somewhat subjective, and details about how the costs of using the presidential plane are determined are secret. But based on the information available, it's clear that the campaign is only going to be picking up a small fraction of the $200,000-plus hourly costs of using the plane, with taxpayers footing the bill for the rest. Because Trump's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True.

['National', 'Campaign Finance', 'Elections', 'History', 'Government Regulation', 'Transparency', 'Taxes']

True

According to CNN, the Air Force was reporting two years ago it cost $206,337 an hour to operate the jet. It's not clear what that covers. A General Accounting Officeanalysisof three overseas presidential trips in 1998 reported an hourly cost of $34,400, which would be $50,700 per hourin 2016 dollars.These days,the amountis the price of chartering a 737, which is a bit over $11,000 an hour, according to theWashington Post.Prior to 2010, the required reimbursement was nothing more than the cost of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline.But how it's calculated by the White House Airlift Operations office isn't known. The government does not release details of how it figures such costs, and that's been a secret going back to the 1970s,according to CNN.How much taxpayers end up paying when business is mixed with politics isn't clear because, once again, the formula for calculating the share paid by the campaign and the government is secret. The White House Counsel's office makes a determination on how political a trip is,according to Time magazine.I'm forced, you know, legally, I have to pay myself back,he said. If I use one of my resorts in the United States and we have a press conference or something, by law I have to pay myself back.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/aa60cf08-a414-40d2-b91a-70999d4188a2

The Roommate's Death

['Coed who remains in dorms over holidays discovers her roommate has been murdered.']

Claim: Two roommates remain at their deserted college dormitory over a holiday break. One of the girls goes out on a date that evening, and the other one turns in and goes to bed before her roommate returns. Later that night the sleeping girl is awakened by gurgling and scratching noises coming from outside the hallway door. Frightened, she locks the door and cowers inside the room until morning. When the girl finally opens the door and ventures outside, she discovers the bloody corpse of her roommate in the hallway. The murdered girl's throat had been slit, and she had bled to death in the hallway while clawing at the door. LEGEND Example: [Brunvand, 1965] These two girls in Corbin had stayed late over Christmas vacation. One of them had to wait for a later train, and the other wanted to go to a fraternity party given that night of vacation. The dorm assistant was in her room sacked out. They waited and waited for the intercom, and then they heard this knocking and knocking outside in front of the dorm. So the girl thought it was her date and she went down. But she didn't come back and she didn't come back. So real late that night this other girl heard a scratching and gasping down the hall. She couldn't lock the door, so she locked herself in the closet. In the morning she let herself out and her roommate had had her throat cut, and if the other girl had opened to door earlier, she would have been saved. Variations: The reason why the girls stay alone in the dormitory varies (e.g., they live too far away to go home). The frightened roommate sometimes hides in the closet (and hears the scratching noises coming from outside the closet door). In some variations the dead girl's fingernails are described as having been ground down to bloody stumps. The frightened roommate's hair turns white overnight from shock in some versions. Origins: Like several similar adolescent horror stories (e.g., The Hook, The Boyfriend's Death), this story first appeared in the early 1960s. As with the Campus Halloween Murders legend, this tale may have originated with what Bronner describes as "the mistrust of the security of institutional life especially for students away from the haven of home and the setting of many campuses in isolated arcadias ." As colleges eased the restrictions of dormitory life and took a much less active role in their students' personal lives, students came to see campuses as "more open but less protected" places, sites "potentially open to dangerous strangers." turns white The Hook The Boyfriend's Death Campus Halloween Murders Last updated: 30 June 2011 Piled Higher and Deeper Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Vanishing Hitchhiker. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981. ISBN 0-393-95169-3 (pp. 57-62). The Vanishing Hitchhiker Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 202-204). The Mexican Pet Coffin, Tristam Potter and Hennig Cohen. Folklore: From the Working Folk of America. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973 ISBN 0-385-03874-7 (pp. 28-29). de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (pp. 318-319). Tales, Rumors and Gossip Emrich, Duncan. Folklore on the American Land. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972 (p. 335). The Big Book of Urban Legends

['returns']

True

The frightened roommate's hair turns white overnight from shock in some versions. Origins: Like several similar adolescent horror stories (e.g., The Hook, The Boyfriend's Death), this story first appeared in the early 1960s. As with the Campus Halloween Murders legend, this tale may have originated with what Bronner describes as "the mistrust of the security of institutional life especially for students away from the haven of home and the setting of many campuses in isolated arcadias ." As colleges eased the restrictions of dormitory life and took a much less active role in their students' personal lives, students came to see campuses as "more open but less protected" places, sites "potentially open to dangerous strangers." Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Vanishing Hitchhiker. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981. ISBN 0-393-95169-3 (pp. 57-62). Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 202-204). de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (pp. 318-319).

Did 'Hugh Mann' Write an Article Debunking Alien Theories?

['Jokes can feel alien to some.']

In December 2020, Twitter users enjoyed what appeared to be a delightfully weird coincidence when the author of an article debunking claims about alien life emerged as "Hugh Mann." In a widely shared Dec. 14 tweet, @mmastrac included a screenshot of the article headlined, "There is No Secret Underground Base on Mars," along with the author's name highlighted in red. @mmastrac added the caption, "Nice try aliens": tweet The screenshot was not digitally manipulated or faked and showed part of an article that appeared on the website Slate earlier in December 2020. However, the article itself was clearly intended to be humorous. All in all, the piece presented the author as an alien clumsily emphasizing their thoroughgoing "humanness" while desperately, and ineffectively, attempting to cover up evidence of alien life and operating under a blatantly fake pseudonym that sounds exactly like "human": Slate Like all humans, my light-sensing organs nearly popped out of their orbits when I heard that a retired Israeli military commander had given an interview claiming that space aliens made contact with Earths leaders years ago. According to Haim Eshed, who served as the head of Israels space security program for three decades, representatives of the Galactic Federation traveled to our solar system to conduct research into the fabric of the universe, and, with the help of a local political faction known as the United States of America, have constructed an underground base on Helios IV, which we humans call Mars. given an interview As a respected human journalist, I think I speak for our entire species of only-recently-sentient bipeds when I say, Thats ridiculous! Haim Esheds carbon-based neurological organ is simply malfunctioning as he nears the end of his pitifully short biological life cycle, and there is absolutely no reason to look into his story any further. The joke may have been obvious to many readers and Twitter users, but the screenshot shared by @mmastrac didn't include the body of the article itself, which would have made it clearer. Even with the benefit of the full text of the piece, some readers appear to have mistaken "Hugh Mann" for a real Slate contributor and responded to the article in earnest. On the website News Break, which republished the Slate article, commenters wrote, "There are numerous people who claim this that have served in the military just saying"; "Your [sic] a fucking reporter with no knowledge past the end of your pencil! its [sic] ignorant morons like you that keep the truth in the shadows"; and "This reporter is a [sic] asshat." republished wrote

['lien']

False

In a widely shared Dec. 14 tweet, @mmastrac included a screenshot of the article headlined, "There is No Secret Underground Base on Mars," along with the author's name highlighted in red. @mmastrac added the caption, "Nice try aliens":The screenshot was not digitally manipulated or faked and showed part of an article that appeared on the website Slate earlier in December 2020. However, the article itself was clearly intended to be humorous. All in all, the piece presented the author as an alien clumsily emphasizing their thoroughgoing "humanness" while desperately, and ineffectively, attempting to cover up evidence of alien life and operating under a blatantly fake pseudonym that sounds exactly like "human":Like all humans, my light-sensing organs nearly popped out of their orbits when I heard that a retired Israeli military commander had given an interview claiming that space aliens made contact with Earths leaders years ago. According to Haim Eshed, who served as the head of Israels space security program for three decades, representatives of the Galactic Federation traveled to our solar system to conduct research into the fabric of the universe, and, with the help of a local political faction known as the United States of America, have constructed an underground base on Helios IV, which we humans call Mars.Even with the benefit of the full text of the piece, some readers appear to have mistaken "Hugh Mann" for a real Slate contributor and responded to the article in earnest. On the website News Break, which republished the Slate article, commenters wrote, "There are numerous people who claim this that have served in the military just saying"; "Your [sic] a fucking reporter with no knowledge past the end of your pencil! its [sic] ignorant morons like you that keep the truth in the shadows"; and "This reporter is a [sic] asshat."

Only 20 colleges and universities have athletic departments with revenue exceeding expenses.

[]

At the end of his 24-year congressional career, Rep. Jim Moran Jr. is returning to his athletic roots. Moran, D-8th, is the son and namesake of Jim Moran Sr., who played professional football with the Boston Redskins in the mid 1930s. The congressman, himself, played football at the College of the Holy Cross in the mid 1960s. Moran, who retires Jan. 3, introduced legislation this fall that would create a commission to look into the policies of the NCAA after myriad college sports scandals. The resolution calls for the panel to make recommendations to improve the interaction of athletics and academics on campuses. That includes examining the graduation rates of student athletes, rules restricting athletes abilities to earn money, and the wherewithal of universities to finance broad athletic programs. We have a system now where in 40 states, the highest-paid public employee is the state universitys head football or basketball coach, and yet only 20 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision have athletic departments with revenue exceeding expenses, Moran said in a Facebook post. We rated Morans statement about coaches pay as Mostly True. Now, well look at his claim that only 20 athletic departments at the nations largest universities are making a profit. Lets start with a definition of the Football Bowl Subdivision -- the term Moran used to qualify his statement. There are1,083colleges and universities competing in sports that fall under the NCAAs governance. They are grouped into three divisions, that are defined by athletic scholarship rules and the amount of money the schools spend on sports. For example, Division I schools -- which are typically large -- can offer many full athletic scholarships, Division II schools can offer partial athletic scholarships and Division III schools are not allowed to offer sports scholarships. There are 346 Division I schools. Of them, 123 are classified as members of the Football Bowl Subdivision, the top tier of sports competition. These are colleges and universities that are eligible to compete in bowl games and have average attendance of at least 15,000 at their home games. So Moran is generally talking about the athletic department finances at large universities that field football teams. Morans spokesman, Thomas Scanlon, said the congressmans claim was based on anNCAA studyon Division I athletic department budgets that was released in April. The report says, A total of 20 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2013 fiscal year. The study deals in broad statistics and does not identify schools that are in the black or the red. Only two sports were profitable at FBS schools, according to the report. Football programs netted a median profit of slightly more than $3 million and mens basketball netted a median $340,000. But the profits at most schools quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The median loss among of athletic departments was $11.6 million. Here are some other findings from the NCAA report: According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable. Our ruling Moran said only 20 FBS schools generate more money from athletics than they spend. We rate his statement True.

['Education', 'Sports', 'State Budget', 'Virginia']

True

There are1,083colleges and universities competing in sports that fall under the NCAAs governance. They are grouped into three divisions, that are defined by athletic scholarship rules and the amount of money the schools spend on sports. For example, Division I schools -- which are typically large -- can offer many full athletic scholarships, Division II schools can offer partial athletic scholarships and Division III schools are not allowed to offer sports scholarships.Morans spokesman, Thomas Scanlon, said the congressmans claim was based on anNCAA studyon Division I athletic department budgets that was released in April. The report says, A total of 20 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2013 fiscal year. The study deals in broad statistics and does not identify schools that are in the black or the red.

Was there a restriction put in place by Sberbank in Russia on withdrawing cash to a maximum of $20?

["After Russian forces invaded Ukraine in late February 2022, rumors spread on social media that Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a very low cash withdrawal limit."]

In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted The tweet cited no sources. Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them. While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information.

['funds']

False

In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24.On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." The tweet cited no sources.Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely."Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video.On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals:Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system.While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank.Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13."

Did Germany Start a Campaign to Feed Americans?

['Many Americans are truly food insecure, but the "Great Nations Eat" campaign ads are American made. ']

In the fall of 2021, a series of videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed a charitable campaign from Germany encouraging donations to feed hungry Americans. One posting of this claim on TikTok racked up more than 9 million views: TikTok racked up more than 9 million views While many social media users claimed that this "Great Nations Eat" campaign had been produced in Germany (some claimed China) in an effort to raise funds to feed hungry Americans, this video actually originated in the United States. This video comes from a 2015 campaign produced by the American charity Share Our Strength. The "Great Nations Eat" campaign was created by Share Our Strength and the creative agency BBG (Bartle Bogle Hegarty). In a news release, the group writes that it purposefully mirrored the public service announcements (PSAs) that often air in the United States to raise money to feed people in developing countries in an attempt to evoke an emotional reaction from American audiences. Great Nations Eat Share Our Strength Billy Shore, CEO and founder of Share Our Strength, told Fast Company in 2015: Fast Company This was really to try to think a little more disruptively to get peoples attention, to go right to the heart of the issue that people are not aware hunger is a problem in the United States ... Id say that historically theres been a genre of media around hunger that looks kind of alikestories of kids in rural areas like Appalachia or Alabama ... Those stories are important and compelling, but they all have the same kind of message. The idea was to do something different, and point out that America cant be great on an empty stomachreally tap into this notion that it has to do with our strength as a nation, as a people, as a society. Its not just about these childrenas important as that isbut it really impacts all of us. The non-profit wrote in a news release at the time of the campaign's debut: news release All of the advertising for the Great Nations Eat launch was created by the award-winning creative agency, BBH (Bartle Bogle Hegarty) New York. As the goal of the campaign was first and foremost awareness, the creative allows for the facts to evoke the emotion. The campaign PSAs use an unconventional approach to contrast the problem of hunger in America versus other countries, surprising viewers with the facts. While these ads were not actually produced in China, Germany, or Slovenia, the message in these ads that millions of people in the United States are food insecure is true. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), more than 10% of U.S. households (which amounts to about 38.3 million people) were food insecure in 2020. The USDA writes: writes Food insecure At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low food security and very low food security. 10.5 percent (13.8 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2020.Unchanged from 10.5 percent in 2019. [...] 38.3 million people lived in food-insecure households. Here is one of the American-produced "Great Nations Eat" ads that is presented as if China made this ad to feed hungry Americans: Here's another version of this ad "from Germany": Millions of Americans truly struggle with hunger. While these ads were created to make it seem as if China, Germany, and other countries had released PSAs to feed hungry Americans, these videos were actually produced by an American charity and were designed to play on the tropes of similar PSAs. Anders Anglesey. German-Language Ad Asking to Help Feed Poor Americans Goes Viral. Newsweek, 9 Nov. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/german-ad-asking-feed-americans-goes-viral-tiktok-1647405. Great Nations Eat Launches Unprecedented Billion Impression Media Campaign in 2015 to Transform the Conversation Around Hunger in America. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/great-nations-eat-launches-unprecedented-billion-impression-media-campaign-in-2015-to-transform-the-conversation-around-hunger-in-america-300104454.html. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021. Ha, Thu-Huong. Video: What If Other Countries Saw the Same PSAs about Hungry Americans That Americans See about Them? Quartz, https://qz.com/473786/video-what-if-other-countries-saw-the-same-psas-about-hungry-americans-that-americans-see-about-them/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021. Peters, Adele. These Anti-Hunger Ads Ask People In Other Countries To Donate To Help Feed Americans. Fast Company, 15 July 2015, https://www.fastcompany.com/3048452/these-anti-hunger-ads-ask-people-in-other-countries-to-donate-to-help-feed-americans. Silva, Christianna. Food Insecurity In The U.S. By The Numbers. NPR, 27 Sept. 2020. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-the-u-s-by-the-numbers. USDA ERS - Key Statistics & Graphics. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.

['funds']

False

In the fall of 2021, a series of videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed a charitable campaign from Germany encouraging donations to feed hungry Americans. One posting of this claim on TikTok racked up more than 9 million views:The "Great Nations Eat" campaign was created by Share Our Strength and the creative agency BBG (Bartle Bogle Hegarty). In a news release, the group writes that it purposefully mirrored the public service announcements (PSAs) that often air in the United States to raise money to feed people in developing countries in an attempt to evoke an emotional reaction from American audiences. Billy Shore, CEO and founder of Share Our Strength, told Fast Company in 2015:The non-profit wrote in a news release at the time of the campaign's debut:The USDA writes:

Under Ted Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees.

[]

Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz: SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

['Taxes', 'Texas']

True

Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says.After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments.SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016)In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization.We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code.Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make.Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan!Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Does Glaxo Own the 'Wuhan Lab'?

['As a vaccination for COVID-19 starts to roll out, so does the anti-vax misinformation.']

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. In November 2020, as news broke that a vaccination for COVID-19 was being prepared for distribution, a rumor started circulating on social media that the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline owned a laboratory in Wuhan, China—the Wuhan Institute of Virology—where conspiracy theorists falsely maintain the COVID-19 pandemic originated. This rumor, which resembles a game of six degrees of separation, attempts to trace a line from GlaxoSmithKline to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, to billionaire philanthropist and frequent right-wing boogeyman George Soros, and, in some iterations of this rumor, to Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. Here's one version of the rumor that was posted to Twitter: This tweet reads: "The Chinese biological laboratory in Wuhan is owned by Glaxo! Who, by chance, owns Pfizer! (the one who produces the vaccine!) Which, by chance, is managed by Black Rock finances. Who, by chance, manages the finances of the Open Foundation Company (SOROS FOUNDATION)!" This nonsensical game of connect the dots starts with a false assertion. The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline does not own the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in China that has been the center of conspiracy theories since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, is operated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and is funded, in large part, by the Chinese government. It is not owned by GlaxoSmithKline or any other private company. "Over the past 40 years, half of its income has come directly from central-government investment; the rest has been from competitive funding or technology transfer. CAS could not develop without the funding and support of the central government." It's also false to say that GlaxoSmithKline owns the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. While these two companies share some common interests—in 2018, they announced a joint venture that combined their consumer health businesses—they remain two distinct companies. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time: "Pfizer Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline PLC plan to combine their consumer health-care units and eventually spin off the joint venture, creating the world's largest seller of drugstore staples like Advil and Sensodyne toothpaste. The deal, announced Wednesday, will free up both companies to concentrate on prescription medicines, which tend to be more profitable if also higher risk. The joint venture represents an unexpected conclusion to a yearlong process by Pfizer to shed its consumer business, as it and other pharmaceutical companies focus on higher-margin prescription drugs. While Glaxo has shared that focus, the British drugmaker had remained committed to its consumer business, which its chief executive led before her promotion to the top job last year." This joint venture, however, did not involve one company buying the other. This rumor appears to have been created with the intent of stirring up confusion and skepticism over the COVID-19 vaccine by connecting pharmaceutical companies to a laboratory in Wuhan, China. GlaxoSmithKline, however, does not own the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Furthermore, claims that COVID-19 was "manufactured," or that it "escaped from" this Chinese lab, are nothing more than baseless conspiracy theories.

['investment']

False

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. This rumor, which reads like a game of six-degrees of separation, attempts to trace a line from GlaxoSmithKline, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, to billionaire philanthropist and frequent right-wing boogeyman George Soros, and, in some iterations of this rumor, to Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.The Wuhan Institute of Virology a research lab in China that has been the center of conspiracy theories since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic is operated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), and is funded, in large part, by the Chinese government. It is not owned by GlaxoSmithKline or any other private company.While these two companies share some common interests in 2018, they announced a joint venture that combined their consumer health businesses they remain two distinct companies. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time:

Who caused the growth of the debt?

['A chart from 2011 compared changes in the U.S. national debt over the last several presidencies.']

Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections, from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States. Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money. The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempts to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for significant increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt. As a first step in evaluating this chart, we must determine the applicable definition of "debt." In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills. It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs like Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by purchasing its own treasury securities. A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former). We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan: Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion. Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Percent change in total debt: +218%. George H.W. Bush: Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Left office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Percent change in total debt: +55%. Bill Clinton: Took office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Left office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Percent change in total debt: +37%. George W. Bush: Took office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Left office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Percent change in total debt: +86%. Barack Obama: Took office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion. Percent change in total debt: +34%. So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported). That said, we must consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility. In that regard, one could find several aspects to take issue with: The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office, the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office. All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office. Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here. Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two? As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market. Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance? Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart that tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information that is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context.

['liability']

True

The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt. Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former). We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two? As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance? Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.

Did Starbucks Support Calls To 'Defund the Police'?

['Outraged supporters of law enforcement officers called for a boycott after an evidence-free meme appeared in July 2020.']

In the summer of 2020, a new nationwide wave of protests against racial injustice and police brutality was accompanied by a rising campaign to substantially divert funding away from police forces, as well as to replace existing models of local law enforcement. The movement, referred to in shorthand by the somewhat imprecise phrase "defund the police" faced intense opposition from some right-leaning quarters, especially supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. As a result, companies and organizations faced condemnation for their supposed association with the "defund the police" movement, and in July, readers asked Snopes to examine one such claim. condemnation A widely shared meme read: meme "Starbucks says Defund the Police. Let's defund Starbucks. Ask all friends and family not to be Starbucks patrons. Dunkin coffee is just as good!" We could find no evidence of any instance in which Starbucks, as a company, called for police forces to be defunded or abolished, promoted or supported the "defund the police" campaign, or indeed used the words "defund the police" (or similar phrases) in its public utterances or on its social media accounts. As a result, we are at a loss as to the origins of the false claim that "Starbucks says defund the police." The company has on several occasions articulated support for the Black Lives Matter movement and opposition to racial injustice, but that is clearly not the same as supporting the "defund the police" campaign. several occasions articulated support Black Lives Matter We found no evidence that Starbucks supports the "defund the police" campaign. By contrast, we found ample evidence of the company's partnering with various police forces as part of the "Coffee with a Cop" initiative, which encourages police officers and members of the public to meet in their local Starbucks caf with the aim of creating understanding, rather than hostility, between law enforcement agencies and the communities they police. Coffee with a Cop It's worth noting that that initiative seeks to repair and improve relations between police forces and local communities, especially people of color within those communities. As such, it is actually rather antithetical to the "defund the police" movement, whose proponents often argue that those relationships are damaged beyond repair and efforts to reform policing have failed and should no longer be attempted. argue Mac Guill, Dan. "Has Ford Motor Co. Donated Millions to 'Defund the Police'?" Snopes.com. 10 July 2020. Starbucks. "Black Lives Matter: Starbucks Update on Standing Against Racial Injustice." 12 June 2020.

['loss']

False

As a result, companies and organizations faced condemnation for their supposed association with the "defund the police" movement, and in July, readers asked Snopes to examine one such claim. A widely shared meme read:The company has on several occasions articulated support for the Black Lives Matter movement and opposition to racial injustice, but that is clearly not the same as supporting the "defund the police" campaign. We found no evidence that Starbucks supports the "defund the police" campaign. By contrast, we found ample evidence of the company's partnering with various police forces as part of the "Coffee with a Cop" initiative, which encourages police officers and members of the public to meet in their local Starbucks caf with the aim of creating understanding, rather than hostility, between law enforcement agencies and the communities they police. It's worth noting that that initiative seeks to repair and improve relations between police forces and local communities, especially people of color within those communities. As such, it is actually rather antithetical to the "defund the police" movement, whose proponents often argue that those relationships are damaged beyond repair and efforts to reform policing have failed and should no longer be attempted.

