Datasets:

amanrangapur

/

Fin-Fact

like 8

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anthony-kennedy-resignation-trump/

Did Anthony Kennedy Resign from the Supreme Court to Protect His Son?

David Mikkelson

07/01/2018

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement (or death) is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically congruent with the party in power and (in most cases) will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often touches off bitter fights between the two parties on the floor of that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: announced Justice Kennedy, 81, has been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades as he embraced liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the death penalty but helped conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice something Mr. Trump has vowed to his supporters could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia -- thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead -- immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment: Merrick Garland The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, most versions of it seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son Justin to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections (during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee). The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference (whereas Kennedy would have to recuse himself from such issues if he remained on the bench): As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump: business [Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump] had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice. Say hello to your boy, Mr. Trump said. Special guy. Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedys son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the banks global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role. During Mr. Kennedys tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trumps most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history. And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Muellers investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections: reported $630 million subpoenaed [Trump] took out two mortgages against a resort in Miami and a $170 million loan to finish his hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, by the time Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2016, he owed Deutsche around $300 million, an unprecedented debt for an incoming president. (His June financial disclosure showed he owes the bank $130 million, which is due in full in 2024.) The loans to Trump werent the only abnormal behavior at Deutsche. Around the same time he received his new line of credit, the bank was laundering money, according to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). Russian money. Billions of dollars that flowed from Moscow to London, then from London to New York part of a scheme for which European and American regulators eventually punished the bank. Was the timing of this illicit operation and the loans to Trump coincidental? Or evidence of something more sinister a critical chapter in the presidents long history of suspicious business deals with Russian and post-Soviet oligarchs? Little hard evidence suggests that the Kennedy rumors are more than political conspiracy-driven speculation, however. Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank before the money laundering activity referenced above took place, and some sources have asserted that Justin Kennedy had little or no involvement with Trump's Deutsche Bank dealings: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that "can easily get confused and lumped together." "While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context," she said. "A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked." Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, "a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank ... most of which was done after Justin left the bank." "The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business," Ruhle continued. "To say that he was the point guy that lent all of this money to Trump, I think, is short-sided. It's a lot more complicated." The level of engagement Justin Kennedy might have had with Donald Trump's financial dealings at Deutsche Bank remains ambiguous for now, but the New York Times gave little weight to the notion that Anthony Kennedy was directly pressured into retiring, observing that it's not unusual for presidents to be mindful of when an open seat on the Supreme Court bench might be in the offing and strategize around the possibility: There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies, said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalias seat. And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as a great man of outstanding accomplishment. Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court, Mr. Trump said, Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service. There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trumps praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic. Then, after Justice Gorsuchs nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy. Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank: reported While the White House is focused on shepherding Trumps first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy. The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement. One back channel is the fact that Kennedys son, Justin, knows Donald Trump Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedys other son, Gregory, and Trumps Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedys firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiels company Palantir Technologies. The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group that includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuchs selection he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands. Those close to Trumps judicial-selection process stress that theyre not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease. It may be true, as outlined above, that members of the Trump administration undertook efforts to "assure Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the courts [current] term." But no substantive evidence yet suggests anything more than that President Trump and other members of his administration might have sought to curry favor with a justice who was already mulling retirement to influence the timing of that event. Arons, Steven. "Deutsche Bank Records Said to Be Subpoenaed by Mueller." Bloomberg. 4 December 2017. Mullen, Jethro. "Deutsche Bank Fined for $10 Billion Russian Money-Laundering Scheme." CNN Money. 31 January 2017. Harding, Luke. "Is Donald Trump's Dark Russian Secret Hiding in Deutsche Bank's Vaults?" Newsweek. 21 December 2017. Liptak, Adam and Maggie Haberman. "Inside the White Houses Quiet Campaign to Create a Supreme Court Opening." The New York Times. 28 June 2018. Liptak, Adam. "Study Calls Snub of Obama's Supreme Court Pick Unprecedented." The New York Times. 13 June 2016. The Washington Post. "The Path Ahead for Trumps Second Nominee to the Supreme Court." 29 June 2018. de Vogue, Ariane. "Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire from Supreme Court." CNN. 27 June 2018. Shear, Michael D. "Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire." The New York Times. 27 June 2018. Goldmacher, Shane. "Trumps Hidden Back Channel to Justice Kennedy: Their Kids." Politico. 6 April 2017. Tarlo, Shira. "Did Anthony Kennedys Son Loan Donald Trump $1 Billion?" Salon. 29 June 2018.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/

Young women today in metropolitan areaswho are childless and single are out-earning childless, single young males.