Did a Chinese Company Buy America's 'Most Famous Burger Brand'?

["McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King are among the most popular burger chains in terms of U.S. sales figures, according to online reports."]

In December 2023, multiple display advertisements were shown to online users on YouTube and other websites that claimed, "America's Most Famous Burger Brand Is Now Chinese Owned." In this story, we've detailed how these ads were both false and misleading. We've also provided information about some of the most successful U.S. burger brands. One ad that we reviewed showed a photo of a large cheeseburger in what appeared to be the dining room of a restaurant. We performed a reverse-image search and traced the picture to a page on Pinterest. A link on that Pinterest page led to another page on friesandsalt.tumblr.com, which revealed that the photo was captured in a Five Guys restaurant. Five Guys is headquartered in Virginia and is not owned by a company in China. reverse-image search page friesandsalt.tumblr.com headquartered Additional ads that displayed similar captions showed other pictures of burgers. One of those images may have been a stock photo or was possibly captured in Cyprus, according to a user's post on TripAdvisor.com. TripAdvisor.com All of these ads led to a lengthy article that was hosted on either Investing.com or StreetInsider.com. The story's headline read, "American Companies That Are No Longer American." Investing.com StreetInsider.com The article was massive in its text. It listed nearly 200 businesses and had close to 400 paragraphs. Nowhere in the story did the author mention anything about any American burger brands being bought by a company in China. The ads with the photos of burgers were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through nearly 200 slides for nothing. We hope that our brief article saved readers some time. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage Naming America's "most famous" burger brand might be a subjective choice. However, if sales figures were considered, McDonald's was at the top of the food chain, according to QSR Magazine, Restaurant Business and Yahoo Finance. The company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, not China. QSR Magazine Restaurant Business Yahoo Finance headquartered The same three sources that provided sales figures for burger chains also reported that McDonald's was followed by Wendy's and Burger King. Wendy's is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, while Burger King is owned by the Canadian company Restaurant Brands International. headquartered Restaurant Brands International Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Ahmed, Ali. 20 Best Burger Chains in the US. Yahoo Finance, 5 Aug. 2023, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-best-burger-chains-us-214700611.html. Campus Gardens at Wendys Headquarters in Dublin, OH. Wendys, https://www.wendys.com/csr-what-we-value/footprint/corporate-office-initiatives/gardens. Careers at the McDonalds Global Headquarters. McDonalds Careers, https://careers.mcdonalds.com/mhq-and-field-offices. El Clasico Sports Pub. TripAdvisor.com, Apr. 2019, https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g190383-d6651868-i275560000-El_Clasico_Sports_Pub-Nicosia_Nicosia_District.html. Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Five Guys Bacon Triple Cheeseburger. Pinterest, www.pinterest.com/pin/513973376204398170/. ---. friesandsalt.tumblr.com, https://friesandsalt.tumblr.com/post/136992557459/photoset_iframe/friesandsalt/tumblr_nragqdSeHE1qhffuc/0/false. Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/. Our Locations. Restaurant Brands International, https://careers.rbi.com/global/en/locations. Ranked: The Top Fast-Food Burger Chains in America. QSR Magazine, 1 Aug. 2023, https://www.qsrmagazine.com/operations/fast-food/ranked-the-top-fast-food-burger-chains-in-america/. Restaurant Business Staff. The Largest Burger Chains in the U.S. Restaurant Business, 13 May 2020, https://restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/largest-burger-chains-us.

['finance']

False

One ad that we reviewed showed a photo of a large cheeseburger in what appeared to be the dining room of a restaurant. We performed a reverse-image search and traced the picture to a page on Pinterest. A link on that Pinterest page led to another page on friesandsalt.tumblr.com, which revealed that the photo was captured in a Five Guys restaurant. Five Guys is headquartered in Virginia and is not owned by a company in China.Additional ads that displayed similar captions showed other pictures of burgers. One of those images may have been a stock photo or was possibly captured in Cyprus, according to a user's post on TripAdvisor.com.All of these ads led to a lengthy article that was hosted on either Investing.com or StreetInsider.com. The story's headline read, "American Companies That Are No Longer American."The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start.Naming America's "most famous" burger brand might be a subjective choice. However, if sales figures were considered, McDonald's was at the top of the food chain, according to QSR Magazine, Restaurant Business and Yahoo Finance. The company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, not China.The same three sources that provided sales figures for burger chains also reported that McDonald's was followed by Wendy's and Burger King. Wendy's is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, while Burger King is owned by the Canadian company Restaurant Brands International.Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads.

Papa John's is unwilling to distribute 'excessive profits' amongst its employees.

["A fictitious quote about the pizza chain's earnings was attributed to Papa John's CEO John Schnatter."]

On 18 February 2016, the Facebook page "I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists" posted a meme featuring a photograph of Papa John's CEO John Schnatter along with a quote ostensibly uttered by him about not sharing company profits with employees: Although several web sites, such as AZ Quotes, Sherman's Wilderness, and the Straight Dopemessage board,have attributed this phrase to Schnatter, none of these web sites conclusively documents where or when Schnatter purportedly made this statement. In fact, our attempt to source this quote led us through a never-ending circle of memes; in the end, we found no record in any credible publication linking Schnatter to these words. AZ Quotes Sherman's Wilderness Straight Dope The quote was likely created in an attempt to paraphrase comments the Papa John's CEOmade in 2012, just before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act: comments "Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis. "We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare. "If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interest." In November 2012, Schnatter wrote an op-ed piecefor the Huffington Post, maintaining that some of his comments had been taken out of context. piece

['interest']

False

Although several web sites, such as AZ Quotes, Sherman's Wilderness, and the Straight Dopemessage board,have attributed this phrase to Schnatter, none of these web sites conclusively documents where or when Schnatter purportedly made this statement. In fact, our attempt to source this quote led us through a never-ending circle of memes; in the end, we found no record in any credible publication linking Schnatter to these words.The quote was likely created in an attempt to paraphrase comments the Papa John's CEOmade in 2012, just before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act:In November 2012, Schnatter wrote an op-ed piecefor the Huffington Post, maintaining that some of his comments had been taken out of context.

The Debt Free America Act, also known as H.R. 4646, aims to eliminate national debt.

['Is the Obama administration proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions?']

Claim: The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax! WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit Unions, Mutual funds, Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open. https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them! While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out. I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary: The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions. The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins: Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to votes in the first place. The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703). None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee: is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself, languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous: Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax." The proposal for the Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support. Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it. The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio. That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191 Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?" The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated: 22 October 2013

['credit']

True

The Transaction Tax! WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit Unions, Mutual funds, Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open. votes in the first place. The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act").In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703). None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor.In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio. That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.)Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted."

$75 Bed Bath & Beyond Coupon?

['Another Facebook coupon scam has appeared, this time using phony Bed Bath & Beyond coupons to lure users into participating.']

In April 2017, a Bed Bath & Beyond coupon offer (purportedly good for $75 off any purchase) began circulating on Facebook under the guise of a Mother's Day promotion: The "coupon" displays a domain name not part of the chain's legitimate web site, and the link takes Facebook users to a fraudulent web site posing as part of Bed Bath & Beyond, and instructs them to follow a simple set of instructions:Bed Bath & Beyond warned customers about the circulating phony discount in responses on their Facebook page: page This scam is almost exactly the same as earlier schemes targeting Home Depot, Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. Although the scams exhibited minor variations, they all feature three main identifiers. Home Depot Costco Amazon Kroger All require Facebook users to forward the phony coupon on to their Facebook friends, increasing the number of potential victims. They also instruct targets to complete out a simple survey and promise an outsized reward for a minor effort, a seemingly harmless task that often mines sensitive information such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card details. Finally, the completion of the "survey" never results in the receipt of a coupon for Bed Bath & Beyond (or any other known brand appropriated by scammers). Often, the ruse results in a subscription for difficult-to-cancel Reward Offers, or simply the disclosure of personal details to social media grifters. In a best-case scenario such efforts are a simple but effective like-farming scam, which can lead to embarrassment if the "liked" page is converted into an unpalatable one with risqu or rude content. scam The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify these particular scams on Facebook: Facebook Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.

['banking']

False

The "coupon" displays a domain name not part of the chain's legitimate web site, and the link takes Facebook users to a fraudulent web site posing as part of Bed Bath & Beyond, and instructs them to follow a simple set of instructions:Bed Bath & Beyond warned customers about the circulating phony discount in responses on their Facebook page:This scam is almost exactly the same as earlier schemes targeting Home Depot, Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. Although the scams exhibited minor variations, they all feature three main identifiers.Finally, the completion of the "survey" never results in the receipt of a coupon for Bed Bath & Beyond (or any other known brand appropriated by scammers). Often, the ruse results in a subscription for difficult-to-cancel Reward Offers, or simply the disclosure of personal details to social media grifters. In a best-case scenario such efforts are a simple but effective like-farming scam, which can lead to embarrassment if the "liked" page is converted into an unpalatable one with risqu or rude content.The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify these particular scams on Facebook:

Was a Karl Marx Banknote Released in Germany?

['A photograph showing a young woman holding a Karl Marx bill (worth 0) is real, but it is a souvenir note rather than a genuine article of currency.']

In March 2018, an image showing a young woman holding what appeared to be an official piece of European currency featuring the face of German philosopher and Communist Manifesto co-author Karl Marx started making its way around the Internet: Communist Manifesto Karl Marx Internet "Zero Euros" are a popular souvenir item in Europe. Richard Faille started producing the realistic currency (which is authorized by the European Central Bank) in 2015, with the help of an official banknote printer called Oberthur Fiduciaire. Faille's operation expanded over the years and now Zero Euro notes are available in a number of European countries and commemorate a variety of topics, such as anniversaries, historical locations, city events, and notable individuals: authorized 2015 commemorate The Zero Euro is a souvenir banknote with authorized printing by the European Central Bank (ECB) and is on queue to be a popular in 2017 banknote collector markets. Its origins stem from France in 2015 after Richard Faille, creator of popular French currency souvenirs, decided to create euros that promote tourism. The banknotes are printed at a private fiduciary facility and they share many of the same characteristics of a real Euro except that they are marked as 0, hence the name, and are tested to ensure they cannot enter circulation as legitimate financial currency. The front of all zero euros is the same and it includes a white zero followed by the Euro sign to denominate no financial value. Then (from left to right) Brandenburg Gate, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, Sagrada Familia, Manneken Pis and the Mona Lisa. The pictured item is a souvenir that was produced by a tourism company in Trier, the German town where Marx was born, in honor of what would have been the author's 200th birthday in May 2018. The bill can be purchased for 3: bill On 5 May 2018 the city of Trier celebrates the 200th birthday of its famous son Karl Marx and on this occasion we have a bill from Trier Tourismus und Marketing GmbH. Norbert Kthler, the Managing Director of Trier Tourism and Marketing, acknowledged the humor in putting Marx on a worthless piece of currency: acknowledged Norbert Kthler, Geschftsfhrer der ttm, sagt zu dem Null-Euro-Schein: Das Souvenir setzt sich spielerisch mit der Marxschen Kapitalismuskritik auseinander. Und natrlich passen die Null-Euro-Scheine auch hervorragend zu Marx als Geldscheinmotiv. Norbert Kthler, Managing Director of TTM, says about the Zero Euro note: "The souvenir playfully deals with Marx's critique of capitalism. And of course, zero-euro bills also fit perfectly with the Marx motif." Satirical web site the Sacramento Brie also used an altered version of this image in an article that facetiously claimed that the zero value Marx bill was being used in Venezuela to boost the country's economy. Sacramento Brie Numis Magazine. "Zero Euro Banknote Creator Richard FAILLE Strikes Again!" 25 June 2017. Lokalo.de. "'Das Geld Wird Abgeschafft!' Trier Bietet Zum 200. Geburtstag Von Karl Marx Einen Null-Euro-Schein An." 17 March 2018.

['share']

True

In March 2018, an image showing a young woman holding what appeared to be an official piece of European currency featuring the face of German philosopher and Communist Manifesto co-author Karl Marx started making its way around the Internet:"Zero Euros" are a popular souvenir item in Europe. Richard Faille started producing the realistic currency (which is authorized by the European Central Bank) in 2015, with the help of an official banknote printer called Oberthur Fiduciaire. Faille's operation expanded over the years and now Zero Euro notes are available in a number of European countries and commemorate a variety of topics, such as anniversaries, historical locations, city events, and notable individuals: The pictured item is a souvenir that was produced by a tourism company in Trier, the German town where Marx was born, in honor of what would have been the author's 200th birthday in May 2018. The bill can be purchased for 3:Norbert Kthler, the Managing Director of Trier Tourism and Marketing, acknowledged the humor in putting Marx on a worthless piece of currency:Satirical web site the Sacramento Brie also used an altered version of this image in an article that facetiously claimed that the zero value Marx bill was being used in Venezuela to boost the country's economy.

Was the Moon Landing Faked by Stanley Kubrick?

["Various edits of this infamous 'interview' have been circulating for years. "]

On 10 December 2015, the website YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings. A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which he allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the director admits on camera that "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figure confesses: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can't take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense. Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick website that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier. Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997. Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T. Patrick Murray; the whole story is made up, fraudulent, and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking on the mystery's driving interest in his project.

['banking']

False

On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings:This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick.Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:

We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses.

[]

During a July 6, 2011, question-and-answer session on Twitter, President Barack Obama was asked -- in a tweet by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- After embarking on a record spending binge that left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?Part of Obamas answer is that his administration has worked to aid small businesses in job creation.We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses who have needed a lot of help and have been struggling -- including, for example, saying zero capital gains taxes on startups -- because our attitude is we want to encourage new companies, young entrepreneurs, to get out there, start their business, without feeling like if theyre successful in the first couple of years that somehow they have to pay taxes, as opposed to putting that money back into their business.This response echoed acomment we checkeda few weeks earlier. In a face-off between the heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on NBC'sMeet the Presson June 11, 2011, the discussion turned to what the government should be doing to accelerate job creation.I think we need to cut taxes on small businesses, said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.Well, that's good, retorted DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., because we've done that, 17 times.Heres what we found when we looked at the question of small business tax cuts.When asked for supporting documents, the DNC press office pointed us to a Feb. 25, 2011, posting on the official White House blog titledSeventeen Small Business Tax Cuts and Counting.The post enumerated 17 small business tax cuts and credits created or extended through legislation signed by Obama.Eight of them were included in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (more commonly known as the economic stimulus bill), the Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (aka the HIRE Act). Among the cuts were the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months.Another eight cuts came via the Small Business Jobs Act, signed by Obama in September of 2010. These included: adding deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000.Three months later, the president signed a tax bill that raised the expense limit to 100 percent of small business new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012.Here's the full list:From the Recovery Act, HIRE Acts, and Affordable Care Act:1. A new small business health care tax credit2. A new tax credit for hiring unemployed workers3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment4. 75 percent exclusion of small business capital gains5. Expansion of limits on small business expensing6. Five-year carryback of net operating losses7. Reduction of the built-in gains holding period for small businesses from 10 to 7 years to allow small business greater flexibility in their investments8. Temporary small business estimated tax payment relief to allow small businesses to keep needed cash on handFrom the Small Business Jobs Act:9. Zero capital gains taxes on key investments in small businesses10. Raising the small business expensing to $500,00011. An extension of 50 percent bonus depreciation12. A new deduction for health care expenses for the self-employed13. Tax relief and simplification for cell phone deductions14. An increase in the deduction for entrepreneurs start-up expenses15. A five-year carryback of general business credits16. Limitations on penalties for errors in tax reporting that disproportionately affect small businessFrom the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act:17. 100 percent expensingConservative tax specialists don't quibble much with the list, but they did take issue with the context earlier this year when we asked them about the same claim by Wasserman Schultz. I can't argue with any of these, but it ignores all the proposed and enacted tax hikes on small businesses, said Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy at Americans For Tax Reform, an anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist.For example, Ellis said, it ignores President Obama's proposal to allow Bush-era individual income tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000. A clear majority of small business profits are earned in households making at least $250,000 per year. Ellis said...That's a tax hike on the small business sector. (PolitiFact Virginia addressed a similar claim inthis fact-check. )There are also a number of tax increases included in the health care law, Ellis said, some of which apply directly to small businesses. For one, he said, businesses with more than 50 employees could face a tax penalty if they don't provide enough health insurance to their employees. Another example, the 10 percent tanning tax, which he said is nearly exclusively applied to small businesses.So the overall story is much more of a problem for small firms than the Obama administration would suggest, Ellis said.Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, allowed that there have been targeted tax cuts for small businesses. But, he said, it's an error to just point to the number of tax cuts. You have to look at the overall impact and that certainly has been steep tax hikes.Dubay also noted that six of the 17 cuts were not just for small businesses but were made widely available to all businesses.Richard Morrison at the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group, said that nothing on (the White House list) stands out as egregiously unjustified from a fact-checking perspective. Some of them are temporary, and some arent targeted exclusively at small businesses, but that doesnt necessarily mean they shouldnt 'count' as far as the claim is concerned.We think there's room for critics to note that in addition to the 17 tax cuts enumerated by the White House, there are there are also some tax increases in the health care law that will fall on some of the same small business owners that got tax cuts. Some health care law tax increases won't go into effect for a couple years. And with some, like the excise taxes on tanning beds, one could argue it is a tax on the customer, not the small business.As for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, that's still just an Obama proposal; it hasn't happened. The only policy actually signed by the president so far was a compromise agreement that extended the tax cuts. On balance, we rated Wasserman Schultz's comment Mostly True. Because Obamas comment is substantially similar, we also rate his comment Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Small Business', 'Taxes']

True

During a July 6, 2011, question-and-answer session on Twitter, President Barack Obama was asked -- in a tweet by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- After embarking on a record spending binge that left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?Part of Obamas answer is that his administration has worked to aid small businesses in job creation.We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses who have needed a lot of help and have been struggling -- including, for example, saying zero capital gains taxes on startups -- because our attitude is we want to encourage new companies, young entrepreneurs, to get out there, start their business, without feeling like if theyre successful in the first couple of years that somehow they have to pay taxes, as opposed to putting that money back into their business.This response echoed acomment we checkeda few weeks earlier. In a face-off between the heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on NBC'sMeet the Presson June 11, 2011, the discussion turned to what the government should be doing to accelerate job creation.I think we need to cut taxes on small businesses, said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.Well, that's good, retorted DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., because we've done that, 17 times.Heres what we found when we looked at the question of small business tax cuts.When asked for supporting documents, the DNC press office pointed us to a Feb. 25, 2011, posting on the official White House blog titledSeventeen Small Business Tax Cuts and Counting.The post enumerated 17 small business tax cuts and credits created or extended through legislation signed by Obama.Eight of them were included in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (more commonly known as the economic stimulus bill), the Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (aka the HIRE Act). Among the cuts were the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months.Another eight cuts came via the Small Business Jobs Act, signed by Obama in September of 2010. These included: adding deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000.Three months later, the president signed a tax bill that raised the expense limit to 100 percent of small business new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012.Here's the full list:From the Recovery Act, HIRE Acts, and Affordable Care Act:1. A new small business health care tax credit2. A new tax credit for hiring unemployed workers3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment4. 75 percent exclusion of small business capital gains5. Expansion of limits on small business expensing6. Five-year carryback of net operating losses7. Reduction of the built-in gains holding period for small businesses from 10 to 7 years to allow small business greater flexibility in their investments8. Temporary small business estimated tax payment relief to allow small businesses to keep needed cash on handFrom the Small Business Jobs Act:9. Zero capital gains taxes on key investments in small businesses10. Raising the small business expensing to $500,00011. An extension of 50 percent bonus depreciation12. A new deduction for health care expenses for the self-employed13. Tax relief and simplification for cell phone deductions14. An increase in the deduction for entrepreneurs start-up expenses15. A five-year carryback of general business credits16. Limitations on penalties for errors in tax reporting that disproportionately affect small businessFrom the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act:17. 100 percent expensingConservative tax specialists don't quibble much with the list, but they did take issue with the context earlier this year when we asked them about the same claim by Wasserman Schultz. I can't argue with any of these, but it ignores all the proposed and enacted tax hikes on small businesses, said Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy at Americans For Tax Reform, an anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist.For example, Ellis said, it ignores President Obama's proposal to allow Bush-era individual income tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000. A clear majority of small business profits are earned in households making at least $250,000 per year. Ellis said...That's a tax hike on the small business sector. (PolitiFact Virginia addressed a similar claim inthis fact-check.)There are also a number of tax increases included in the health care law, Ellis said, some of which apply directly to small businesses. For one, he said, businesses with more than 50 employees could face a tax penalty if they don't provide enough health insurance to their employees. Another example, the 10 percent tanning tax, which he said is nearly exclusively applied to small businesses.So the overall story is much more of a problem for small firms than the Obama administration would suggest, Ellis said.Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, allowed that there have been targeted tax cuts for small businesses. But, he said, it's an error to just point to the number of tax cuts. You have to look at the overall impact and that certainly has been steep tax hikes.Dubay also noted that six of the 17 cuts were not just for small businesses but were made widely available to all businesses.Richard Morrison at the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group, said that nothing on (the White House list) stands out as egregiously unjustified from a fact-checking perspective. Some of them are temporary, and some arent targeted exclusively at small businesses, but that doesnt necessarily mean they shouldnt 'count' as far as the claim is concerned.We think there's room for critics to note that in addition to the 17 tax cuts enumerated by the White House, there are there are also some tax increases in the health care law that will fall on some of the same small business owners that got tax cuts. Some health care law tax increases won't go into effect for a couple years. And with some, like the excise taxes on tanning beds, one could argue it is a tax on the customer, not the small business.As for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, that's still just an Obama proposal; it hasn't happened. The only policy actually signed by the president so far was a compromise agreement that extended the tax cuts. On balance, we rated Wasserman Schultz's comment Mostly True. Because Obamas comment is substantially similar, we also rate his comment Mostly True.

Winston Churchill on Islam

["Rumor: Winston Churchill commented on the 'dreadful curses of Mohammedanism' in his 1899 book 'The River Wars.'"]

Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River War. An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan: He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in debt. He was a prophet in his own time; he died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a state funeral. How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries; improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, and the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. The above-quoted passage did appear in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the selection was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. While the one-volume abridged edition of The River War is still readily available, as of January 2015, the original two-volume 1899 version is much harder to find, a condition which may have led to confusion about the origins of the quote in question. However, the Churchill Centre has confirmed these words were indeed written by Winston Churchill. The passage as reproduced on the Internet typically incorporates one small omission, though: it elides Churchill's praise of "Moslems" as "brave and loyal soldiers" and covers the gap by combining the remaining part of the sentence with the previous one. Last updated: 8 January 2015.

['debt']

True

The above-quoted passage did appear in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the selection was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. While the one-volume abridged edition of The River War is still readily available, as of January 2015 the original two-volume 1899 version is much harder to find, a condition which may have led to confusion about the origins of the quote in question. However, the Churchill Centre has confirmed these words were indeed written by Winston Churchill.

No, Fox News Did Not Say Trump Vowed To Pardon Ghislaine Maxwell in 2024

["Left-wing critics of the former president enthusiastically shared weakly-sourced claims in light of Maxwell's conviction, in December 2021. "]

In late 2021 and early 2022, critics of former U.S. President Donald Trump, primarily from the left, enthusiastically shared a social media post that seemed to lend credibility to long-standing rumors about him. On Dec. 29, a jury in New York convicted English socialite Ghislaine Maxwell of assisting her longtime companion, the disgraced billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, in procuring underage girls for sexual abuse over many years. Epstein died in prison in August 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges, in what the New York City medical examiner determined was a suicide. Like other influential and well-connected politicians and businessmen, Trump knew and socialized with both Epstein and Maxwell, and he has long been the subject of unsubstantiated rumors of sexual impropriety involving young women and even girls. Against that background, @USAlight3, a Twitter account that regularly posts left-wing, anti-Trump content, wrote on Dec. 30: "FOX NEWS: Trump vowed to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell if he wins in 2024." The claim was that Fox News reported Trump had said he would pardon Maxwell if he were elected president again in 2024. In reality, Fox News had reported no such thing. Back in the summer of 2021, several outlets discussed a snippet from Michael Wolff's book "Landslide," which alleged, based on unnamed sources, that Trump had mentioned Maxwell in the context of conversations about his presidential pardon power before he left office in January 2021. Notably, Trump did not actually pardon Maxwell, even though the charges against her were well known by that time. By logical necessity, any "vow" by Trump to pardon Maxwell if he won the election in 2024 would have had to take place after President Joe Biden's election win in November 2020 (otherwise, Trump would have framed his intention in terms of a second term). We could find no such report on the Fox News website during the period since Biden's victory. Nor did we find any similar reports from any other reputable news source. So the "2024" claim, in particular, was baseless. However, although unproven, the broader allegation that Trump has held an interest in pardoning Maxwell was at least based on some external source, namely Michael Wolff's 2021 book "Landslide." In it, Wolff describes the chaotic final days and weeks of Trump's presidency, and in one section, writes about Trump's approach to issuing pardons as follows: Bored by the process and the details, Trump nevertheless, in the last week, would trawl for candidates, with sudden spurts of determination not to leave this power unused. "Who do you think should be pardoned? Give me one person, who's your top pick?" became a frequent conversational interruption. One "Oh, shit" moment involved his sudden interest in Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein, now facing years in prison over allegations of her role in the Epstein sex-abuse scandal. Trump had tried hard to downplay his own long relationship with Epstein. "Has she said anything about me?" he openly wondered. "Is she going to talk? Will she roll on anybody?" But pardon talk almost immediately segued to the question of whether he should pardon himself: "They say I can. Unlimited pardon power." Wolff's putative sources are unnamed, so we cannot even begin to test the accuracy of that description. However, one thing we do know for certain is that Trump did not actually pardon Maxwell of anything while he was president, despite having the power and opportunity to do so.

['interest']

False

On Dec. 29, a jury in New York convicted English socialite Ghislaine Maxwell of assisting her longtime companion, the disgraced billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, in procuring underage girls to be sexually abused, over a period of many years. Epstein died in prison in August 2019, while facing sex trafficking charges, in what the New York City medical examiner determined was a suicide. Like other influential and well-connected politicians and businessmen, Trump knew and socialized with both Epstein and Maxwell, and he has long been the subject of so-far unsubstantiated rumors of sexual impropriety involving young women and even girls. Against that background, @USAlight3, a Twitter account that regularly posts left-wing, anti-Trump content, wrote on Dec. 30:Back in the summer of 2021, several outlets wrote about a snippet from Michael Wolff's book "Landslide" which alleged, based on unnamed sources, that Trump had mentioned Maxwell in the context of conversations about his presidential pardon power, before he left office in January 2021. Notably, Trump did not actually pardon Maxwell, even though the charges against her were well known by that time. We are issuing a rating of "false."However, although unproven, the broader allegation that Trump has held an interest in pardoning Maxwell was at least based on some external source, namely Michael Wolff's 2021 book "Landslide." In it, Wolff describes the chaotic final days and weeks of Trump's presidency, and in one section, writes about Trump's approach to issuing pardons, as follows:Wolff's putative sources are unnamed, so we cannot even begin to test the accuracy of that description. However, one thing we do know for certain is that Trump did not actually pardon Maxwell of anything while he was president, despite having the power and opportunity to do so.

The Unexpected Inheritance

['Man inherits large sum after his friend lied about their identities during a one-night stand.']

Legend: Two men traveling together check into a country inn run by a relatively young widow. One of the men ends up spending the night with the widow, and to avoid any future entanglements he deceptively gives the widow his partner's name before departing the next morning. The man never tells his partner about the incident, and a year later the partner receives an unexpected letter from a lawyer, informing him that the widow has died and left him the inn and a sizeable chunk of money in her will, in remembrance of the wonderful night of pleasure he gave her. Example: [N Dhuibhne, 1983] Two men, John and Mick, went to Kilkenny for the day. Evening came and as they were enjoying themselves they decided they would put off the journey back to Dublin till the following day. They proposed to stay the night in the pleasant hotel they were in, which belonged to an attractive widow whom they were getting to know. They spent an enjoyable evening in the bar and made their way to their separate rooms. However, when all was quiet, Mick made his way to the widow's room and would have been seen, if there were anyone to see him, returning to his room in the early morning. When they were leaving the widow called Mick aside. "Now I know," says she, "that you have put your names in the register, but I just want to be sure who's who," taking out a notebook and pen. Mick, a quick thinker, gave John's name and address. Mick had forgotten all about Kilkenny until, nine months later, he had a telephone call from John, who seemed to be highly excited. "Hello! Hello! Is that Mick? Listen, do you remember that outing we had to Kilkenny? Hello! To Kilkenny, yes. Well, I don't know what to make of it. I've had a letter from a Kilkenny solicitor. Do you remember that nice widow whose hotel we stayed in? Well, the solicitor says she has died and left me the hotel and a lot of money as well. I don't understand it." Origins: As folklorist Jan Brunvand points out in The Choking Doberman, "fantasies of unlimited sex and of sexual favors granted with no strings attached" are often accompanied by twists of fate or poetic justice in modern legends. In this tale, the two elements blend neatly: a man needlessly lies about his identity to a woman he sleeps with in order to avoid possible future entanglements; as a result, his friend, not he, reaps the unexpected rewards. As for how old this legend is, its plot had been used so often by aspiring writers that it merited inclusion in a 1946 round-up of abused storylines: [Young, 1946] An attractive young fellow goes to Atlantic City, for a holiday. He meets a charming girl from Baltimore, and has an affair with her. He does not give her his right name instead, he gives her the name and address of one of his friends in New York City. When he leaves, the girl is in love with him, but to him the girl is just another girl. And he never, of course, hears from her. The girl returns to Baltimore. A short time later, she dies and leaves a large estate to the villain's friend. It also appeared the previous year in a humor collection: [Cert, 1945] Two friends motored home from a fishing trip in Maine. On a lonely country road they encountered engine trouble. Who answered their knock at the nearest farmhouse? Right! The farmer's beautiful daughter. She gave them dinner and let them stay overnight. Six months later one of the friends received an ominous-looking legal document. A frown disappeared as he read it, and then he phoned his fishing companion. "I say, Tom," he said. "Did you by any chance spend a little time with that beautiful farm girl the night our car broke down?" "Why, yes," answered Tom sheepishly. "And did you, in a moment of Machiavellian cunning, give her my name and address?" "Now, don't get sore about that," broke in Tom. "Where's your sense of humor?" "Oh, I'm not a bit sore," his friend assured him. "I just thought you'd like to know I heard from her lawyer. She died last week and left me the farm and $12,000 in cash." Last updated: 9 July 2007 Sources: Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Choking Doberman. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984. ISBN 0-393-30321-7 (p. 133). The Choking Doberman Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 127-128). The Mexican Pet Brunvand, Jan Harold. Too Good To Be . New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. ISBN 0-393-04734-2 (p. 88). Too Good To Be Cerf, Bennett. Laughing Stock. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1945 (pp.179-80). N Dhuibhne, ils. "Dublin Modern Legends: Intermediate Type List and Examples." Baloideas: The Journal of the Folklore of Ireland Society. Vol. 5; 1983 (pp. 55-70). O'Brien, Edna. "Hers." The New York Times. 26 September 1985 (p. C2). Young, James. 101 Plots Used and Abused. Boston: The Writer, Inc., 1946 (p. 20) Reader's Digest. "Laughter: The Best Medicine" August 1989 (p. 70). Also told in: Fiery, Ann. The Complete and Totally Book of Urban Legends. Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7624-107404 (pp. 98-102). The Complete and Totally Book of Urban Legends The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 122). The Big Book of Urban Legends

['returns']

True

Sources: Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Choking Doberman. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984. ISBN 0-393-30321-7 (p. 133). Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 127-128). Brunvand, Jan Harold. Too Good To Be . New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. ISBN 0-393-04734-2 (p. 88). Also told in: Fiery, Ann. The Complete and Totally Book of Urban Legends. Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7624-107404 (pp. 98-102). The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 122).

Has the CDC claimed that every individual entering a hospital is identified as a COVID-19 case?

['Some rumors about hospital practices during the 2020 pandemic proved almost too wild to be 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 hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians. promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000 an all-time high since the pandemic began. New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false.

['income']

False

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. As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate.One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money.Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators.The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response:U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000 an all-time high since the pandemic began. An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient.Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures.A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects.Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case.

Tiger Woods' New Yacht

["Photograph shows golfer Tiger Woods' new yacht."]

Claim: Photograph shows golfer Tiger Woods' new yacht. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Not many people know that Tiger Woods owns a yacht. Ever since the golfer Greg Norman got his big yacht, people around the world have marvelled at how big it is. Well, Tiger Woods earned a lot more money playing golf than Greg Norman, and he invested it in all the right places so he too could have a yacht. Recently, Tiger withdrew some of his money and bought a yacht. He had it decked out to his specifications, with all the things he wanted on a yacht. He secretly did all of this until the yacht was ready to set sail. A photographer on assignment to photograph sea turtles in the ocean happened upon the yacht during its initial shakedown cruise, and got the very first photo of Tiger Woods' yacht. This is Tiger's new yacht. Origins: The above-displayed picture of golfer "Tiger Woods' new yacht" is easily dismissable not just as a fake, but as a two-step manipulation: First the photograph of the aircraft carrier was layered with a lawn, golf hole, and clubhouse, then someone expanded on the joke by adding the golfer figure and the name "Tiger" across the bow: The interesting aspect lies not in the analysis of the image, but in why so many readers considered it plausible enough to forward to us for verification. Certainly one element at work here is that Tiger Woods' golfing prowess (in combination with his youth and good looks) has made him not only one of the most recognizable celebrities in the U.S. (and many other parts of the world), but also one of the highest-earning sports figures of his time. (In 2006, Forbes listed Tiger at #5 on its "Top 100 Celebrities" power rankings, estimating his income from tournament winnings and endorsements at $90 million.) Forbes The linkster also enhanced his reputation for big spending and extravagance in 2006 when he shelled out a reported $38 million to purchase a 10-acre waterfront estate in Jupiter Island, Florida. (Perhaps not coincidentally, it was right around then that photographs of an opulent Hawaiian beachfront rental estate began circulating via e-mail mistakenly identified as pictures of "Tiger Woods' house.") estate photographs Finally, many people who inquired about this image probably recalled Woods' name being associated with a big, expensive yacht, as Tiger plunked down a reported $20 million in 2004 to purchase a 155-foot craft. (Several news outlets also reported the somewhat amusing coincidence that Woods, who named his yacht Privacy, filed a privacy-rights lawsuit against the yacht's builders, claiming they used his name and image in promotional materials without authorization. The suit was settled in Woods' favor for a reported $1.6 million.) 155-foot lawsuit So, although we can say that Tiger Woods does not own a floating golf course the size of an aircraft carrier, we might just have to qualify that statement with the word "yet" ... Last updated: 24 April 2007 Sources: Samples, Eve. "Woods Pays Record $38M for Jupiter Island Property." The Palm Beach Post. 26 January 2006. Agence France-Presse. "Tiger Woods Buys $40 Million Estate." International Herald Tribune. 10 January 2006. Associated Press. "'Privacy' for Tiger: Woods Settles Yacht Suit." MSNBC.com. 8 May 2006.

['income']

False

time. (In 2006, Forbes listed Tiger at #5 on its "Top 100 Celebrities" power rankings, estimating his income from tournament winnings and endorsements at $90 million.) The linkster also enhanced his reputation for big spending and extravagance in 2006 when he shelled out a reported $38 million to purchase a 10-acre waterfront estate in Jupiter Island, Florida. (Perhaps not coincidentally, it was right around then that photographs of an opulent Hawaiian beachfront rental estate began circulating via e-mail mistakenly identified as pictures of "Tiger Woods' house.")Finally, many people who inquired about this image probably recalled Woods' name being associated with a big, expensive yacht, as Tiger plunked down a reported $20 million in 2004 to purchase a 155-foot craft. (Several news outlets also reported the somewhat amusing coincidence that Woods, who named his yacht Privacy, filed a privacy-rights lawsuit against the yacht's builders, claiming they used his name and image in promotional materials without authorization. The suit was settled in Woods' favor for a reported $1.6 million.)

351 Mass Shootings

['The claim that there were 350 mass shootings in the first 334 days of 2015 hinges upon a disputable definition of "mass shooting."']

Claim:A total of 351 mass shootings took place in the U.S. during the first 334 days of 2015. [dot-mixture][/dot-mixture] Example: [Collected via Twitter, November2015] Origins: On 2 December 2015, several publications reporting on a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, included a stat from the web site ShootingTracker.com about the number of mass shootings that had taken place in the U.S. so far in the calendar year 2015: several publications ShootingTracker.com The Post found that there had been 351 shootings in the 334 days of 2015. Wednesday's incident in California marks the 352nd mass shooting in the nation. For comparison, 2014 saw 336 mass shootings in the United States, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which the Post used in its report. Wednesday's shooting at the Inland Regional Center also comes just one day after the facility held its annual holiday party. The claim that there were 351 mass shootings in the first 334 days of 2015 hinges on the definition of mass shooting. While it might seem like a simple task to define "mass shooting," there really is no agreed upon definition. A 2013 congressional research service report defined a mass shooting as an incident involving four or more gun related deaths: report There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths not including the shooter(s) and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an endthe gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example. A 2014 study on mass shootings used the same criterion (four or more deaths), and the FBI employed the same standard in 2005 to define "mass murder." study standard ShootingTracker.com, however, is based upon a different definition of mass shooting, one that (in keeping with the literal meaning of "shooting") is based upon the total number of people shot (i.e., wounded or killed by gunfire) in a single incident rather than solely the number of victims killed: definition The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event. It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event. Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, "shooting" means "people shot". Brock Weller, one of the people responsible for maintaining the crowdsourced web site ShootingTracker.com, elaborated on thereason to use four people shot instead of four people killed as the primary criterion for defining an event as a "mass shooting": ShootingTracker.com "The goal is to stop minimizing these acts of violence," Wellerexplains.The site's authors point to a 2012 shooting in which one person was killed and 18 people were wounded at a nightclub. Because only one person died, it was not considered a mass shooting. This June, 10 people were shot at a block party on a basketball court in Detroit; the next day, 11 were wounded when two people opened fire with a shotgun at a block party in West Philadelphia. Neither were widely referred to as mass shootings. "Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd," the Tracker's founders write. Medical advancements have helped save lives that would have otherwise been lost, a fact Weller believes the gun lobby benefits from. "Those gunshot victims are still just as shot and will never be the same," hesays. ShootingTracker.com's definition of a mass shooting isn't "wrong" (as we noted previously, there is no universal criterion for what defines a mass shooting), but it may be misunderstood, as many people interpret the term "mass shooting" to mean an incident that results in multiple deaths. It should also be noted that GunViolenceArchive.org, another web site that tracks shootings across the United States, arrived at a slightly lower number of massshootings, 310, over the same time period. Mark Bryant, the executive director of GVA, explained that discrepancy comes from two factors: GVA relies ona dedicated staff of 14 researchers instead of crowd sourcing, and they employ a slightly different definition for mass shootings: GunViolenceArchive.org First, we do not rely on crowdsourcing which causes misreads and duplication. We have a staff of 14 researchers which go through 1500 media, police, coroner and aggregate sites every day. We put eyeballs on each incident to determine its qualifications, not just number. Second, we have a slightly different counting. We use the derived FBI definition of "Four or more shot and/or killed, not including the shooter at the same general time and location." From that we logically separate the victims from the perpetrator. Mass Shooting Tracker includes the perp as a victim when they are shot or killed. [Image Via GunViolenceArchive.org] GunViolenceArchive.org Last updated: 4 December 2015 Originally published: 2December 2015

['profit']

NEI

Example: [Collected via Twitter, November2015]Origins: On 2 December 2015, several publications reporting on a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, included a stat from the web site ShootingTracker.com about the number of mass shootings that had taken place in the U.S. so far in the calendar year 2015:The claim that there were 351 mass shootings in the first 334 days of 2015 hinges on the definition of mass shooting. While it might seem like a simple task to define "mass shooting," there really is no agreed upon definition. A 2013 congressional research service report defined a mass shooting as an incident involving four or more gun related deaths:A 2014 study on mass shootings used the same criterion (four or more deaths), and the FBI employed the same standard in 2005 to define "mass murder."ShootingTracker.com, however, is based upon a different definition of mass shooting, one that (in keeping with the literal meaning of "shooting") is based upon the total number of people shot (i.e., wounded or killed by gunfire) in a single incident rather than solely the number of victims killed:Brock Weller, one of the people responsible for maintaining the crowdsourced web site ShootingTracker.com, elaborated on thereason to use four people shot instead of four people killed as the primary criterion for defining an event as a "mass shooting":It should also be noted that GunViolenceArchive.org, another web site that tracks shootings across the United States, arrived at a slightly lower number of massshootings, 310, over the same time period. Mark Bryant, the executive director of GVA, explained that discrepancy comes from two factors: GVA relies ona dedicated staff of 14 researchers instead of crowd sourcing, and they employ a slightly different definition for mass shootings:[Image Via GunViolenceArchive.org]

I Aborted My Baby — Because It Was a Boy

['Rumor: A woman obtained a late-term abortion because she learned she was carrying a male fetus.']

Claim: A woman named Lana obtained a late-term abortion because she learned she was carrying a male fetus. PROBABLY Example: [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] This has been going viral in my Facebook feed lately, and some fairly reputable sources have started reporting on it, and I have been unable to verify any of the sources. The first time I saw it it was referenced in a scathing pro-life article that blanket stereotyped feminists based on it. The original article is very difficult to access from all the attention Could you please look into the validity of it? It has the air of being created for purely for shock value and attention, and for use with the purpose of supporting right wing politics. Origins: On 17 January 2015, the website Injustice Stories published an article purportedly article penned by a woman named Lana who claimed to have terminated her pregnancy at the five-month mark because she learned the fetus was male. Unnoticed at first, the claim about "Lana" and her questionable decision to obtain a late-term abortion achieved traction when sites such as Daily Caller and the Huffington Post published articles about it after taking the single-source story at face value (and apparently without any attempt at verification) in early February 2015. Daily Caller Huffington Post Both those publications' articles quoted portions of the original, which became increasingly difficult to access due to a traffic spike. Daily Caller paraphrased the original thusly: Lana, who only uses her first name, appears to be a child of privilege. She boasts of involvement in "fighting for women's rights" being all-consuming, "even to the point of eschewing a career." Yet that lack of a career hasn't stopped her from traveling to "many different places" to continue that "fight." She tells the story of a flight to an Occupy Wall Street event in San Francisco where she screamed "Assault" because the man sitting next to her said "B******* like you need to learn their place." Putting the unlikeliness of that exchange aside, Lana then demanded to be moved to another seat. That's when she was told the only empty seats were "both back in economy." At which point she demanded the man be moved. The encounter left her "having felt as though I had been verbally and emotionally raped." If the premise (which included an unemployed woman who traveled the world first class) didn't give one pause, the next portion might have. In the original post, the writer claimed she learned the sex of her unborn child via ultrasound, and after three days of soul searching opted to abort the pregnancy: By the third day, I started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn't bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. It didn't matter that I would be raising a son, he would still come into contact with boys, men, perhaps even the suit jockey who would inevitably twist his carefully constructed upbringing with their kindness. He would think "These men aren't so bad, why would mom say that they are holding me down?" Not all men are bad, my driver showed genuine concern for my well-being that day and I may have taken my anger out on him. That may have been uncalled for. But I knew what I had to do. A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body's betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn't see it that way. Missing from the account were any identifying details about the timeframe in which the purported abortion occurred, the general locality, or any other details or information regarding the procedure. In fact, the process of terminating a pregnancy after the twenty-week mark is far more complex and risky than a first-trimester abortion, and women who have experienced it are unlikely to describe it as "without a hitch." Inconsistencies aside, the site Injustice Stories was virtually unknown before the implausible story of Lana's abortion was published. That's probably because a domain lookup revealed the domain was registered on the same day Lana's story was posted. Furthermore, in order to read the entirety of the article, site visitors were forced to share the page on social media (which in turn boosted its visibility incrementally before it caught the eye of larger news sources). The tale's lack of plausibility, combined with the use of a brand-new site to publish it, indicated the account was likely a troll for pageviews, not a real-life account representing the sordid state of feminism. While many skeptical readers believed the hoax was aimed at promoting an anti-abortion agenda, it's also possible the site's purveyor fabricated the tale primarily to generate outrage-based clicks. Last updated: 10 February 2015

['economy']

NEI

Origins: On 17 January 2015, the website Injustice Stories published an article purportedly Unnoticed at first, the claim about "Lana" and her questionable decision to obtain a late-term abortion achieved traction when sites such as Daily Caller and the Huffington Post published articles about it after taking the single-source story at face value (and apparently without any attempt at verification) in early February 2015.

Says Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has deputies collecting overtime while sitting passively in chairs watching courthouse security personnel work.