Aaron Sharockman

04/09/2014

Why is it that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? You likely heard the statistic, which was slapped all over the cable news networks Tuesday to mark Equal Pay Day. To many Democrats, it symbolizes an unfairness in the pay structures of jobs all across America. But conservatives say the situation is more complex, and as much about life choices as some fundamental inequality. We watched the debate play out between conservative pundit Sabrina Schaeffer and liberal pundit Elizabeth Plank on MSNBCsThe Reid Report, and again later between former White House adviser Anita Dunn and conservative pundit Genevieve Wood on CNNsThe Lead with Jake Tapper. If you compare women to men in the same job with similar background, similar experiences that they bring to the table, the wage gap all but disappears, Wood said. Women have made great strides. Instead of celebrating that, this is a political year, the White House wants to portray this war on women. Not only are the numbers wrong -- young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country. Dunn pushed back. I'm going to jump in a little on that because I think that it's true that women are making enormous progress, but you know, as well as I do, that as they get older in the workforce, that those disparities start to grow and there are all kinds of reasons that that happens and an important discussion across the board is how do we continue to make sure that the progress continues, she said. PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this areahereandhere. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. We at PunditFact want to look at the argument being offered by conservatives. In this case, we are checking Wood --a conservative pundit with the Heritage Foundation-- who said, Young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, who are childless, single young women are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country. Basis of the claim Wood directed us to a 2012U.S. News and World Reportarticle thatwas reposted on the websiteof the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The article includes the following line: Census data from 2008 show that single, childless women in their 20s now earn 8 percent more on average than their male counterparts in metropolitan areas. That matches up to what Wood said on CNN. Drilling down further, the reference comes more directly from an analysis of Census Bureau data performed by James Chung of Reach Advisors. Reach Advisors is a private research firm based in New York. Chung spent about a year analyzing 2008 data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, looking at the earnings of men and women in metropolitan areas. The actual study was never released, just some of the findings, Chung told PunditFact this week. Among what was released in September 2010 was this:The median full-time salaries of young women in Americas metropolitan areas are 8 percent higherthan those of the guys in their peer group. A breakdown provided forTimemagazine included a look at specific cities. In Atlanta, young unmarried childless women made 21 percent more than men, Chung found. In Los Angeles, young women made 12 percent more than their cohorts. The newsalso was reported by NPRandCBS News. The American Enterprise Institute converted specific numbers into this graphic to show how women are out-earning men in some cases: Chung said he has not updated his analysis to how the figures have changed since 2008 and no longer circulate (the analysis) as current since it's now four years out of date. No one else, that were aware of, has attempted to recreate Chungs specific analysis, and we found no criticism of Chungs methodology. We did come across an analysis byPew Research, which looked earnings trends for all women between 25 and 34 (a broader and older group). Compared to all men of the same age, Pew Research found women earn 93 percent of what a man earns. That's a smaller gap than when considering all women and all men, Pew found. Analyzing Woods statement We sent Woods statement to Chung and asked for his take. While Wood is careful to note that she was talking about childless, single young women in metropolitan areas, Chung said that Wood failed to note that the analysis concerned median incomes between men and women. Why is that important? Median income figures look at earnings in the aggregate, rather than compare like jobs or professions. That leaves the claim open to the same criticism Republicans levy against Democrats when they claim women earn 77 cents for every $1 a man does. (Namely, that the statistic isnt a true apple-to-apples comparison.) In the case of Chungs findings, the reason why young women in metropolitan areas earn more than young men is that they are 50 percent more likely to graduate from college. As a result, they populate more of the