[]

Milwaukee County SheriffDavid A. Clarke Jr.regularlyuses the mediato criticize other elected officials -- having, for example, accused Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele ofpenis envyand Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett of beingclueless. In contrast, Milwaukee County District AttorneyJohn Chisholmrarely engages in public political battles. So it was a surprise when Chisholm excoriated Clarkein a letteron June 2, 2014. Among other things, Chisholm said the Sheriff's Office was running a budget deficit partly because Clarke has deputies collecting overtime while sitting passively in chairs watching courthouse security personnel work. Chisholms charge seemed worthy of a look. The backdrop The district attorneys letter was in response toa letterhe and the countys chief judge received a few days earlier from Clarke. Clarke, in the wake ofa shootingof a 10-year-old Milwaukee girl, who was gravely wounded in the crossfire between two men on a playground, called for temporarily suspending plea bargaining and probation sentences for major crimes. For years, he wrote, the county's prosecutors and judges had engaged in soft-on-crime practices. Security checkpoints Security checkpoints for the county courthouse complex, which includes the Public Safety Building and the Criminal Justice Facility, are not the responsibility of the Sheriffs Office but rather the county Division of Facilities Management. In other words, county workers, not sheriffs deputies, check visitors and operate metal detectors at the various entrances to the complex. The security work is not part of the sheriffs budget. Clarke, however, has asserted his authority to help provide security. In March 2013,Clarke announcedthat during an integrity check, an undercover sheriff's deputy with a gun cleared security checkpoints at all six entrances into the county courthouse complex. He said that, as a result, he had ordered deputies posted at each security checkpoint in the complex until he is convinced weapons cannot get through. He said the staffing would be paid for with overtime. That staffing is continuing. When we checked the entrances one afternoon in June 2014, we found two county employees manning each checkpoint and a deputy nearby. At one checkpoint, we saw a deputy actively working the metal detector; but at the others, a deputy was only observing. Our colleagues who regularly visit the courthouse told us the same: usually they see deputies merely observing, but occasionally actively working a checkpoint. For his part, Clarke told us the deputies are not posted at the checkpoints to watch the screeners. The deputies are there to provide an armed presence for the protection of the public and employees, and to prevent and deter an armed person from getting into the building, he said in an email. The cost Theres no dispute that overtime pay is being used, at least in part, to pay deputies to work security checkpoints at the courthouse complex. But the amount is not clear. Based on overtime reports the Sheriffs Office submits to county officials, its not possible to tell how much in overtime pay is being spent on deputies working security checkpoints at the courthouse complex, said county Auditor Jerome Heer. Overall, the sheriffs overtime expenditures have gone over budget. In 2013, the Sheriffs Office spent $5.9 million for overtime, exceeding the $3.6 million overtime budget, Heer said. As of June 23, 2014, he said, overtime expenditures were $2.7 million, which is on pace to exceed the overtime budget of $4.1 million. Our rating Chisholm said Clarke has deputies collecting overtime while sitting passively in chairs watching courthouse security personnel work. Theres no dispute that part of the sheriffs overtime budget pays deputies to work security checkpoints at the courthouse complex. The deputies typically are observing visitors passing through the checkpoints, but sometimes get actively involved in screening them or monitoring metal detectors. We rate Chisholms statement Mostly True. To comment, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelwebsite.

['County Budget', 'County Government', 'Criminal Justice', 'Crime', 'Wisconsin']

True

Milwaukee County SheriffDavid A. Clarke Jr.regularlyuses the mediato criticize other elected officials -- having, for example, accused Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele ofpenis envyand Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett of beingclueless.In contrast, Milwaukee County District AttorneyJohn Chisholmrarely engages in public political battles.So it was a surprise when Chisholm excoriated Clarkein a letteron June 2, 2014.The district attorneys letter was in response toa letterhe and the countys chief judge received a few days earlier from Clarke.Clarke, in the wake ofa shootingof a 10-year-old Milwaukee girl, who was gravely wounded in the crossfire between two men on a playground, called for temporarily suspending plea bargaining and probation sentences for major crimes.In March 2013,Clarke announcedthat during an integrity check, an undercover sheriff's deputy with a gun cleared security checkpoints at all six entrances into the county courthouse complex. He said that, as a result, he had ordered deputies posted at each security checkpoint in the complex until he is convinced weapons cannot get through. He said the staffing would be paid for with overtime.To comment, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelwebsite.

China account(s) for 90 percent of North Korean trade.

[]

The Trump administration has cited China's trade relationship with North Korea as a key lever to deter the regime from producing a nuclear missile capable of striking the U.S. We must all do our share, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the U.N. Security Council April 28. But China, accounting for 90 percent of North Korean trade, China alone has economic leverage over Pyongyang that is unique, and its role is therefore particularly important. Tillersons remarks, which included a call for fresheconomic sanctions, came at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and North Korea. As aU.S. Navy strike groupsteamed toward the Korean Peninsula -- where28,500 American troopsstationed in South Korea are on alert following thelatest provocationsfrom Pyongyang -- President Donald Trump on April 27warnedof a possible major conflict if diplomatic efforts fail. Weve previouslylooked atTrumps claim about the degree of control Beijing wields over Pyongyang. With Tillerson citing Chinese-North Korean trade relations as a vital diplomatic pressure point, we decided to explore how much China accounts for North Koreas overall trade with the outside world. Finding accurate data for the secretive regime is a bit tricky since no North Korean equivalent of Trade.gov with troves of trade data exists, as Pyongyang treats this information as a state secret. But so-called mirror statistics, an accounting of data reconstructed from other countries reports, offer a workaround, albeit a flawed one, since the statistics dont capture some transactions. The available data tell a story of growing dependence on Chinese trade over roughly the past two decades as economic sanctions levied by the UN and individual countries, as well as other factors, have seen North Koreas trade with other partners fall drastically. In 2000, China, South Korea and Japan each accounted for about a fifth of the regime's overall trade, with the rest of the world making up the remaining roughly two-fifths. Since then, Chinas slice of the pie has more than quadrupled, according to Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. As sanctions have reduced South Korean and Japanese trade basically to nothing, trade has naturally become focused more on China, Haggard said. The rest of the world has not picked up the slack. Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics agreed that Chinas current position as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is largely a function of Pyongyangs strained relations with its neighbor to the south -- but he noted this could change if political winds shift. The reason that the percentage is so high is that South Korea, which was North Koreas second largest trade partner, imposed sanctions and trade between the two countries is virtually nil, Noland said. If South Korea were to resume trade relations (as it might in the next administration) Chinas share of North Korean trade would fall, but China would still be the countrys principal trade partner. Bilateral disputes led to Tokyo imposing sanctions that went even further than UN restrictions, said Haggard, who noted that the commercial risk associated with North Korea and its poor record on honoring property rights have also dissuaded potential trade partners. As South Korean and Japanese trade with Pyongyang fell, Chinas economy boomed, fueling increased trade with North Korea -- a relationship unfettered by bilateral sanctions, as Beijing has traditionally viewed the regime as an ally. China has also been accused of being less compliant with UN sanctions than other countries. As a result of these factors, the consensus among experts we spoke to is that China now accounts for roughly 90 percent of North Korean trade. Source: Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. UNSCR refers to United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Yes, China accounts for more than 90 percent of North Koreas recorded trade, Noland said. They are the primary supplier of oil and the marginal supplier of grain. If China wanted to, it could bring North Korea to its knees. It has the economic leverage, but has been unwilling to use it, perhaps because it fears destabilizing the regime, he added. Our ruling Tillerson said, China account(s) for 90 percent of North Korean trade. Chinas role as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is a relatively new development. Since 2000, trade with the rest of the world has dropped off, as Chinese trade has risen. While the ratio is subject to change based on political factors, China now accounts for around 90 percent of North Korean trade. We rate Tillersons statement True.

['National', 'China', 'Foreign Policy', 'Trade']

True

Tillersons remarks, which included a call for fresheconomic sanctions, came at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and North Korea.As aU.S. Navy strike groupsteamed toward the Korean Peninsula -- where28,500 American troopsstationed in South Korea are on alert following thelatest provocationsfrom Pyongyang -- President Donald Trump on April 27warnedof a possible major conflict if diplomatic efforts fail.Weve previouslylooked atTrumps claim about the degree of control Beijing wields over Pyongyang. With Tillerson citing Chinese-North Korean trade relations as a vital diplomatic pressure point, we decided to explore how much China accounts for North Koreas overall trade with the outside world.

Was there a report stating that Kurt Russell shared a poem expressing opposition to defunding the police?

['A poem titled "The Badge" circulated on social media in June 2020 following nationwide protests calling for the defunding of police. ']

Rumors surged in the wake of George Floyd's death and the resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. A widely circulated poem dedicated to the work of law enforcement was shared more than 125,000 times in late summer 2020 after the original user insinuated that actor Kurt Russell had shared it, along with his alleged opposition to defunding the police. "The Badge" went viral in the months following the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while in police custody. Protesters in the wake of Floyd's death called for the defunding of police in an effort to redirect funds to make law enforcement training more robust and to increase social services for communities that face a greater risk of police brutality and incarceration. We looked into the poem and found no evidence that Russell is connected to it in any way or that he had made political statements opposing the defunding of police. Russell is known for his distaste for social media and, despite dozens of fake profiles pretending to be the veteran actor, does not have verified accounts on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. In general, Russell is not active on social media and had not recently appeared in public making such declarations. In fact, since the poem's original posting in June 2020, the language and imagery shared alongside it underwent several changes that show the kind of manipulation a social media post may experience in a short amount of time. "The Badge," a poem that recognizes police officers and their efforts to help society, was originally credited to an anonymous source and was first posted to social media on June 7. It begins: "This badge ran towards certain death as the Towers collapsed on 9-11. This badge ran into the line of fire to save the people in the Pulse Night Club. This badge sheltered thousands as bullets rained down from the Mandalay Hotel in Las Vegas. This badge protected a BLM rally that left five officers dead in Dallas. This badge ran into the Sandy Hook School to stop a school shooter." The poem goes on to highlight other roles and responsibilities of law enforcement officers, including escorting the elderly across the street and helping to return crying children to their mothers. However, since it was originally shared on Facebook, the 22-line composition underwent several iterations. A second version of the poem surfaced in a post shared to the Victor Valley News Facebook page, a media outlet in Victorville, California, with an additional introduction that read: "Yes ... let's all join in the hatred of all police for the sins of a few. Let's defund one of the most important public institutions in our country's history. Let's have all badges removed and allow people to tend to their own safety and security." This wording appears to have originated in a blog post titled "In Honor of Uncle Bob Roberts Killed in the Line of Duty," posted on June 14 by a self-described entrepreneur. The post in question that Snopes readers asked us about added the above introduction, and in its most recent iteration, social media users included a headshot of Russell accompanied by the following: "Amazing Post!! Kurt Russell." The additional wording insinuated that the actor had an affiliation with the August 6, 2020 post. In less than a week, the post had been shared over 125,000 times on Facebook. The libertarian actor has been at the heart of several viral claims falsely linking him to supporting U.S. President Donald Trump, including a 2016 image that showed him and partner Goldie Hawn wearing photoshopped pro-Trump shirts. In 2018, a fake Twitter account using Russell's face as a profile picture incorrectly quoted the actor as having called Trump relentless, dedicated, and determined. The following year, a right-leaning Facebook page posted a meme that falsely insinuated Russell referred to Democrats as enemies of the state.

['funds']

False

Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here."The Badge" went viral in the months following the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while in police custody. Protesters in the wake of Floyds death called for the defunding of police in an effort to redirect funds to make law enforcement training more robust and increase social services for communities that face a greater risk of police brutality and incarceration.We looked into the poem and found no evidence Russell is connected to it in any way, or that he had made political statements opposing the defunding of police. Russell is known for his distaste of social media and, despite dozens of fake profiles pretending to be the veteran actor, does not have verified accounts on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. In general, Russell is not active on social media and had not recently appeared in public making such declarations.In fact, since the poem's original posting in June 2020, language and imagery shared alongside of it underwent several changes that show the kind of manipulation a social media post may experience in a short amount of time. "The Badge," a poem that recognizes police officers and their efforts to help society, was originally credited to an anonymous source and was first posted to social media on June 7. It begins:A second version of the poem surfaced in a post shared to the Victor Valley News Facebook page, a media outlet in Victorville, California, with an additional introduction that read:This wording above appears to have originated in a blog post titled, "In Honor of Uncle Bob Roberts Killed in the Line of Duty," posted on June 14 by a self-described entrepreneur.The post in question that Snopes readers asked us about added the above introduction and, in its most recent iteration, social media users included a headshot of Russell accompanied by the following: Amazing Post!! Kurt Russell. The additional wording insinuated that the actor had an affiliation with the Aug. 6, 2020 post. In less than a week, the post had been shared over 125,000 times on Facebook.The libertarian actor has been at the heart of several viral claims falsely linking him to supporting U.S. President Donald Trump, including a 2016 image that showed him and partner, Goldie Hawn, wearing photoshopped pro-Trump shirts. In 2018, a fake Twitter account using Russells face as a profile picture incorrectly quoted the actor as having called Trump relentless, dedicated, and determined. The following year, a right-leaning Facebook page posted a meme that falsely insinuated Russell referred to Democrats as enemies of the state.

Is This Katie McCormick's Gravestone from the 1870s?

["A young woman's death from a reported botched abortion in the late 1800s still resonates with many people today. "]

A photograph supposedly showing the gravestone of a woman named Kate McCormick, who passed away in the 1870s from a fatally botched abortion, has been circulating online for several years. In May 2019, the Facebook page "American News X" revived interest in the image, claiming it to be a genuine photograph of a tombstone marking the grave of a woman who died in the 1870s after stating she took abortion-inducing drugs. They asserted that many details of the inscription could be corroborated through contemporaneous news reports. However, it is important to note that while McCormick passed away in the 1870s, it wasn't until more than a century later, in 1997, that an anonymous donor placed the pictured gravestone at her final resting place. McCormick's story can be gleaned from various articles published by newspapers in Tennessee in 1876 concerning an inquiry into her death, the death of her child, and the doctor who was charged with (and ultimately acquitted of) providing her with abortion-inducing drugs. While these reports contained a fair amount of detail, such as eyewitness testimonies, a few facts of the case remain unclear. We have done our best to piece together the events that led to McCormick's death, the trial of the man who reportedly killed her, and the circumstances of her burial below. Katie's story starts in Humboldt, Tennessee, where she was seduced and impregnated by a shoemaker named George Burgess. After becoming pregnant, Burgess sent McCormick to Memphis to have the child, promising that he would soon follow to marry her. However, Burgess never came. In late January 1876, a stillborn child was discovered at what news accounts referred to as "Mrs. Widrig's boarding house." Police arrived and found that the child's mother, Kate Simpson (alias Kate McCormick), was also deathly ill. She passed away the following day. Dr. D.S. Johnson was arrested and indicted on three charges related to the deaths of McCormick and her child. The Memphis Public Ledger described the charges against Johnson in a 9 February 1876 article, stating that the doctor was indicted for administering "large quantities of deadly, dangerous, unwholesome, deleterious and pernicious pills, herbs, drugs, potions, teas, liquids, powders, and mixtures" with the intent of causing an abortion, for causing said abortion, and for "feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and with malice aforethought kill[ing] and murder[ing] the said Kate McCormick." A number of witnesses who were with McCormick in her final days provided testimony to authorities. Widrig, the woman who ran the boarding house where the bodies were discovered, told authorities that McCormick had paid Dr. Johnson $25 to terminate her pregnancy. A woman named Mollie Brown provided similar testimony, stating that Mrs. Widrig was sworn and said that the girl came to her house some time before Christmas but only stayed one night. She returned three weeks ago, and on Saturday night, or rather Sunday morning, she delivered a dead child. Dr. Johnson had been attending her, and her suspicions were aroused. She asked Katie to tell her the whole truth. On Sunday, Dr. Frayser had been sent to see Katie by Chief Athy and told her that the girl would die. This she told to Katie, who seemed much affected and made a confession. She said, "Mrs. Widrig, I think my time is short," and then added, "Dr. Johnson gave the medicine to destroy my child; tell Dr. Johnson that I promised not to deceive him or tell any person, but the time has come when I can keep the secret no longer; I paid Dr. Johnson twenty-five dollars for the medicine; he gave me the medicine some three weeks ago and said if it did not do its work in six days, it would be a failure; I took the medicine from Dr. Johnson to kill my child and paid him twenty-five dollars for it." Mollie Brown testified that Katie told her the night before that Dr. Johnson sent her medicine by express. She said she was satisfied she was going to die and that Dr. Johnson was the cause of it. Dr. Johnson's version of events differed. Johnson, as well as two other doctors who visited McCormick before her death, testified that McCormick had been treated only for diarrhea. Dr. Marable testified that on Sunday morning, he was called by Dr. Johnson to make a visit. He told me about the case and said he had prescribed for diarrhea. The treatment was correct as stated by Dr. Johnson. He said that he had discovered that she had a baby the night before, but that she was in danger of dying from the afterbirth. He attended to her immediately and gave her the necessary remedies to stop the flooding, which resulted successfully. The girl appeared very weak. Dr. Johnson and I went to see Chief Athy at once regarding the dead child, and at my instigation, Dr. Johnson called upon coroner Spelman to hold an inquest on the dead infant, which was held on Sunday. I advised Dr. Johnson on the necessary treatment to place the girl under with a view to her recovery. The girl had diarrhea, and I prescribed with Dr. Johnson for its treatment. The girl was nervous and troubled in mind; she said she was out of money and had no friends. Trouble of mind and excitement often cause abortions or miscarriages, and the greatest trouble physicians have in such cases is to keep the patients quiet. I think flooding and mental anxiety were the causes of her death. Johnson testified that three weeks ago, he first saw the deceased. She came to his office and told her story, wanting to hide her disgrace. He advised her not to commit abortion as it was against the law. He called to see her at Mrs. Widrig's boarding house and prescribed for diarrhea. On Sunday morning, he called and found that she had a miscarriage. He then called on Dr. Marable. The prescription given to her by him was acetate of lead and morphine. The girl seemed troubled and said she would sooner die than live; she expressed this both before and after the abortion had taken place. Johnson was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. The story of McCormick did not end with her death. While McCormick's mother traveled to Memphis after learning of her daughter's death, she left the city without making arrangements for burial. Similarly, Burgess, the man who reportedly impregnated McCormick, did not visit to view the body. A particularly depressing passage published by the Public Ledger on 4 February 1876 noted that McCormick's body was stored in a "pauper's coffin" in a stable that served as a morgue for the impoverished in Shelby County. The reporter who found McCormick's body sought to remedy the situation by obtaining the help of Capt. George W. Miller of the Cut Off Saloon. Miller agreed to finance a proper burial, and McCormick's body was taken to Elmwood Cemetery. McCormick was interred at Elmwood Cemetery sometime in 1876, but the gravestone shown above was not originally present at her final resting place. This tombstone was erected in 1997 and was paid for by an anonymous person who was apparently moved by McCormick's sad tale. The inscription on the stone reads: "Kate McCormick Seduced and pregnant by her father's friend, unwed, she died from abortion, her only choice. Abandoned in life and death by family. With but a single rose from her mother. Buried only through the kindness of unknown benefactors. Died Feb. 1875 age 21. Victim of an unforgiving society, Have mercy on us."

['finance']

True

A photograph supposedly showing the gravestone of a woman named Kate McCormick, who passed away in the 1870s from a fatally botched abortion, has been circulating online for several years. In May 2019, the Facebook page "American News X" revived interest in the image:Our one caveat with this Facebook post is the stated date for when the tombstone was erected. While McCormick passed away in the 1870s, it wasn't until more than a century after her death, in 1997, that an anonymous donor placed the pictured gravestone on her final resting place.Katie McCormick Page 1 Wed, Feb 2, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.comDr. D.S. Johnson was arrested and indicted on three charges related to the death of McCormick and her child. The Memphis Public Ledger described the charges against Johnson in a 9 February 1876 article, stating that the doctor was indicted for administrating "large quantities of deadly, dangerous, unwholesome, deleterious and penicious pills, herbs, drugs, potions, teas, liquids powders and mixtures" with the intent of causing an abortion, for causing said abortion, and for "feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditated and with malice aforethought kill[ing] and murder[ing] the said Kate McCormick."A number of witnesses who were with McCormick in her final days provided testimony to authorities. Widrig, the woman who ran the boarding house where the bodies were discovered, told authorities that McCormick had paid Dr. Johnson $25 to terminate her pregnancy. A woman named Mollie Brown provided similar testimony: Wed, Feb 2, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.comJohnson was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. Fri, Feb 4, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.com Fri, Feb 4, 1876 Page 3 Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) Newspapers.comMcCormick was interred at Elmwood Cemetery sometime in 1876, but the gravestone shown above was not originally present at her final resting place. This tombstone was erected in 1997 and was paid for by an anonymous person who was apparently moved by McCormick's sad tale.

Data that has been altered or distorted.

['']

FACT CHECK: Is President Obama compiling a "secret race database" comprised of "sensitive personal data"? Claim: President Obama is compiling a secret race database comprising Americans' sensitive personal data. False. WHAT'S EXTANT: Data collection methods used by agencies such as HUD track demographic patterns, including race and integration trends. WHAT'S /CONJECTURE: The Obama administration is collecting demographic data for a broader racial purpose; the practice is new, and the openly compiled data comprises a "secret race database." Example: [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, July 2015] According to an article in the New York Post, President Obama is collecting a nefarious "secret race database." How much of this is true, and how much is misleading hype? So who are the racists again? Obama is collecting personal data for a secret race database. Yes, Nick $earcy! (@yesnicksearcy) July 19, 2015. This is movie-level horror material, yet it's happening. It's real life. Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) July 19, 2015. I favor equal opportunity, not government forcing equal results. This is Affirmative Action on steroids: Senator Dick Black (@SenRichardBlack) July 19, 2015. Obama is collecting Americans' personal info for a secret race database. This makes my skin crawl. Alexis In NH (@AlexisinNH) July 18, 2015. Origins: On July 18, 2015, the New York Post published an article titled "Obama Collecting Personal Data for a Secret Race Database." The article made vague claims that President Obama (or agents of the government working on his behalf, described as "racial bean counters") had been quietly collecting sensitive personal data about American citizens for purposes of racial justice. Unbeknownst to most Americans, Obama's racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, and even how their kids are disciplined in school—all to document "inequalities" between minorities and whites. This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama is already using to make "disparate impact" cases against banks that don't make enough prime loans to minorities, schools that suspend too many black students, cities that don't offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities, and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds. The paper offered one example of the purported secret racial database's reach, pertaining to Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) data collection practices: The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every U.S. neighborhood by four racial groups—white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino—and publish geospatial data pinpointing racial imbalances. No explanatory links to this nefarious database were provided, but we managed to hack our way into the program to get the full scoop. Actually, we entered "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" into Google's search box and immediately found HUD's page explaining the program and its purposes. So secretive is this database that HUD has made numerous documents available describing its overall progress, including links to the Federal Register [PDF] and its most current Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy. A portion of that openly published documentation is described by HUD as "[updated data use methods] on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) [aim] to provide all HUD grantees with clear guidelines and the data that will help them achieve those goals": HUD's rule clarifies and simplifies existing fair housing obligations for HUD grantees to analyze their fair housing landscape and set locally determined fair housing priorities and goals through an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). To aid communities in this work, HUD will provide open data to grantees and the public on patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity. This improved approach provides a better mechanism for HUD grantees to build fair housing goals into their existing community development and housing planning processes. In addition to providing data and maps, HUD will also provide technical assistance to aid grantees as they adopt this approach. In short, HUD will be using extant data to identify areas in which fair housing laws may not be functionally applied. Similarly, the Federal Register's lengthy (public, easy to find) summary stated: Through this rule, HUD commits to provide states, local governments, public housing agencies (PHAs), the communities they serve, and the general public, to the fullest extent possible, with local and regional data on integrated and segregated living patterns, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, the location of certain publicly supported housing, access to opportunity afforded by key community assets, and disproportionate housing needs based on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. Through the availability of such data and available local knowledge, the approach provided by this rule is intended to make program participants better able to evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues such as segregation, conditions that restrict fair housing choice, and disparities in access to housing and opportunity, identify the factors that primarily contribute to the creation or perpetuation of fair housing issues, and establish fair housing priorities and goals. The New York Post cited another shadowy instance of "racial bean counting": Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially balancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores to employment records. Again, the National Mortgage Database was hidden in plain sight. In seconds on Google, intrepid searchers could locate the Federal Housing Finance Agency's page devoted to the National Mortgage Database (upon which no mentions of race or racial equality appeared): In 2012, FHFA began a major initiative to build a national mortgage database on first-lien single-family mortgages in existence any time from January 1998 forward. This project is being jointly funded and managed by FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The information will primarily be used to support the agencies' policy-making and research efforts and help regulators better understand emerging mortgage and housing market trends in this evolving and changing finance market. Like the AFFH, the National Mortgage Database was also buried deep in the annals of the publicly accessible and searchable Federal Register. From that point on, the Post's article primarily focused on purportedly nefarious and racially motivated actions by "Obama's brainchild," the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). (In actuality, the CFPB was primarily the "brainchild" of Elizabeth Warren and came into existence as part of Dodd-Frank related financial reforms.) The article claimed the CFPB was compiling separate databases for credit profiles and employment. We were able to locate a Government Accountability Office (GAO) document dated September 2014 [PDF] concerning the collection of credit data. However, no portion of that document mentioned race, and we were unable to locate any documents, articles, or other information relating to race-based initiatives and employment efforts undertaken by the CFPB as suggested by the New York Post's article. A final portion of the article claimed that the Department of Education was enforcing segregation by way of race-based data collection (implicitly, at the behest of President Obama). However, a (not secret) page on the U.S. Department of Education's website indicated that data collection of that description had been ongoing since at least 2000 (eight years before the election of Barack Obama to the presidency).

['asset']

False

So who are the racists again? Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database https://t.co/63VmYIXqNE via @nypost Yes, Nick $earcy! (@yesnicksearcy) July 19, 2015This is movie level horror material yet it's happening. It's real life. https://t.co/LxxvA7EpyE Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) July 19, 2015I favor equal opportunity, not govt forcing equal results. This is Affirmative Action on steroids: https://t.co/N3snUnie67 #WakeUpAmerica Senator Dick Black (@SenRichardBlack) July 19, 2015Obama collecting Americans' personal info for a secret race database https://t.co/1VNJqRsqQf This makes my skin crawl @RandPaul Alexis In NH (@AlexisinNH) July 18, 2015No explanatory links to this nefarious database were provided, but we managed to hack our way into the program to get the full scoop. Actually, we entered "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" into Google's search box and immediately found HUD's page explaining the program and its purposes.So secretive is this database that HUD has made numerous documents available describing its overall progress, including links to the Federal Register [PDF] and its most current Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy. (They even tried to bury it by issuing a press release about it.) A portion of that openly published, available for all to view documentation is described by HUD as "[updated data use methods] on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) [aim] to provide all HUD grantees with clear guidelines and the data that will help them to achieve those goals":Again, the National Mortgage Database was hidden in plain sight. In seconds on Google, intrepid searchers could locate the Federal Housing Finance Agency's page devoted to the National Mortgage Database (upon which no mentions of race or racial equality appeared):Like the AFFH, the National Mortgage Database was also buried deep in the annals of the publicly accessible and searchable Federal Register.From that point on, the Post's article primarily focused on purportedly nefarious and racially motivated actions by "Obama's brainchild," the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). (In actuality, the CFPB was primarily the "brainchild" of Elizabeth Warren and came into existence as part of Dodd-Frank related financial reforms.) The article claimed the CFPB was compiling separate databases for credit profiles and employment. We were able to locate a Government Accountability Office (GAO) document dated September 2014 [PDF] concerning collection of credit data. However, no portion of that document mentioned race, and we were unable to locate any documents, articles, or other information relating to race-based initiatives and employment efforts undertaken by the CFPB as suggested by the New York Post's article.A final portion of the article claimed that the Department of Education was enforcing segregation by way of race-based data collection (implicitly, at the behest of President Obama). However, a (not secret) page on the U.S. Department of Education's web site indicated that data collection of that description had been ongoing since at least 2000 (eight years before the election of Barack Obama to the presidency).

The state's transportation department is already burdened with a significant amount of debt, and it has made over $700 million in debt payments within the past two years.

[]

Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True.

['State Budget', 'Transportation', 'Missouri']

True

Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point.In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state.

When John Kasich became governor of Ohio, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus.

[]

Hoping to add some political muscle to Republican John Kasichs bid for the White House, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed the Ohio governor for president during a rally in Columbus this week. But did Schwarzenegger, a fellow Republican, bend the truth when he described Ohios financial turnaround under Kasich? In hisendorsement speech, Schwarzenegger called Kasich an action hero, saying that when Kasich became governor in 2011, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus. We decided to check that claim. Kasich has made similar statements throughout his campaign for president, and highlighted thisfiscal transformationon his website. I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus, Kasich said during the Republican presidential debate in Cleveland last year. The national PolitiFact team took adeeper lookat Kasichs claim last August. Its very similar to Schwarzeneggers claim. Heres what it found: An $8 billion hole? Theres an argument for $8 billion, but theres also an argument for something closer to $6 billion, according to adeep diveby the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2011. The $8 billion figure is rounded up from a $7.7 billion gap between spending and expected revenues. It was an initial estimate from January 2011, based on the assumption made several months earlier that there would be no new revenue growth. However, revenues did grow as the economy rebounded that year, reducing the gap to between $5.9 billion to $6.1 billion -- a calculation that Kasichs budget director, Tim Keen, agreed with conceptually in a 2011 interview, though he took issue with some of the methodological details. Whatever the number, Kasich avoided a potential misstep when he spoke of this as a hole rather than a deficit. Ohio, like most states, cannot run an actual budget deficit. The $8 billion gap is more accurately described as a projected shortfall rather than a deficit. Schwarzenegger used the term deficit, which we interpreted as a minor misstatement rather than an attempt to deceive. A $2 billion surplus? This figure is clearer. Ohios Office of Budget and Managementreportedin July 2015 that the states rainy day fund had a little more than $2 billion in it, up from effectively zero when Kasich took office in 2011. The surplus remained above $2 billion this week, said a spokesman for the budget office. Does Kasich deserve credit? Its not unreasonable to give Kasich some credit for the states improving economic fortunes -- he is a governor, after all, and he forged the states fiscal policy in concert with the Legislature. Schwarzeneggers claim strongly implies Kasich played a central role in the turnaround, though it doesnt explicitly link the two together. But its important to remember that Kasich took office at the very beginning of the national economic recovery, and as the national economy has improved, so has Ohios. When Kasich was inaugurated in January 2011, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 9.2 percent -- exactly the same as the national rate.As of December, the national unemployment rate was 5 percent and the rate in Ohio was 4.8 percent. So Kasichs timing has been fortunate. Our ruling In his endorsement speech, Schwarzenegger said that when Kasich became governor, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus. Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus. Its possible to argue over whether the starting point should be $6 billion rather than $8 billion. But Kasich and Schwarzenegger didnt pull that figure out of thin air, though it certainly was high by historical standards. Kasich also used the term hole, which is more appropriate than deficit. Meanwhile, the $2 billion figure seems solid. Still, its worth noting that Kasich spoke a little grandly when he said that I did it, since the states fiscal improvement got a big assist from the national economic recovery. The statements are accurate but need additional information, so we rate them Mostly True.

['Economy', 'California']

True

In hisendorsement speech, Schwarzenegger called Kasich an action hero, saying that when Kasich became governor in 2011, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus.We decided to check that claim. Kasich has made similar statements throughout his campaign for president, and highlighted thisfiscal transformationon his website.The national PolitiFact team took adeeper lookat Kasichs claim last August.Theres an argument for $8 billion, but theres also an argument for something closer to $6 billion, according to adeep diveby the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2011.This figure is clearer. Ohios Office of Budget and Managementreportedin July 2015 that the states rainy day fund had a little more than $2 billion in it, up from effectively zero when Kasich took office in 2011. The surplus remained above $2 billion this week, said a spokesman for the budget office.

Chuck Green: Obama Is a Victim of Bush's Failed Promises

["Chuck Green penned a column about Barack Obama's being a 'victim of Bush's failed promises'?"]

Claim: Chuck Green penned a column about Barack Obama's being a "victim of Bush's failed promises." CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Green, February 2010] Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office. Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever. Wow. Talk about change. Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nations most inspiring political campaigns, the election of Americas first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis. Of course, they dont see it as self imposed. Its all George Bushs fault. George Bush, who doesnt have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all. [Rest of article here] here Origins: Chuck Green is a veteran Colorado journalist who served as editor-in-chief of the Denver Post and now writes a column which is syndicated in newspapers throughout Colorado. The column referenced above, entitled "Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises," was penned by Green and published in the Aurora Sentinel on 7 February 2010. Last updated: 12 May 2010

['budget']

False

[Rest of article here]

Charles Krauthammer's perspective on President Obama

["Message summarizes Charles Krauthammer's talk at the Center of the American Experiment?"]

A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer and listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he shares here is not second-hand but first-hand. You would do well to read this and pass it along to everyone who loves their country. This is very serious for the direction of our nation, and the ramifications are staggering for us and our children. To my friends and associates: Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak at the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual—seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, never resorting to emotions or personal insults. He is not a fearmonger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative and has a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you, and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even two Democrats at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open-minded and have not "drunk the Kool-Aid," feel free. A summary of his comments: 1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual who should not be underestimated. He is a "cool customer" who doesn't show his emotions, making it hard to know what is "behind the mask." Taking down the Clinton dynasty as a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment; the Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time. 2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he says; rather, watch what he does! 3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something of himself but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He cannot be straightforward about his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand and wants to "level the playing field" through income redistribution and punishment of society's achievers. He would like to model the USA after Great Britain or Canada. 4. His three main goals are to control energy, public education, and national healthcare through the federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for free college education is his goal. Most concerning is his healthcare program; if you make it free and add 46 million people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, costs will skyrocket. The only way to control costs is through massive rationing of services, as seen in Canada. God forbid. 5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store, yet they will try to manage the auto, financial, banking, and other industries. This obviously cannot work in the long run. Obama's not a socialist; rather, he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says. 6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States but more as a ruler over the world. He views himself as above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he perceives America—as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has made errors at times. This is the first president ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies! 7. He is now handing out goodies, hoping that the bill (and pain) will not "come due" until after he's reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past and, hopefully, his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. 8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while but will emerge strong. We are "pining" for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent but needs to seriously bone up on facts and information if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states' rights. 9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we do not have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression, or worse. No country has ever spent itself into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid, and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually, the bill will come due, and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions, and Congress to placate the left so he can get support for the aforementioned goals. 10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman Brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular president, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of "change" caused people to act emotionally. Any Democrat would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was. 11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it is under 8%, the Democrats will continue to roll. If it is between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what is happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we are right on most issues and can reclaim our country before it is far too late.

['taxes']

NEI

Origins: Dr. Charles Krauthammer is a political commentator and syndicated newspaper columnist whose work earned a Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary in 1987. The article quoted above supposedly provides a second-hand accounting of the substance of remarks Dr. Krauthammer made regarding President Obama during a 1 June 2009 talk at the Annual Dinner of the Center of the American Experiment.No transcript or recording of Dr. Krauthammer's remarks on that occasion is available to compare against the above-quoted summary, as Dr. Krauthammer "does not disseminate comments made at private events," so it's difficult to objectively determine how much of the e-mailed account conforms to what Krauthammer actually said and how much of the account reflects the subjective viewpoint of its anonymous author. Dr. Krauthammer himself said, in a statement posted to the Center of the American Experiment's web site, that:Obama: The Grand Strategy April 24, 2009The Sting, In Four Parts April 17, 2009Obamas Ultimate Agenda April 3, 2009The Great Non Sequitur March 6, 2009 The Obamaist Manifesto February 27, 2009

Is This 'Chemistree' Picture Real?

['Oh chemistree, oh chemistree, how organic are your branches?']

In December 2020, a picture of a seemingly oddly shaped branch was widely circulated on social media along with the punny title "chemistree." Many viewers appeared skeptical that this was a genuine photograph. For starters, one of the earliest and most popular postings of this image was shared to r/LSD, a section of Reddit dedicated to the hallucinogenic drug Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, along with comments about how the branch resembled the chemical structure of the drug. This, in turn, led some to believe that the picture of the branch had been edited to better resemble the chemical structure of LSD. Other social media users seemed to think that the hexagonal shapes of this branch were too unnatural to be real. As the image started circulating under the punny "chemistree" title, it appeared once again that this picture was digitally edited with the intent of scoring internet points. We have not been able to source this particular image, but we don't see any reason to believe that this "chemistree" was photoshopped. In fact, this branch doesn't seem all that unusual. Hexagons may have the appearance of being humanmade, but these six-sided shapes are widely found throughout nature, such as in the honeycomb of a beehive or the symmetrical shape of a snowflake. Several plants can also grow in seemingly oddly shaped formations. We reached out to the U.S. National Arboretum for help identifying this branch. While we haven't been able to identify this tree species with absolute certainty yet, we have come across a few likely contenders. The Sophora prostrata, or dwarf kowhai, for instance, has angular branches similar to the ones in the above-displayed picture. Before we show you an image of the dwarf kowhai, it should also be noted that the lighting in the viral picture makes it difficult to discern any depth. This branch appears, more or less, to be two-dimensional, with all of the branches moving at angles equidistant to the camera. In reality, however, it's likely that the branches' offshoots are moving slightly toward and away from the camera. In July 2020, the non-profit organization Trees For Canterbury shared an image showing a branch of this "little twister." Here's another picture of the dwarf kowhai. While the branch in the viral "chemistree" picture may belong to a dwarf kowhai, this tree is native to New Zealand. If this picture was snapped in the United States, it's possible that it shows a spiny black olive (Bucida spinosa), a tree that grows in warmer climates, like the Caribbean, Hawaii, or Florida. Here's an eerily similar photograph of a spiny black olive tree branch that was posted to Flickr by Jenny Evans in 2008. While we have not been able to positively identify the "chemistree" branch, it isn't out of the ordinary for trees and plants to have angular branches. The viral picture most likely shows a poorly lit photo of a spiny black olive (Bucida spinosa) tree.

['profit']

NEI

Many viewers appeared skeptical that this was a genuine photograph. For starters, one of the earliest and most popular postings of this image was shared to r/LSD, a section of Reddit dedicated to the hallucinogenic drug Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, along with comments about how the branch resembled the chemical structure of the drug. This, in turn, led some to believe that the picture of the branch had been edited to better resemble the chemical structure of LSD:We have not been able to source this particular image, but we don't see any reason to believe that this "chemistree" was photoshopped. In fact, this branch doesn't seem all that unusual. Hexagons may have the appearance of being humanmade, but these six-sided shapes are widely found throughout nature, such as in the honeycomb of a beehive or the symmetrical shape of a snowflake. Several plants can also grow in seemingly oddly shaped formations. Before we show you an image of the dwarf kowhai, it should also be noted that the lighting in the viral picture makes it difficult to discern any depth. This branch appears, more or less, to be two-dimensional, with all of the branches moving at angles equidistant to the camera. In reality, however, it's likely that the branches' offshoots are moving slightly toward and away from the camera. In July 2020, the non-profit organization Trees For Canterbury, shared an image showing a branch of this "little twister" :While the branch in the viral "chemistree" picture may belong to a dwarf kowhai, this tree is native to New Zealand. If this picture was snapped in the United States, it's possible that it shows a spiny black olive (Bucida spinosa), a tree that grows in warmer climates, like the Caribbean, Hawaii, or Florida. Here's an eerily similar photograph of a spiny black olive tree branch that was posted to Flickr by Jenny Evans in 2008:

What occurs when you illegally cross the border of the United States?

['A viral Facebook post comparing U.S. immigration policy to that of North Korea and Afghanistan gets most of the facts wrong.']

A nine-year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration experienced a resurgence in early 2018, likely due to ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats regarding the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009 and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements and omits the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation. Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally). Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) that allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. An immigrant who does not have legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income, and property taxes. Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant). Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accommodation and domestic violence shelters. It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage. Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care. According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes. It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant taxpayers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit. Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education based on their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program. Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia, and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships. This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level that grants them any kind of "tax holiday."

['mortgage']

False

The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this:Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.)Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014.This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations.An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.)It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage. Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them.However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care. According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes. It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit. Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women.In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children.While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program. Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships. This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday."

Is This 'Keke Challenge Gone Wrong' Video Real?

['A video purportedly captures a young woman being struck by an automobile while performing the "Keke Challenge."']

A new internet craze flared up in the summer of 2018, which featured musicians, actors, celebrities and social media users filming themselves dancing to the Drake song "In My Feelings." These videos were often shared with tags such as #InMyFeelingsChallenge, #dotheshiggy (after Instagram comedian Shiggy, who started the challenge) and #kekechallenge (named after the romantic interest in the song). While many of these videos were entertaining (check out Will Smith dancing on top of a bridge), in at least one of them, according to the Internet, a Keke Challenger experienced a tragic and potentially fatal turn as she was struck by an automobile in the act: Instagram dancing Fortunately, this video does not capture a woman actually being hit by a car while performing the Keke challenge. This video was originally posted to Instagram by user @lofi3D on 21 July 2018. However, many viewers encountered this video on YouTube or other social media platforms, where it was presented without that post's disclaimer stating that the video was "NOT REAL" and that the footage had been edited. posted The woman in the video is Instagram user Kari Miller, who also shared the video to her page along with a disclaimer noting that it had been edited by @lofi3D and reassuring everyone that "I'll be ok": shared Here's the original version of the "Keke Challenge gone wrong" video: A post shared by lofi3d (@lofi3d) on Jul 20, 2018 at 5:09pm PDT A post shared by lofi3d (@lofi3d) Mamo, Heran. "Drake's 'In My Feelings' Challenge Has Spawned More Than 2.3 Million Tweets." Billboard. 12 July 2018.

['interest']

False

A new internet craze flared up in the summer of 2018, which featured musicians, actors, celebrities and social media users filming themselves dancing to the Drake song "In My Feelings." These videos were often shared with tags such as #InMyFeelingsChallenge, #dotheshiggy (after Instagram comedian Shiggy, who started the challenge) and #kekechallenge (named after the romantic interest in the song). While many of these videos were entertaining (check out Will Smith dancing on top of a bridge), in at least one of them, according to the Internet, a Keke Challenger experienced a tragic and potentially fatal turn as she was struck by an automobile in the act:This video was originally posted to Instagram by user @lofi3D on 21 July 2018. However, many viewers encountered this video on YouTube or other social media platforms, where it was presented without that post's disclaimer stating that the video was "NOT REAL" and that the footage had been edited.The woman in the video is Instagram user Kari Miller, who also shared the video to her page along with a disclaimer noting that it had been edited by @lofi3D and reassuring everyone that "I'll be ok":A post shared by lofi3d (@lofi3d) on Jul 20, 2018 at 5:09pm PDT

Has Warrick Dunn constructed over 145 houses for single parents?

['If you are going to live in this community, you want to be a part of this community and give back.']

Warrick Dunn, who played 12 seasons in the NFL as a running back for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Atlanta Falcons, has been supporting single-parent families since his 1997 rookie season, when he started the Homes for the Holidays program to provide economically disadvantaged single parents and their children with comprehensive programming for first-time homeownership. In September 2018, the former NFL player's charitable efforts, along with a few facts about his upbringing and the death of his mother, were distilled into a meme that spread via social media. This meme, for the most part, provided accurate information about Warrick Dunn and his charitable efforts. Dunn's mother, Betty Dunn Smothers, was a police officer in Baton Rouge who was killed in 1993 while working a second job as a security guard. Corporal Betty Smothers was shot and killed in an ambush attack while moonlighting as a security guard. She was in uniform and driving a marked patrol car when she and the store manager went to a bank to make a night deposit. As they sat in the patrol car, three suspects approached and opened fire, fatally wounding Corporal Smothers and injuring the manager. All three suspects were arrested after the incident and sentenced to death for Corporal Smothers' murder. Corporal Smothers had been employed with the Baton Rouge City Police Department for 14 years and is survived by her two daughters and four sons. Smothers' passing came just a few days before Dunn's 18th birthday and a month before he committed to playing college football at Florida State University (FSU). He was the eldest of Smothers' children, and by most accounts, he assumed a father-figure role in the lives of his five younger siblings. Here's how the Los Angeles Times described Dunn and his siblings in a December 1994 article headlined "Turning His Grief to Good: Florida State Running Back Warrick Dunn Sets an Example for All": "Derek is doing well at Catholic High. Travis is fast, and Bryson is small, but he's growing. Summer and Samantha are running track and doing well in school." You listen to Warrick Dunn and hear a proud father talking about his children. And then you realize that Dunn is only 19. Still, he's in charge of his brothers and sisters, ages 11-17, now that Betty is gone. She was his best friend, a mother who worked two jobs, 16 hours a day, to keep the family together and to provide a few of the things that make being a kid a little more fun. If there's anything harder than a teenager being asked to go to the hospital in a police car, identify his mother, and then go home to tell his brothers and sisters what happened, he doesn't want to know about it. It was Dunn, handling things as he always had, the father figure, but now without a mother. "I never really had a childhood," he says. "I've never been able to go out and just go crazy, like most kids, because I grew up staying in the house a lot, babysitting." Dunn graduated from FSU and was selected in the first round of the 1997 NFL draft by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The rookie running back was challenged by head coach Tony Dungy to give back to the community during his time in Florida, and so Dunn decided to start the "Homes for the Holidays" program to help provide homes to single-parent families in honor of his late mother. The program managed to house three families during its first year. By 2018, that number had grown to 159. "My rookie year in the NFL, in Tampa, I was challenged by coach [Tony] Dungy," Dunn said. "He told us, 'If you are going to live in this community, you want to be a part of this community and give back.' From that challenge, I thought about my mom and her dream of homeownership, and that's how it all started. We did three homes in 1997, and now we're up to 159. I grew up in a situation where we needed a lot of support. I lost my mom at 18. Single mom, six kids, and a Baton Rouge police officer. She was gunned down by armed robbers at a bank. When she lost her life, the city of Baton Rouge started a fund for us. And that's how we were able to survive and pay bills. And when I saw that from the city, that really helped me understand what it means to care about your neighbor and to give back and support. I just think now I have been driven for so many years—this is part of who I am, to want to see people smile and help anyone that I can possibly help." Our only quibble with this meme is the statement that Dunn "built and paid for over 145 houses for single mothers." While the former NFL quarterback has certainly donated plenty of time, money, and effort to his charitable endeavors, he did not single-handedly build and pay for all these homes. Dunn's non-profit, Warrick Dunn Charities, partners with other non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity to build homes for disadvantaged families. Even in retirement, Dunn and his Warrick Dunn Charities are still partnering with Habitat for Humanity to build homes for disadvantaged families across the United States. In December, Dunn and Habitat combined to build homes number 158 (in Detroit) and 159 (in Atlanta) and place two families in them before the holidays, furnished, as Dunn likes to say, all the way down to the toothbrushes in the bathroom. Dunn's charity provides a down payment for the home, completely furnishes it, and offers other services such as financial literacy programs to assist single parents as they become first-time homeowners. Warrick Dunn Charities was created from the belief that a better future starts with hope. We are dedicated to strengthening and transforming communities by combating poverty, hunger, and improving the quality of life for families and children. We help families thrive academically, socially, and economically. Warrick Dunn Charities, a 501(c)(3) recognized nonprofit, has helped single parents and children thrive academically, socially, and economically. The organization has awarded millions in home furnishings, food, and other donations to single-parent families and children across the nation to combat poverty, hunger, and ensure families have comfortable surroundings and basic necessities to improve their quality of life. This meme's popularity in September 2018 was likely connected to a controversy surrounding another former NFL player: Colin Kaepernick. A number of social media users shared this meme along with messages stating that Nike should have used Dunn, not Kaepernick, in their latest commercial. This meme misleadingly suggests that Colin Kaepernick has not similarly sacrificed by using his own money for charitable endeavors. However, in January 2018, Kaepernick completed his pledge to donate a total of $1 million to charity over eighteen months, with a list of all the organizations he donated to viewable here. Dunn himself praised Nike's latest advertising campaign for raising Kaepernick's profile as the latter drove the conversation about social justice. "I think it's a brilliant campaign," Dunn said. "They just raised his profile because Kaepernick, the last couple of years, has been the face of this movement of social justice." To be the first guy to come out and really talk about the issues that black kids and black men are being shot and killed, I commend him," Dunn said in a CNN interview. When asked if he thought Nike's stance to create the campaign was a financial or moral decision, Dunn cited the latter. "It's a moral decision. It can't be about finances," Dunn said. "I think overall they (Nike) understand the issues. A lot of their star athlete spokesmen are African American. They have a lot of that demographic, so I think it's important they really go after the issues and not necessarily things that are financial."

['profit']

True

Warrick Dunnm who played 12 seasons in the NFL as a running back for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Atlanta Falcons, has been supporting single-parent families since his 1997 rookie season, when he started the Homes for the Holidays program to provide economically-disadvantaged single parents and their children with comprehensive programming for first-time homeownership. Dunn's mother, Betty Dunn Smothers, was a police officer in Baton Rouge who was killed in 1993 while working a second job as a security guard:The program managed to house three families during its first year. By 2018, that number had grown to 159:Our only quibble with this meme is the statement that Dunn "built and paid for over 145 houses for single mothers." While the former NFL quarterback has certainly donated plenty of time, money, and effort into his charitable endeavors, he did not single-handedly build and pay for all these homes. Dunn's non-profit, Warrick Dunn Charities, partners with other non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity to build homes for disadvantaged families:Dunn's charity provides a down payment for the home, completely furnishes it, and provides other services such as financial literacy program in order to assist single parents as they become first time homeowners:This meme's popularity in September 2018 was likely connected to a controversy surrounding another former NFL player: Colin Kaepernick. A number of social media users shared this meme along with messages stating that Nike should have used Dunn, not Kaepernick, in their latest commercial:This meme misleadingly suggests that Colin Kaepernick has not similarly sacrificed by using his own money for charitable endeavors. However, in January 2018 Kaepernick completed his pledge to donate a total of $1 million to charity over eighteen months, with a list of all the organizations he donated to viewable here. And Dunn himself praised Nike's latest advertising campaign for raising Kaepernick's profile as the latter drove the conversation about social justice:

Did Trump Defense Secretary 'Disarm' DC National Guard Before Insurrection?

['The claim stemmed from a Jan. 4 memo authored by former acting Defense Security Christopher Miller.']

After the U.S. Capitol insurrection in January 2021, Snopes readers asked about the legitimacy of a viral document that left-leaning websites framed as an attempt by a member of former President Donald Trump's cabinet to suppress the ability of National Guard forces to provide law enforcement during the gathering of Trump supporters rallying to try to overturn the 2020 election. left-leaning websites 2020 election For example, the Daily Kos, a self-described online hub of progressive media and activism, reported on Jan. 29: online hub [On. Jan. 4], former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller issued a memo to the secretary of the Army placing some extremely unusual limits on National Guard forces for that event. Its not a to-do list. Its a list of thou shalt nots. A long list. A list that says guard forces cant arrest any of the pro-Trump protesters, or search them, or even touch them. And thats just for starters. [...] Its clear that these restrictions would have absolutely prevented any guard forces from trying to protect any location. A website called "The National Memo" republished the body of the Daily Kos' story verbatim, under a new headline: "Trump Defense Secretary Disarmed D.C. National Guard Before Capitol Riot." The National Memo Before we directly address the claim, let us unpack the basis of the above-mentioned articles. The Daily Kos' original story included a hyperlink to an authentic tweet by New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater on Jan. 28. tweet The reporter's tweet included a digital image of what appeared to be a Jan. 4 memo to former Army secretary Ryan McCarthy and signed by Miller whom Trump appointed as acting Pentagon chief in November 2020, just days after President Joe Biden was announced the winner of the election. Ryan McCarthy November 2020 was announced In early February, we reached out to Broadwater to learn where, how, or under what circumstances he obtained the document. He told us "it was a leak," or that an anonymous person or group within government or law-enforcement released the document to The New York Times. While no evidence exists to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the document displayed in the tweet, we sought to independently verify its authenticity. Citing the Freedom of Information Act, Snopes submitted multiple requests for a copy of the Jan. 4 record from various record-keeping centers within federal government. Freedom of Information Act On March 3, the U.S. Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee fulfilled our request after its chair, Sen. Gary Peters, entered Miller's memo into the committee's public database of records. Committee spokespeople emailed us copies the document that indeed imposed restrictions on the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) during planned demonstrations by Trump supporters in the coming days. It read, in part: planned demonstrations Without my subsequent, personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following: You may employ the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort and in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. If the QRF is so employed, DCNG personnel will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law enforcement personnel, and you will notify me immediately upon your authorization. The document written by the Trump appointee did not order any person or entity to take away weapons from Guard members. Rather, it required McCarthy, who oversees the DCNG, to request approval from the defense secretary in order for Guard members to use weapons, helmets, body armor or riot control agents as well as to share equipment with other law-enforcement agencies during the preplanned gatherings of Trump supporters on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6. Rewind a few days, and, according to the Department of Defense, D.C. officials requested that the district's Metropolitan Police department not a federal agency lead security efforts during the pro-Trump events, which were widely marketed as gatherings of Trump supporters to try to send a message to Congress to halt a ceremonial vote affirming Biden's win. Department of Defense A Jan. 5 document signed by McCarthy and obtained by Snopes (displayed below) showed the Pentagon ultimately fulfilled that request, saying that its troops would provide support for the district police department or Capitol Hill Police, should they need it. Some 340 Guard members were planning to control crowds at metro stations and enforce street closures during the events, and a "Quick Reaction Force" comprised of 40 Guard officers was standing by, no matter what. "DCNG Soldiers will store their helmets and body armor within vehicles or buildings in close proximity to their positions," McCarthy's memo read. "In the event of an elevation of the threat requiring immediate donning of this equipment for self-defense, DCNG leadership will immediately notify the Secretary of Army." https://www.scribd.com/document/497258792/Secretary-of-the-Army-Memorandum#fullscreen=1 That decision by the Department of Defense, as well as the request for autonomy from D.C. officials, followed the Guard's controversial response to protests against police violence following George Floyd's death in summer 2020. Politico reported: George Floyd's death reported: While some of the early protests did include looting and damages to local businesses, [D.C. Mayor Muriel] Bowser never called in the National Guard. Against the mayor's wishes, Trump ordered Guard personnel to the city, where the military faced backlash for using overly aggressive crowd control tactics against peaceful protesters, including flying helicopters low over the city to create rotor wash, an action used in overseas conflicts. Any time we would employ troops and guardsmen in the city, you had to go through a rigorous process. As you recall, there were events in the summer that got a lot of attention, and that was part of this," William J. Walker, the DCNG's commanding general, said in an interview with The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Walker was referring to the guidelines (like those in the Jan. 4 and Jan. 5 memos) that required the highest-level approval for the Guard to fully launch into law-enforcement mode. As a result of such restrictions, Walker told The Washington Post that when he received a panicked phone call from Capitol Hill Police about the extremists preparing to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 (which occurred around 1:50 p.m., per the defense department's timeline) he could not immediately deploy Guard members to help. He instead needed to wait for approval from McCarthy, who then waited for an answer from Miller. The Washington Post department's timeline At 3 p.m, Miller approved full activation of the DCNG (1,100 members) to help district and Capitol Hill police and directed those troops to secure the Capitol, the department's timeline showed. the department's timeline showed (See here for our fact check into a separate claim that the Department of Defense initially denied a request by D.C. officials to deploy the Guard.) here In sum, it was true that Miller issued a Jan. 4 memo requiring Guard leaders to seek prior approval before using weapons during the pro-Trump protests. However, it was an inaccurate portrayal of that order to claim that the Trump appointee "disarmed" or took weapons away from Guard members before the demonstrations, like The National Memo alleged. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of false and true information. This report was updated after Snopes obtained a copy of Miller's Jan. 4 memo. The update corroborated the New York Times reporter's tweet and added context about McCarthy's response to D.C. officials' request to lead law-enforcement efforts during the upcoming protests.

['share']

NEI

After the U.S. Capitol insurrection in January 2021, Snopes readers asked about the legitimacy of a viral document that left-leaning websites framed as an attempt by a member of former President Donald Trump's cabinet to suppress the ability of National Guard forces to provide law enforcement during the gathering of Trump supporters rallying to try to overturn the 2020 election.For example, the Daily Kos, a self-described online hub of progressive media and activism, reported on Jan. 29:A website called "The National Memo" republished the body of the Daily Kos' story verbatim, under a new headline: "Trump Defense Secretary Disarmed D.C. National Guard Before Capitol Riot."Before we directly address the claim, let us unpack the basis of the above-mentioned articles. The Daily Kos' original story included a hyperlink to an authentic tweet by New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater on Jan. 28.The reporter's tweet included a digital image of what appeared to be a Jan. 4 memo to former Army secretary Ryan McCarthy and signed by Miller whom Trump appointed as acting Pentagon chief in November 2020, just days after President Joe Biden was announced the winner of the election.While no evidence exists to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the document displayed in the tweet, we sought to independently verify its authenticity. Citing the Freedom of Information Act, Snopes submitted multiple requests for a copy of the Jan. 4 record from various record-keeping centers within federal government.Committee spokespeople emailed us copies the document that indeed imposed restrictions on the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) during planned demonstrations by Trump supporters in the coming days. It read, in part:Rewind a few days, and, according to the Department of Defense, D.C. officials requested that the district's Metropolitan Police department not a federal agency lead security efforts during the pro-Trump events, which were widely marketed as gatherings of Trump supporters to try to send a message to Congress to halt a ceremonial vote affirming Biden's win.That decision by the Department of Defense, as well as the request for autonomy from D.C. officials, followed the Guard's controversial response to protests against police violence following George Floyd's death in summer 2020. Politico reported:Any time we would employ troops and guardsmen in the city, you had to go through a rigorous process. As you recall, there were events in the summer that got a lot of attention, and that was part of this," William J. Walker, the DCNG's commanding general, said in an interview with The Washington Post.As a result of such restrictions, Walker told The Washington Post that when he received a panicked phone call from Capitol Hill Police about the extremists preparing to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 (which occurred around 1:50 p.m., per the defense department's timeline) he could not immediately deploy Guard members to help. He instead needed to wait for approval from McCarthy, who then waited for an answer from Miller.At 3 p.m, Miller approved full activation of the DCNG (1,100 members) to help district and Capitol Hill police and directed those troops to secure the Capitol, the department's timeline showed.(See here for our fact check into a separate claim that the Department of Defense initially denied a request by D.C. officials to deploy the Guard.)

Was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Once Fired from Hot Dog on a Stick?

['Many opponents of congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have decided to focus on fictitious criticisms. ']

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been the subject of numerous false rumors and misleading memes ever since she won a seat as the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. One of the many disparaging attacks on the freshman lawmaker came in the form of a photograph that supposedly showed her working at a "Hot Dog on a Stick" stand (a staple of shopping mall food services) along with a piece of text claiming that she had been fired from that job for incompetence. The text of the meme stated, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was fired from a Hot Dog on a Stick job in 2008 for incompetence. And the Democrats elected her to Congress." This meme did not convey a credible story about Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, it didn't even feature a photograph of her. The picture used in the meme was taken by Flickr user Michael Zampeli and showed a young woman named Stephanie preparing a batch of lemonade at a Hot Dog on a Stick outlet. While the image used in the meme has been degraded to the point where the name tag on the food worker's hat is illegible, the original photograph on Flickr clearly showed that the tag bore the name "Stephanie." It should also be noted that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected to Congress at the age of 29. If this meme were true (which it is not), the alleged firing would have occurred when she was just 18 years old. This baseless meme is just the latest attack on the congresswoman. We've previously debunked rumors claiming that Ocasio-Cortez had a credit score of 430 and a history of evictions, and that her Green New Deal legislation included a provision requiring that men recycle their urine.

['credit']

False

This picture used in the meme was taken by Flickr user Michael Zampeli and showed a young woman named Stephanie preparing a batch of lemonade at a Hot Dog on a Stick outlet. While the image used in the meme has been degraded to the point where the name tag on the food worker's hat is illegible, the original photograph on Flickr clearly showed that the tag bore the name "Stephanie":This baseless meme is just the latest attack on the congresswoman. We've previously debunked rumors holding that Ocasio-Cortez had a credit score of 430 and a history of evictions, and that her Green New Deal legislation included a provision requiring that men recycle their urine.

No, Sean Connery's Net Worth Didn't Leave Family 'in Tears'

['We recently saw the same misleading advertising network "arbitrage" ploy about a celebrity\'s net worth used on "Jeopardy" game show host Alex Trebek.']

Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he passed away at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ reported that Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure, and old age, according to his death certificate. The certificate shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age, and atrial fibrillation—an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure, and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight contacted the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." Following his death, at least one advertiser purchased ad space on the social media platform Reddit or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was in lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true; it's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely led to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." Business and technology blog Margins, managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, defines "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." 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 many pages. 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.

['asset']

False

Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas."Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family."It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy.The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage."Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist."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.

Were Pelosi's Daughters Arrested for Breaking Into a Liquor Store for Quarantine Supplies?

['A routine review of content labeled satire.']

On May 11, 2020, Bustatroll.org published an article positing that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughters had been arrested after breaking into a liquor store for quarantine supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic: published article Pelosis Daughters Arrested Breaking Into Liquor Store For Quarantine Supplies The apples dont fall far from the tree, they say, and nowhere is it more obvious than in the case of Nancy Pelosis daughters. Often in trouble, they have lately shown that they share the trait most commonly associated with their mother..a hopeless addiction to alcohol. Both Melissa, 21, and Daphne, 19, were arrested this past weekend in San Francisco, California for breaking and entering. Officers were alerted to their crime by a silent alarm at This Is The Way To Liquor, a liquor store close to their home that had recently decided to temporarily close due to slow sales during the states lockdown. This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this sites pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical. See above if youre still having an issue with that satire thing. It should be noted that Nancy Pelosi has one son and four daughters, but none of Pelosi's children's names are Melissa or Daphne, as stated by Bustatroll.org. The image included in this article actually shows two entirely different women whose names are Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid. The duo became known as the "Peru Two" after they were arrested for drug smuggling in 2013: Peru Two For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why Bustatroll.org. "Pelosis Daughters Arrested Breaking Into Liquor Store For Quarantine Supplies." 11 May 2020. Hanlon, Martina. "Peru Two Get Six Years and Eight Months for Drug Smuggling." Irish Times. 17 December 2013.

['share']

False

On May 11, 2020, Bustatroll.org published an article positing that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughters had been arrested after breaking into a liquor store for quarantine supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic:It should be noted that Nancy Pelosi has one son and four daughters, but none of Pelosi's children's names are Melissa or Daphne, as stated by Bustatroll.org. The image included in this article actually shows two entirely different women whose names are Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid. The duo became known as the "Peru Two" after they were arrested for drug smuggling in 2013:For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor.

Fair distribution

["Did Barack Obama say 'a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably'?"]

Claim: During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.' Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly. As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism. Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record. It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans. Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless. Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins: This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates corporate tax rates on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that. I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things fair distribution and robust economic growth are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated: 17 August 2008 Sources: Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks. "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax." The Wall Street Journal. 17 June 2008 (P. A1). Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks. "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'" The Wall Street Journal. 17 June 2008.

['economy']

False

Origins: This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not(The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.)

Did the Phrase 'a Shot of Whiskey' Originate in the Old West?

['Anecdotal reports say the expression "a shot of whiskey" came into being when cowboys traded bullets for liquor in Old West saloons.']

Thanks to 150 years of fictionalization in dime novels, Hollywood films, and television shows, that hallowed time and place in American history known as the Old West is as much a figment of the national imagination as it was a historical reality. So deep a wellspring of myth and legend is it, in fact, that people are still making up stories about the Old West today on that most modern of misinformation sources, the Internet. novels films shows Consider the origin of the expression "a shot of whiskey." In 2016, a social media meme shared via Facebook popularized a long-established folk etymology holding that the phrase originated in frontier saloons with cowboys trading bullets for drinks: meme Although the meme is of recent origin, Internet mentions of this alleged historical fact date to at least 2003. Significantly, however, we were unable to trace it back any further than that, nor could we find any credible support for the general claim that it was common to use ammunition as a substitute for hard currency in frontier drinking establishments. 2003 Was the price of a single .45 six-gun cartridge equivalent to that of a shot of whiskey in the Old West, as claimed? It doesn't appear so. The 1891 edition of Chicago hardware dealer Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.'s General Catalog lists Smith & Wesson .45 cartridges at a price of $25 per thousand, or 2-1/2 cents per cartridge. For the price of a shot of whiskey, we consulted Kelly J. Dixon's 2005 book Boomtown Saloons: Archaeology and History in Virginia City, which notes that the average cost of a measure of any drink was around two bits, or 25 cents (although the cost later dropped as competition increased when more Americans moved west). Using those figures as our base prices, one shot of whiskey would have cost the equivalent of 10 cartridges. Even allowing for price variations according to time and place, it appears highly doubtful a one-to-one correspondence between the price of a cartridge and the cost of a drink ever existed in the Old West. lists We also looked into the etymology of the noun shot, which has a long and interesting history as well as many shades of meaning. It derives from the Old English verb scotan (later scot), meaning "to shoot," or "let loose a projectile." etymology shot The earliest known usage of "shot" in the sense of "a measure of liquor" appeared in the autobiography of the Rev. Oliver Heywood (1630-1702), in which we find the phrase "their vain way of drinking shots." Unfortunately for the trading-cartridges-for-shots theory, the usage predates the time period of the Old West (which, by convention, was roughly 1850 to 1900) by some 150 years. autobiography Interestingly enough, the term "shot" was also at one time synonymous with "a charge to be paid" (and, in a more specific usage, "a bill or one's share of it, especially in a pub or bar"), according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Again, however, those meanings predate the Old West era, in this case going all the way back to 15th-century England, hundreds of years before saloons and cowpokes dotted the western frontier of the United States. according Despite their sharing the same derivation, it's unclear precisely how these three disparate senses of the word came to be associated with one another. A theory advanced on the Etymology Online web site suggests that the expression "throw down" (as in "throw down one's money") may link them: Meaning "discharge of a bow, missile," also is from related Old English gesceot. Extended to other projectiles in Middle English, and to sports (hockey, basketball, etc.) 1868. Another original meaning, "payment" (perhaps literally "money thrown down") is preserved in scot-free. "Throwing down" might also have led to the meaning "a drink," first attested 1670s, the more precise meaning "small drink of straight liquor" by 1928 (shot glass by 1955). scot-free Finally, when we used Google's Ngram Viewer to chart how frequently the exact phrase "shot of whiskey" appeared in published sources from the year 1800 on, we found that it didn't actually become common until the mid-20th century, by which time all that was left of the Old West were fading memories, rusting artifacts, and folklore. chart Martin, Katherine Connor. "What Is the Origin of the Term 'Scot-Free.'" Oxford Dictionaries. 15 April 2015. Simmons, Brian M. "Dime Novels: The Rise of the American Hero." Baylor University. 13 August 2013. Smith, Gavin D. A-Z of Whisky. Castle Douglas, Scotland: Neil Wilson Publishing, 2011. ISBN 9781906476199 p. 250. Etymology Online. "Shot." Accessed 13 October 2017. World Wide Words. "Shot." Accessed 13 October 2017.

['share']

False

Thanks to 150 years of fictionalization in dime novels, Hollywood films, and television shows, that hallowed time and place in American history known as the Old West is as much a figment of the national imagination as it was a historical reality. So deep a wellspring of myth and legend is it, in fact, that people are still making up stories about the Old West today on that most modern of misinformation sources, the Internet. Consider the origin of the expression "a shot of whiskey." In 2016, a social media meme shared via Facebook popularized a long-established folk etymology holding that the phrase originated in frontier saloons with cowboys trading bullets for drinks:Although the meme is of recent origin, Internet mentions of this alleged historical fact date to at least 2003. Significantly, however, we were unable to trace it back any further than that, nor could we find any credible support for the general claim that it was common to use ammunition as a substitute for hard currency in frontier drinking establishments.Was the price of a single .45 six-gun cartridge equivalent to that of a shot of whiskey in the Old West, as claimed? It doesn't appear so. The 1891 edition of Chicago hardware dealer Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.'s General Catalog lists Smith & Wesson .45 cartridges at a price of $25 per thousand, or 2-1/2 cents per cartridge. For the price of a shot of whiskey, we consulted Kelly J. Dixon's 2005 book Boomtown Saloons: Archaeology and History in Virginia City, which notes that the average cost of a measure of any drink was around two bits, or 25 cents (although the cost later dropped as competition increased when more Americans moved west). Using those figures as our base prices, one shot of whiskey would have cost the equivalent of 10 cartridges. Even allowing for price variations according to time and place, it appears highly doubtful a one-to-one correspondence between the price of a cartridge and the cost of a drink ever existed in the Old West.We also looked into the etymology of the noun shot, which has a long and interesting history as well as many shades of meaning. It derives from the Old English verb scotan (later scot), meaning "to shoot," or "let loose a projectile."The earliest known usage of "shot" in the sense of "a measure of liquor" appeared in the autobiography of the Rev. Oliver Heywood (1630-1702), in which we find the phrase "their vain way of drinking shots." Unfortunately for the trading-cartridges-for-shots theory, the usage predates the time period of the Old West (which, by convention, was roughly 1850 to 1900) by some 150 years. Interestingly enough, the term "shot" was also at one time synonymous with "a charge to be paid" (and, in a more specific usage, "a bill or one's share of it, especially in a pub or bar"), according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Again, however, those meanings predate the Old West era, in this case going all the way back to 15th-century England, hundreds of years before saloons and cowpokes dotted the western frontier of the United States.Meaning "discharge of a bow, missile," also is from related Old English gesceot. Extended to other projectiles in Middle English, and to sports (hockey, basketball, etc.) 1868. Another original meaning, "payment" (perhaps literally "money thrown down") is preserved in scot-free. "Throwing down" might also have led to the meaning "a drink," first attested 1670s, the more precise meaning "small drink of straight liquor" by 1928 (shot glass by 1955).Finally, when we used Google's Ngram Viewer to chart how frequently the exact phrase "shot of whiskey" appeared in published sources from the year 1800 on, we found that it didn't actually become common until the mid-20th century, by which time all that was left of the Old West were fading memories, rusting artifacts, and folklore.

Is this photograph depicting legislators engaging in a game of Solitaire?

['"The bills theyre passing by playing solitaire instead of voting for us are taking away our freedoms with every key stroke."']

A photograph that appears to show representatives playing solitaire on their laptops during a legislative session has certainly struck a chord among many viewers, undoubtedly because it seemingly confirms a widely held view of elected representatives as paid fat cats frittering away their time on frivolous pursuits rather than engaging in serious governmental problem-solving efforts. The photograph is real, although it has erroneously been attributed to a number of different legislative bodies, from the U.S. Congress to various state legislatures. This picture is worth a trillion dollars. It was sent to me showing our Congress at work. It was said that this was while Congress was in session, which appears to be true, and that it was during the health care debate. Even if it wasn't during the health care debate, if this is how they spend their time while they are supposed to be deciding on important issues, then I not only want a rebate on my tax dollars, but I also want to see some new people who actually care about what is happening and are paying close attention to the matter at hand sitting in those seats. It seems we don't need to be sending them on any more expensive vacations; they're already on one. It seems to me that if all we are doing is paying these congressmen and women a gigantic salary to sit in congressional sessions and play solitaire or whatever, it's time to bring most of them back home by replacement. Democrats, Republicans, independents—it makes no difference. The bills they're passing by playing solitaire instead of voting for us are taking away our freedoms with every keystroke. Fire them all! Folks, we need to forward this to everyone we know to get the word out about these people who are being paid by our tax dollars. Nothing else needs to be said. This is one of their three-day work weeks that we all pay for. I am ready to start from the beginning by voting out all elected officials and not allowing any of them to stay in office for more than two terms. No more lifelong healthcare, retirement, voting in their own pay raises, taking perks on our taxes, etc. These are the folks that can't get the budget out by October 1. Seriously! So, we've got a 30-day budget extension. Well, guess what? Thirty days from now, we will be in the same boat. I guess this makes it easy for the news reporters, as all they have to do is recycle the same headlines from this week and from two years ago. And these individuals will still be playing solitaire! The picture was actually snapped in the Connecticut House of Representatives on August 31, 2009, by photographer Jessica Hill, while Rep. Larry Cafero was delivering a lengthy speech on the state budget. The photo was captioned by the Associated Press as follows: "House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, far right, speaks while colleagues play solitaire on their computers as the House convenes to vote on a new budget for the fiscal year in the Capitol, in Hartford, Conn." Ms. Hill described the reaction to her photograph as follows: "I have received a great deal of mail and even a few calls from people all over the country over the last couple of months about the photograph I have as a lead-off image on my member page. Some viewers have even gone so far as to say they believe the photograph is not authentic. I take my profession very seriously. There is nothing staged or altered in the photograph, and it is insulting to me to have been accused of otherwise by people who do not even know me." Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), one of the two Connecticut legislators shown in the photo playing solitaire on a laptop computer (the other was Rep. Barbara Lambert [D-Milford]), issued a letter of apology to his constituents: "It was certainly bad judgment for me to play a computer game, even for just a few minutes, during the final House session on the budget. I am embarrassed, and I apologize to each and every person in the North End and to people across the state. My actions were inexcusable. I do want my constituents to know that my poor judgment for a few moments in no way means I ignored your interests in representing you on this very serious matter. Over the past seven months, as a member of the General Assembly's Finance Committee, I have participated fully in the budget process and have played an active role in crafting a budget that provides the necessary services that our communities so desperately need while at the same time minimizing any negative impact on the city of Bridgeport and its people. I sincerely apologize to each of you. I look forward to having the continued privilege of representing you and your interests in Hartford. I thank you in advance for your understanding and have been humbled by those of you who have already expressed your understanding and forgiveness."

['budget']

True

The picture was actually snapped in the Connecticut House of Representatives on 31 August 2009 by photographer Jessica Hill, while Rep. Larry Cafero was delivering a lengthy speech on the state budget. The photo was captioned by the Associated Press as follows: "House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, far right, speaks while colleagues play solitaire on their computers as the House convenes to vote on a new budget for the fiscal year in the Capitol, in Hartford, Conn."Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), one of two Connecticut legislators shown in the photo playing solitaire on a laptop computer (the other was Rep. Barbara Lambert [D-Milford]), issued a letter of apology to his constituents:

Virginia now is the number one exporter of (agricultural) products to Cuba. We have now jumped to number one.

[]

Gov. Terry McAuliffe sees Cuba as a land of opportunity. Amid President Barack Obama's historic trip to Cuba this past week, McAuliffe stated in an interview that Virginia has already made impressive headway in tapping into the island nation's export market. Virginia is now the number one exporter of agricultural products to Cuba, McAuliffe said during a March 21 MSNBC interview. "We have now jumped to number one." In January, the governor returned from a trip to Cuba aimed at bolstering the commonwealth's commercial ties with the nation. The U.S. still has a decades-long embargo on most trade with Cuba, but a 2000 law allows limited exports of agricultural products and medical equipment. In 2014, Obama re-established formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, and McAuliffe supports ending the trade embargo. Brian Coy, the governor's spokesman, pointed us to a Feb. 12 news release where McAuliffe announced that last year Virginia exported $41.6 million in agricultural goods to Cuba, all of which were soybeans and soybean meal. In past years, Virginia has also shipped apples, poultry, and beef. McAuliffe noted that the 2015 export tally was the most that any state had sent to Cuba that year. We tracked down the same trade figures through an online database provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It shows that in 2015, Virginia's $41.6 million was indeed the highest of any state, followed by Georgia, which had $30.9 million in agricultural exports to Cuba, and Florida, which had $29.9 million in exports. Rounding out the top five agricultural exporters to Cuba were Alabama and Louisiana. Altogether, the U.S. exported nearly $150 million in agricultural goods to Cuba last year. A 2015 article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond noted that Virginia's farm exports accounted for 28 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports that year, compared with the 21 percent share for Georgia and the 20 percent share for Florida. Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana have generally dominated the share of U.S. exports to Cuba since 2011. McAuliffe is correct that the 2015 figures represent a turnaround for Virginia. In 2012, the state had $65.6 million in agricultural exports to Cuba, which fell to $24.9 million in 2014, ranking it fifth behind those other four Southern states. Last year was the first time Virginia achieved the goal of becoming the top agricultural exporter to Cuba, said Todd Haymore, the state's secretary of agriculture and forestry. Haymore explained that Virginia and other Southern states' proximity to Cuba provides an advantage in tapping the Cuban market. Other factors contributed as well; for example, Georgia has focused on expanding an agricultural export facility in Savannah, Haymore noted. Florida, meanwhile, has extensive port operations, according to the secretary. Haymore mentioned that a significant share of Virginia's agricultural exports to Cuba were produced in the commonwealth, although he added that Virginia's ports also ship products originating from other states, including Maryland and North Carolina. This year, it appears that Virginia faces serious competition if it wants to maintain its status as the top agricultural exporter to Cuba. Figures from January, the only month for which export data is available so far this year, show that Louisiana sent $17.9 million in agricultural exports to Cuba that month, while Alabama sent $2.1 million. Virginia's $1.7 million ranked third. While Virginia has seen its exports to Cuba fluctuate in recent years, the story has been different for U.S. trade with the island nation. The total value of all U.S. exports to Cuba has actually been declining, even amid White House overtures to open trade. U.S. exports to Cuba dropped from $464.5 million in 2012 to $180.3 million last year, according to figures from the U.S. Commerce Department.

['Economy', 'Trade', 'Virginia']

True

Brian Coy, the governors spokesman, pointed us to a Feb. 12 news release where McAuliffeannouncedthat last year Virginia exported $41.6 million in agricultural goods to Cuba, all of it soybeans and soybean meal. In past years, Virginia also has shipped apples, poultry and beef. McAuliffe said the 2015 export tally was the most that any state had sent to Cuba that year.We tracked down the same trade figures through an onlinedatabaseprovided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It shows that in 2015, Virginias $41.6 million indeed was the most of any state, followed by Georgia, which had $30.9 million in agricultural exports to Cuba; and Florida, which had $29.9 million in exports.A 2015articlefrom the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond noted Virginias farm exports accounted for 28 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports last year, compared with the 21 percent share for Georgia and 20 percent share for Florida.

Did Biden, Ossoff, and Warnock Mislead Public With Promise of '$2000 Checks'?

['The fact that $600 plus $1,400 equals $2,000 is relevant here. ']

fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In late December and early January 2021, increasing COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person became a major issue in the Georgia Senate run-off elections. The campaign pitch, made in some form by Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, and Joe Biden leading up to that Jan. 5, 2021 election, was that a blue (Democrat-controlled) U.S. Senate would ensure passage of those $2,000 checks. On Jan. 20, Biden unveiled his $1.9 trillion COVID stimulus plan. It proposed issuing $1,400 checks to each person. Some have interpreted the $1,400 as a broken promise, despite the fact that the goal, since December, had always been to achieve a total per person payment of $2,000. The $600 checks already approved by Congress began disbursement starting on Dec. 29, 2020. Here, Snopes takes a granular look at the issue. 1.9 trillion proposed On Dec. 22, 2020, President Donald Trump shocked congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle by threatening to block passage of a third COVID-19 stimulus package that had been negotiated for months and that his administration played a crucial role in shaping. The problem, Trump stated in a video Tweeted out that night, was that the $600 per person cap was not enough. "I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple," he said. shocked video In a confusing moment of limited bipartisanship, Democratic members of Congress agreed with Trump and launched a last-minute campaign to amend the relief bill to include the $2,000 checks requested by Trump. Congressional Republicans, for the most part, opposed the increase. An attempt to raise the amount, pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, to the level Trump had requested failed on Dec. 24. Ultimately, Trump signed the originally negotiated bill which included the $600 per person cap on Dec. 27. failed signed In response, on Dec. 28, Democrats in the House passed a stand-alone bill designed to make Trump's vision of $2,000 per person a reality. The text of the bill proposed, in part, to amend the portion of the recently passed relief package "by striking '$600' each place it appears and inserting '$2,000', and by striking '$1,200' each place it appears and inserting '$4,000.' The move was described by The Associated Press at the time as "all but dar[ing] Republicans to break with Trump." text was described That "dare" came at a complicated political moment. The two run-off elections for Georgia would determine the balance of power in the Senate. Both Ossoff and Warnock capitalized on the moment, immediately pushing both their GOP rivals in Georgia to support the House bill upping the payment to $2,000. capitalized On Dec. 28, the same day that the House passed its proposed increase to COVID relief checks, Warnock tweeted that, "Georgians could have gotten $2,000 relief checks. You're only getting $600 because [opponent Kelly Loeffler] refused to fight for more." That same day, Ossoff tweeted that his opponent "David Perdue didnt even want the first round of stimulus checks." On election day, Ossoff's final pitch to voters included the statement, "We will be able to pass $2,000 stimulus checks for the people next week." tweeted tweeted https://streamable.com/tehygd President-elect Biden had made the same general point a day earlier at a rally for Ossoff and Warnock. "By electing Jon and the reverend, you can make an immediate difference in your own lives," Biden said on Jan. 4, "because their election will put an end to the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check. That money that will go out the door immediately." https://streamable.com/jckvga On Jan. 20, Biden revealed his COVID relief plan in an executive order calling for additional payments of $1,400 per person. This led some to interpret Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff's pre-election discussion as a disingenuous bait-and-switch, promising a certain amount of money for votes and then refusing to deliver on that promise. "$2,000 means $2,000," Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post following the release of the plan, "$2,000 does not mean $1,400." Other critics accused Biden and Ossoff of "purchasing" peoples' votes and then refusing to "pay up." told Those arguing that Biden et al. broke a political promise by proposing $1,400 checks on top of the already approved $600 ones misrepresent the political debate surrounding COVID-19 relief efforts. Until the "broken promise" talking point emerged, the two political "camps" were the $600 advocates (most congressional Republicans) and the $2,000 advocates (Trump and most congressional Democrats). At no point was there ever a "$2,600 camp." Before the end of December, it appeared logistically possible to modify the amount of money mandated in the previous COVID-relief package through that House bill passed on Dec. 28. According to reporting in The New York Times, however, the Treasury Department "started making direct deposit payments" on Dec. 29, and started mailing checks the next day. reporting Ocasio-Cortez, who suggested Biden's plan did not fulfill the campaign promise of $2,000 checks, explicitly advocated the same solution on Dec. 23, proposing an amendment that would increase payments in the Trump package by $1,400 per person: same solution Looking back at the statements made by Biden and others, references to "$2,000 checks" must be to these legislative efforts including those advocated for and voted on by Ocasio-Cortez. Because the Senate cannot "block" legislation that has not yet been proposed, Biden's reference to "the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check" clearly refers to the Senate's unwillingness to take up the House amendment upping the $600 checks to $2,000. reference The end result of the solution Ocasio-Cortez, Biden, Ossoff and Warnock proposed or advocated for in late December would have been a total of $2,000 per person. The end result of the Biden package, if passed, would be a total of $2,000 per person. Indeed, the claim that any politician was arguing for a total of $2,600 per person in late December is completely untenable, and belied by Ocasio-Cortez's support for the $2,000 solutions advocated for by herself and other Democrats at that time. The central issue is this: As the debate about the inadequacy of $600 checks versus $2,000 checks was raging in Congress, the $600 plan had already become law. Money was already being dispersed. To achieve the total of $2,000 advocated for by Trump and Democrats in late December, an additional payment of $1,400 passed through new legislation would be required. Biden's plan, the specifics of which are currently being worked through in the House at the time of this reporting, would achieve that same end result. currently There is a plausible argument, however, that Biden and Ossoff over-promised regarding the rapidity with which a Biden administration and a blue Senate could bring about rapid disbursement of these funds. As the House has yet to approve the legislative package proposed by Biden, the money did not "go out the door immediately," as Biden promised on Jan 4. Nor would that legislative package be passed, as Ossoff claimed it would, "the next week" after his election. The first $600 payments already approved have yet to reach many Americans. many In late December 2020, Democrats united with Trump to push Congressional Republicans to increase COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person. The universal call by those on the Left, at the time, was for a total of $2,000 per person. Ultimately, the $600 plan passed while the viability of $2,000 payments was still gaining traction. References to "$2,000 checks" made in January by Biden and by Georgia's Democratic Senate candidates were to increase existing payments up to $2,000 not to issue a new check for $2,000 in addition to the amount already approved. Because Biden and Ossoff's statements are consistent with the package Democrats ultimately proposed, but because their timeline for getting those payments out the door was too optimistic, we rank the claim that Biden's proposed $1,400 checks are a broken promise as "false."

['funds']

False

On Jan. 20, Biden unveiled his $1.9 trillion COVID stimulus plan. It proposed issuing $1,400 checks to each person. Some have interpreted the $1,400 as a broken promise, despite the fact that the goal, since December, had always been to achieve a total per person payment of $2,000. The $600 checks already approved by Congress began disbursement starting on Dec. 29, 2020. Here, Snopes takes a granular look at the issue.On Dec. 22, 2020, President Donald Trump shocked congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle by threatening to block passage of a third COVID-19 stimulus package that had been negotiated for months and that his administration played a crucial role in shaping. The problem, Trump stated in a video Tweeted out that night, was that the $600 per person cap was not enough. "I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple," he said.In a confusing moment of limited bipartisanship, Democratic members of Congress agreed with Trump and launched a last-minute campaign to amend the relief bill to include the $2,000 checks requested by Trump. Congressional Republicans, for the most part, opposed the increase. An attempt to raise the amount, pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, to the level Trump had requested failed on Dec. 24. Ultimately, Trump signed the originally negotiated bill which included the $600 per person cap on Dec. 27. In response, on Dec. 28, Democrats in the House passed a stand-alone bill designed to make Trump's vision of $2,000 per person a reality. The text of the bill proposed, in part, to amend the portion of the recently passed relief package "by striking '$600' each place it appears and inserting '$2,000', and by striking '$1,200' each place it appears and inserting '$4,000.' The move was described by The Associated Press at the time as "all but dar[ing] Republicans to break with Trump."That "dare" came at a complicated political moment. The two run-off elections for Georgia would determine the balance of power in the Senate. Both Ossoff and Warnock capitalized on the moment, immediately pushing both their GOP rivals in Georgia to support the House bill upping the payment to $2,000.On Dec. 28, the same day that the House passed its proposed increase to COVID relief checks, Warnock tweeted that, "Georgians could have gotten $2,000 relief checks. You're only getting $600 because [opponent Kelly Loeffler] refused to fight for more." That same day, Ossoff tweeted that his opponent "David Perdue didnt even want the first round of stimulus checks." On election day, Ossoff's final pitch to voters included the statement, "We will be able to pass $2,000 stimulus checks for the people next week.""$2,000 means $2,000," Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post following the release of the plan, "$2,000 does not mean $1,400." Other critics accused Biden and Ossoff of "purchasing" peoples' votes and then refusing to "pay up."Before the end of December, it appeared logistically possible to modify the amount of money mandated in the previous COVID-relief package through that House bill passed on Dec. 28. According to reporting in The New York Times, however, the Treasury Department "started making direct deposit payments" on Dec. 29, and started mailing checks the next day.Ocasio-Cortez, who suggested Biden's plan did not fulfill the campaign promise of $2,000 checks, explicitly advocated the same solution on Dec. 23, proposing an amendment that would increase payments in the Trump package by $1,400 per person:Looking back at the statements made by Biden and others, references to "$2,000 checks" must be to these legislative efforts including those advocated for and voted on by Ocasio-Cortez. Because the Senate cannot "block" legislation that has not yet been proposed, Biden's reference to "the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check" clearly refers to the Senate's unwillingness to take up the House amendment upping the $600 checks to $2,000.The central issue is this: As the debate about the inadequacy of $600 checks versus $2,000 checks was raging in Congress, the $600 plan had already become law. Money was already being dispersed. To achieve the total of $2,000 advocated for by Trump and Democrats in late December, an additional payment of $1,400 passed through new legislation would be required. Biden's plan, the specifics of which are currently being worked through in the House at the time of this reporting, would achieve that same end result.There is a plausible argument, however, that Biden and Ossoff over-promised regarding the rapidity with which a Biden administration and a blue Senate could bring about rapid disbursement of these funds. As the House has yet to approve the legislative package proposed by Biden, the money did not "go out the door immediately," as Biden promised on Jan 4. Nor would that legislative package be passed, as Ossoff claimed it would, "the next week" after his election. The first $600 payments already approved have yet to reach many Americans.

When we had a conservative Republican president we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

[]

Its been nearlyeight years since George W. Bush was president, but Democrats still plan to run against him. Certainly, thats what Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz promised on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate. There are so many people who are focused on making sure we can look at the fact that, when we had a conservative Republican president, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, Wasserman Schultz said on CNNsState of the UnionOct. 11, 2015. Weve come through that -- 67 straight months of job growth in the private sector. People are no longer losing their homes. Thats the contrast well talk about. The DNC press office told us that Wasserman Schultz was thinking of President George W. Bush, and that the time period she had in mind were the last few months of his presidency, November through January. President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, so its reasonable to count that month as part of the Bush legacy. We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground. Month Jobs (000s) Loss Nov 135,469 -765 Dec 134,773 -696 Jan 133,977 -796 Average -752 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison The number is particularly high because Wasserman Schultz chose the three worst months of the Bush presidency. If she had chosen a longer period, say the last full year, the losses would have averaged about 365,000 per month. The losses would shrink even more if you look at longer period of time. Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture. The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. Of course, Wasserman Schultzs statement implies that conservative Republican policies alone brought about a massive loss of jobs and the reality is more complicated. Some analysts believe that a portion of the blame goes back to policies that enjoyed Democratic support, including changes in financial regulation passed during the Clinton administration. But Wasserman Schultz did not make that claim specifically. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that under a conservative Republican president the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Wasserman Schultz was speaking of President George W. Bush and at the end of his term, the monthly job losses averaged about 750,000 jobs. The average would of course be less if she had included Bushs final 12 months -- or a period longer than that. There is an element of cherry-picking here, but the overall point holds up. We rate the claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Jobs']

True

We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground.Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture.The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007.

Mandatory Ebola Vaccinations in the U.S.

['Is the U.S. government planning to implement mandatory Ebola vaccinations for all residents?']

Claim: The U.S. government is planning to implement mandatory Ebola vaccinations for all residents. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Ebola vaccine is going to be mandatory for all people in the U.S. Everyone will have to carry medical cards showing that they have received the vaccine to be employed, receive driver's license, buy groceries, etc. Those who do not comply will be quarantined in segregation areas until they do. Origins: The outbreak or spread of any infectious disease that potentially carries a significantly high mortality rate is typically accompanied by conspiracy theories positing that the government is planning to forcibly isolate those who carry the disease in internment camps or similar facilities in order to protect the general population. The example reproduced above carries on that tradition, holding that everyone in the U.S. will be required to undergo vaccination for Ebola and carry proof of same in order to be employed (or licensed to drive, or able to purchase groceries), and those who fail to do will be "quarantined in segregation areas" until they submit. First of all, the notion of requiring everyone in the U.S. to undergo mandatory vaccination or face incarceration especially for a disease that has so far manifested only a few cases and a single death in the whole country is a far-fetched one that would require overcoming some huge legal and civil rights issues regarding its constitutionality and would likely take years of legislative wrangling to ever implement. Some states in the U.S. have enacted regulations requiring children to undergo specified vaccinations as a prerequisite to public school attendance, but expanding the scope of mandatory vaccinations to encompass every single person in the country, with the punishment of forced segregation for those who did not comply, would be a huge legal hurdle that likely would not be cleared for a very long time to come (and probably not ever). constitutionality This rumor also falls flat against the fact that there is as yet no vaccine for Ebola. Commercial funding for development of an Ebola vaccine is difficult to obtain, as the disease is not a medical market priority in the U.S.: At least four vaccines are being developed to protect people against Ebola, including one that protects monkeys completely against the deadly virus. Several groups are also working on treatments, but one of the most promising is stuck in safety testing. They might be farther along if not for one problem: money. Even though Ebola is burning out of control in West Africa, it's not a huge potential market for a large pharmaceutical company to sink its teeth and its assets into developing. That leaves the U.S. government and small, niche biopharmaceutical companies. "I don't see why anybody except the U.S. government would get involved in developing these kinds of countermeasures," said Dr. Sina Bavari of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Frederick, Maryland. "There is no market in it." Ebola is so unpredictable that it would be very difficult to find enough people at high risk to test it in. Diseases such as influenza and even HIV are common and it's easy to test large groups of people. Not so with Ebola. Some potential Ebola vaccines have only just been rushed into clinical trials; it will take time to assess their safety and efficacy, and there are no guarantees that any of them will prove widely effective. Even if one of these vaccines should show promise, even more time would have to pass before it could clear U.S. testing and regulatory requirements and put on the market, and even then it would likely initially be available only in small quantities just enough to protect the health workers who are battling the current outbreak: The first trial of an Ebola vaccine in Africa has started, researchers said, with the vaccination of three health care workers in Mali. It's the latest vaccine to be rushed into clinical trials after the worst-ever outbreak of Ebola in West Africa turned into a full scale epidemic. Ebola's infected more than 8,000 people and killed about half of them, and the World Health Organization says the true toll is likely even higher. It'll be months before any vaccine would be available, and even then it will be a small amount, probably used to protect health care workers. But experts say it's a vital first step to getting doctors, nurses and technicians to even come and help fight the outbreak. Health workers are among those at highest risk of getting infected. "This research will give us crucial information about whether the vaccine is safe, well tolerated and capable of stimulating adequate immune responses in the highest priority target population, health care workers in West Africa,' said Dr. Myron Levine, director of the Center for Vaccine Development (CVD) at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "If it works, in the foreseeable future it could help alter the dynamic of this epidemic by interrupting transmission to health care and other exposed front-line workers," Levine said in a statement. The fact remains that the U.S. health care system "is on high alert and prepared to contain isolated cases" of Ebola, so the chances that the threat to the U.S. posed by an Ebola outbreak would be significant enough to warrant even a suggestion of nationwide, freedom-depriving mandatory vaccinations are rather remote. Last updated: 14 October 2014 Fox, Maggie. "Scientists Struggle to Make Ebola Vaccines, Treatments." NBC News. 29 July 2014. Fox, Maggie and Becky Bratu. "First Ebola Vaccine Trial Starts in Africa." NBC News. 9 October 2014.

['asset']

True

First of all, the notion of requiring everyone in the U.S. to undergo mandatory vaccination or face incarceration especially for a disease that has so far manifested only a few cases and a single death in the whole country is a far-fetched one that would require overcoming some huge legal and civil rights issues regarding its constitutionality and would likely take years of legislative wrangling to ever implement. Some states in the U.S. have enacted regulations requiring children to undergo specified vaccinations as a prerequisite to public school attendance, but expanding the scope of mandatory vaccinations to encompass every single person in the country, with the punishment of forced segregation for those who did not comply, would be a huge legal hurdle that likely would not be cleared for a very long time to come (and probably not ever).

Says Multnomah County libraries are open 44 hours per week the lowest of any library in the four-county region.

[]

Supporters of a new Multnomah County Library District say a new tax structure is necessary for keeping one of the nations busiest libraries working for all of us. In a mailer, the Libraries Yes! Committee paints an already dim picture of the system.The mailer notes reduced hours and compares them to other metro-area counties: Right now, our libraries are open 44 hours per week, down from 57 hours just a few years ago. Thats the lowest of any library in the four-county region.PolitiFact Oregon was well aware that the system has cut back in certain areas, but it surprised us that the cuts had gone so far as to put operating hours behind Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties. We thought a quick check was warranted -- and quick it was.We checked the website for each of the counties libraries and calculated the weekly operating hours for the main branches. Heres what we found.In Multnomah County, the Central Library is open44 hours each week.In Washington County, the Hillsboro Main Library is open64 hours eachweekand the Beaverton City Library is open63 hours.In Clackamas County, the library system is open52 hours a week.And up in Washingtons Clark County, the main Vancouver Community Library is open60 hours a week.We also called the group responsible for the mailer and asked them about the statement. They sent us a slightly different group of numbers -- the average number of hours a library was open in each county. Their findings supported the same conclusion: Multnomah County library hours are the lowest in the four-county region.We find this statement True.

['Oregon', 'Taxes']

True

Supporters of a new Multnomah County Library District say a new tax structure is necessary for keeping one of the nations busiest libraries working for all of us. In a mailer, the Libraries Yes! Committee paints an already dim picture of the system.The mailer notes reduced hours and compares them to other metro-area counties: Right now, our libraries are open 44 hours per week, down from 57 hours just a few years ago. Thats the lowest of any library in the four-county region.PolitiFact Oregon was well aware that the system has cut back in certain areas, but it surprised us that the cuts had gone so far as to put operating hours behind Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties. We thought a quick check was warranted -- and quick it was.We checked the website for each of the counties libraries and calculated the weekly operating hours for the main branches. Heres what we found.In Multnomah County, the Central Library is open44 hours each week.In Washington County, the Hillsboro Main Library is open64 hours eachweekand the Beaverton City Library is open63 hours.In Clackamas County, the library system is open52 hours a week.And up in Washingtons Clark County, the main Vancouver Community Library is open60 hours a week.We also called the group responsible for the mailer and asked them about the statement. They sent us a slightly different group of numbers -- the average number of hours a library was open in each county. Their findings supported the same conclusion: Multnomah County library hours are the lowest in the four-county region.We find this statement True.

Did Trump receive a military that was weakened from Obama?

['U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly exaggerated the "depleted" state of the military when he took office. ']

One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth: military spending was reduced during Obama's second term, but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements to perpetuate this notion. In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said, "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years. Trump said, "We've been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office. President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nation's Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: "We've invested $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and it's all made here, right in the USA." This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump—comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during his first term was about $3.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion during his second term—but only a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget. While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail. While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense. Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and which administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed Congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration. The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart represents the United States budget for National Defense. Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes that the military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact,

['budget']

False

In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition."This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell).President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment:This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget. Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military.The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration. The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense. The Marine Corps Times writes:Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force." Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending:

Is This Ronald Reagan Meeting with Taliban Leaders at the White House?

['A photograph showing President Reagan with a group of men at the White House is frequently miscaptioned.']

A photograph purportedly showing Ronald Reagan meeting with the leaders of the Taliban (Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement) at the White House has been shared online for many years, along with a purported laudatory quote from the 40th U.S. president, "These Gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America's Founding Fathers": This enduring memeis wrong on more than one account. The group pictured here are notTaliban leaders, the photograph was not taken in 1985, and Reagan did not compare the pictured group to America's Founding Fathers. (In this particular meme, even the name "Reagan" is misspelled.) photograph According to the Ronald Reagan Library, the above-displayed photograph was taken in 1983, and it captures then-president Reagan meeting with Afghan rebel leadersto discuss the Soviet presencein Afghanistan. taken leaders Afghanistan While the Reagan administration did help fund and equip the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (and rebel groups elsewhere) so that they could fight against the Soviet occupation, it is inaccurateto say that the former president met with the Taliban, as at that point that group did not exist: fund Mujahideen Taliban This photograph is from 1983, when Reagan and the CIA were dancing around the idea of arming Mujahadin fighters in order to fight back against Soviet incursion in Afghanistan. The result was a well-armed, well-trained group of jihadis who resisted (some say defeated) the onslaught of superior Soviet weaponry. Once the Soviets retreated, the U.S. lost interest and pulled the funding. Osama bin Laden took interest, and filled the vacuum, later fathering the Taliban. The rest, as they say, is history. The quote frequently attached to this photographisaparaphrased version of something said by PresidentReagan, but he was not speaking about either the Taliban or Afghan opposition groups at the time. He made thecomment about contrarebels in Nicaragua duringa speechat theConservative Political Action Conference in 1985: contra speech Conference They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I've spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they're fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance. We cannot turn away from them, for the struggle here is not right versus left; it is right versus wrong.

['interest']

False

This enduring memeis wrong on more than one account. The group pictured here are notTaliban leaders, the photograph was not taken in 1985, and Reagan did not compare the pictured group to America's Founding Fathers. (In this particular meme, even the name "Reagan" is misspelled.) According to the Ronald Reagan Library, the above-displayed photograph was taken in 1983, and it captures then-president Reagan meeting with Afghan rebel leadersto discuss the Soviet presencein Afghanistan.While the Reagan administration did help fund and equip the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (and rebel groups elsewhere) so that they could fight against the Soviet occupation, it is inaccurateto say that the former president met with the Taliban, as at that point that group did not exist:The quote frequently attached to this photographisaparaphrased version of something said by PresidentReagan, but he was not speaking about either the Taliban or Afghan opposition groups at the time. He made thecomment about contrarebels in Nicaragua duringa speechat theConservative Political Action Conference in 1985:

Why Did the FBI Raid the Office of Trump's Lawyer But Not Bill Clinton's?

['A meme presents a false equivalency between presidential payoffs to women made in completely different cases 20 years apart.']

A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen. In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie. "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?" San Francisco Chronicle. 27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright. "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings." Just Security. December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron. "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained." Vox. 12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew. "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved." OpenSecrets.org. 3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie. "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 22 August 2018. Associated Press. "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga." 4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen. "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels." Vox. 4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett. "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000." The Hill. 4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill. "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation." USA Today. 14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop. "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes." Vox. 21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews. "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained." Vox. 27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan. "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release." The Hill. 28 February 2019. Reuters. "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels." 5 April 2018.

['funds']

False

On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying.However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case."When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones.Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment.In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump.On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump.A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign."Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president."Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen."All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances.

Were parents in Missouri schools mandated to sign COVID-19 liability waivers?

['Discussions around when and how schools would reopen during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic sparked a few controversies.']

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. In July 2020, social media posts and news reports claimed that a Missouri school district asked parents to sign COVID-19 death waivers in advance of the academic school year. The waiver went viral after a Twitter user shared it. The focus on the word "death" came from an article published by the online tabloid Raw Story, which extrapolated language from the waiver meant to release the Hazelwood School District (HSD) in Missouri from legal liabilities in the event a child dies in any way related to COVID-19. While it is true that HSD issued a waiver related to COVID-19, Anthony Kiekow, HSD director of communication and public relations, told Snopes that parents would only be required to sign it if their child planned on participating in summer athletic programs. The waiver asked that a parent confirm their acknowledgment of the public health crisis related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and confirmed that they would not allow a child to participate in programs if they showed any symptoms of COVID-19 or had been exposed to anyone diagnosed with the disease or awaiting test results. It further notes: "The undersigned agrees to release, discharge, hold harmless, and indemnify the Hazelwood School District, its

['liability']

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. In July 2020, social media posts and news reports claimed that a Missouri school district asked parents to sign COVID-19 death waivers in advance of the academic school year.The waiver went viral after a Twitter user shared it.The focus on the word death came from an article published by online tabloid Raw Story that extrapolated language from the waiver meant to release Hazelwood School District (HSD) in Missouri from legal liabilities in the event a child dies in any way related to COVID-19.While it is true that HSD issued a waiver related to COVID-19, Anthony Kiekow, HSD director of communication and public relations, told Snopes that parents would only be required to sign if their child planned on participating in summer athletic programs. The waiver asked that a parent confirm their acknowledgment of the public health crisis related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and confirmed that they would not allow a child to participate in programs if they showed any symptoms of COVID-19 or had been exposed to anyone diagnosed with the disease or awaiting test results. It further notes:The waiver was created by the Missouri United School Insurance Council (MUSIC), a non-profit program that provides insurance coverage for Missouri public schools and community colleges. Snopes spoke with MUSIC Executive Director Mark Stockwell who said that the organization supplied all member school districts with two waiver templates recommended for summer athletic programs and not necessarily for those that take place during the academic school year. Kiekow confirmed that the waiver was sent in late June 2020 and was intended for parents whose students typically participate in summer athletics. He noted that required athletic waivers and documents from the previous school year were very different from this waiver, but that language related to COVID-19 is likely to be the new norm for sports.For the 2020-21 school year, the district announced that it would be offering families the option of selecting 100% virtual school or a blended option that includes both virtual and in-person learning. A statement issued by HSD further reads that:EdCounsel, a Missouri-based law firm that represents over 200 public school districts, wrote in a blog post that state law is not clear on whether school districts can require that families sign a COVID-19 waiver for students attending in-person instruction, but liability waivers for extracurricular activities are largely exempt.While liability waivers for normal classes may be suspect, extracurricular activities are a different matter, wrote EdCounsel attorney Tom Smith. (Snopes attempted to contact Smith for comment but did not hear back at the time of publication.) Extracurricular activities are a privilege, not a right; and districts have the legal authority to place certain restrictions on participation in these activities so long as the restrictions are uniformly applied and do not target a protected class.Under Missouri law, eligible students have a legal right to free public education and requiring that a parent or guardian sign a waiver as a condition of attendance would arguably interfere with that right. Even so, some schools and facilities around the United States have adopted similar waivers in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, particularly as many states have seen a spike in cases during the 2020 summer. Turlock Unified School District in California issued a similar waiver asking all persons participating in its activities during this pandemic sign an assumption of risk and waiver of liability. The YMCA of Minnesotas Greater Twin Cities also issued a waiver for adults and children who use its services and programs.The HSD waiver was just one of many documents that come in a summer athletic packet and the school district said that it would continue to follow guidance from state and public health officials for the upcoming 2020-21 academic year. In mid-July 2020, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released guidelines for reopening schools across the state but did not issue statewide mandates.I want to thank all of the medical experts across the state who contributed to this guidance. We are confident that if schools implement this guidance, they CAN safely reopen this fall, wrote Gov. Mike Parson in a Facebook post.

Did Facebook executive Jeff Rothschild express the need for a third world war?

['The former Facebook vice president supposedly advocates solving global problems by exterminating 90 percent of the human population.']

Jeffrey J. Rothschild, an American businessman now in his mid-sixties, is a successful engineer, entrepreneur, and former Facebook vice president whose net worth, according to Forbes, exceeds $3 billion. He is also, if online conspiracy theorists are to be believed, a thought leader in a CIA-backed New World Order plot to exterminate most of the world's population and enslave the survivors. In Internet memes circulating since 2013, Rothschild is quoted as saying a third world war will be required to accomplish these goals. Much as it may disappoint anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, however, Forbes states that despite his great personal wealth, Jeff Rothschild isn't related to the esteemed banking family whose patriarch was Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany. Jeff Rothschild's father, William B. Rothschild, inherited a rubber import business from his father, Marcus Rothschild, whose name appears nowhere in the Mayer Rothschild family tree. Although Jeff Rothschild did speak at a conference of Chinese and American entrepreneurs and investors in January 2013 (at which the above photo was taken), the event took place in Santa Clara, California (not China), and there is no record of him saying anything about a New World Order, a third world war, or a globalized feudal system. Nor have we been able to find such references in any other public statements made by Jeff Rothschild over the past two decades. This utter lack of evidence hasn't stopped anyone from promulgating these falsehoods, however. We came across a similar quote shared by someone using the Twitter handle "truther monkey" in 2014: "Jeff Rothschild gave this speech recently in China to some of the world's richest people ... please share .. pic.twitter.com/dPCqyyo8KT." Though their precise points of origin are uncertain, we traced both quotes to a 3 August 2013 post on a now-defunct "underground anarchist" blog called Anarchadia. Crucially, the anonymous author of the post cited no sources authenticating the statements. "Where is the evidence he actually said these things?" asked someone in the comments section of the page. "Where is the evidence he didn't?" was the response—a low evidentiary bar indeed. As is the case in so much conspiratorial discourse, the very existence of the quotes, if real, would be self-contradictory anyway. By definition, the Illuminati conduct their business in absolute secrecy, yet we find them, time and time again (going all the way back to the fictitious 1903 Protocols of the Elders of Zion), allegedly revealing their entire subversive agenda in public. If that's as secretive as they can be, we have nothing to fear from our supposed Illuminati overlords.

['share']

False

Jeffrey J. Rothschild, an American businessman now in his mid-sixties, is a successful engineer, entrepreneur, and former Facebook vice president whose net worth, according to Forbes, exceeds $3 billion.He is also, if online conspiracy theorists are to be believed, a thought leader in a CIA-backed New World Order plot to exterminate most of the world's population and enslave the survivors. In Internet memes making the rounds since 2013, Rothschild is quoted as saying a third world war will be required to accomplish these goals:Much as it may disappoint anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, however, Forbes says that despite his great personal wealth Jeff Rothschild isn't related to the august banking family whose patriarch was Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany. Jeff Rothschild's father, William B. Rothschild, inherited a rubber import business from his father, Marcus Rothschild, whose name appears nowhere in the Mayer Rothschild family tree.And although Jeff Rothschild did speak at a conference of Chinese and American entrepreneurs and investors in January 2013 (at which the above photo was taken), the event took place in Santa Clara, California (not China), and there is no record of him saying anything about a New World Order, a third world war, or a globalized feudal system. Nor have we been able to find such references in any other public statements uttered by Jeff Rothschild over the past two decades.This utter lack of evidence hasn't stopped anyone from promulgating these falsehoods, however. We ran across a similar quote shared by someone using the Twitter handle "truther monkey" in 2014:Jeff Rothschild gave this speech recently in China to some of the world's richest people ... please share .. pic.twitter.com/dPCqyyo8KT truther monkey (@Thedyer1971) April 4, 2014Though their precise points of origin are uncertain, we traced both quotes to a 3 August 2013 post on a now-defunct "underground anarchist" blog called Anarchadia. Crucially, the anonymous author of the post cited no sources authenticating the statements.As is the case in so much conspiracist discourse, the very existence of the quotes, if real, would be self-contradictory anyway. By definition, the Illuminati conduct their business in absolute secrecy, yet we find them, time and time again (going all the way back to the fictitious 1903 Protocols of the Elders of Zion), allegedly revealing their entire subversive agenda in public.

Did a Cheesecake Factory Customer Receive Misleading 'Tip Suggestions' on His Receipt?

['A viral Facebook post shows an authentic credit card receipt for a Cheesecake Factory order with misleading and exaggerated tip suggestions, but the discrepancy was caused by an error.']

On 18 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Abreu posted what he presented as a photograph of a restaurant check receipt from his recent visit to a Cheesecake Factory outlet in Valencia, California, that appeared to offer some misleading and exaggerated tip amount suggestions: posted When the bill finally returned I noted it it was $33.76 total. Right above where you fill in the tip and total was the tipping guide which prefigures your percentage based on your total bill. I personally am a fan of this feature as I don't like figuring percentages on and odd amount so I normally just go with what they put for 20%. So I began to write in $14.71 as it stated was 20 percent of my bill. My wife then asked how much was the bill and I replied almost $50 with the tip. She then said that's pretty expensive for two iced teas and two apps. I looked at the bill again and saw $33.76 which was correct but then I realized that 20 percent of that should be $6.75 and not $14.71 (more than double) that was printed on my bill. The credit card receipt is authentic. Abreu (who goes by "Frank") brandished an identical-looking slip during an interview with Los Angeles television station KCAL, along with an itemized receipt showing the same total cost ($33.76 including sales tax) but accurate tip suggestions (20% of the bill as $6.75, for example). Thedate and server's name on that receipt were both the same as the credit card slip featured in Abreu's Facebook post. interview A spokesperson for the Cheesecake Factory told us that the discrepancy was caused by an error resulting from a staff member's mistakenly processing the Abreus' order along with someone else's, yielding a larger total that was then used as the basis for the tip suggestions presented in each check: The receipt does not accurately reflect the transaction. The suggested gratuity calculation resulted from inadvertently combining two unrelated parties checks. We deeply apologize for the mistake. It would appear that the staff member corrected the error in the itemized receipt, leaving accurate tip suggestions there, but processed the credit card payment as if it were part of the erroneous "split bill," creating the inaccurate tip suggestions there. (If the combined cost of the two bills were $73.55, for example, then $14.71 would have been an accurate suggested amount for a 20% tip.) The practice of presenting tip suggestions based a whole table's order, in each separate receipt after a bill is split, is controversial. The Cheesecake Factory is currently being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly presenting tip suggestions misleadingly based on percentages of a whole table's bill, in instances where diners split checks: sued The Cheesecake Factory ... [when a table] uses two or more credit or debit cards to pay for the charges, the combined bill is divided between the credit/debit cards and Defendant presents each diner/consumer with a separate sales draft for a portion of the bill (a split bill). On each of the sales drafts, Defendant includes suggested gratuity amounts to facilitate customers in calculating and leaving a gratuity for service. Defendant represents the suggested gratuity to be 15%, 18%, 20% or 22% of the check amount reflected on the sales draft, but, in reality, it calculates the suggested gratuity on the combined bill and the suggested gratuity amounts are actually 30%, 36%, 40%, or 44% of the amounts shown on the separate sales drafts. When customers use credit or debit cards to settle their dining bill, Defendant provides them with sales drafts that contain suggested gratuity amounts, and when Defendant divides the total bill between two or more credit/debit cards, the sales drafts contain suggested gratuity amounts which do not accurately represent the total of each sales draft. Plaintiff estimates that over 80% of restaurant charges are paid by credit or debit cards and that approximately 10% or more of those charges (which represents many thousands of consumers) are divided between two or more credit/debit cards and are affected by The Cheesecake Factorys wrongful suggested gratuity practices. The case has the potential to become a class action lawsuit. An initial status conference is scheduled for 18 October 2017. KCAL-TV [Los Angeles]. "'Borderline Theft': Tipping Suggestions on Man's Cheesecake Factory Receipt Don't Add Up." 18 September 2017. Kieler, Ashlee. "Cheesecake Factory Customers Say They Were Duped Into Leaving Big Tips." Consumerist. 11 August 2017. Goldman, Marcel. "Class Action Complaint Marcel Goldman vs the Cheesecake Factory Incorporated." Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 12 July 2017.

['credit']

NEI

On 18 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Abreu posted what he presented as a photograph of a restaurant check receipt from his recent visit to a Cheesecake Factory outlet in Valencia, California, that appeared to offer some misleading and exaggerated tip amount suggestions:The credit card receipt is authentic. Abreu (who goes by "Frank") brandished an identical-looking slip during an interview with Los Angeles television station KCAL, along with an itemized receipt showing the same total cost ($33.76 including sales tax) but accurate tip suggestions (20% of the bill as $6.75, for example). Thedate and server's name on that receipt were both the same as the credit card slip featured in Abreu's Facebook post.The practice of presenting tip suggestions based a whole table's order, in each separate receipt after a bill is split, is controversial. The Cheesecake Factory is currently being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly presenting tip suggestions misleadingly based on percentages of a whole table's bill, in instances where diners split checks: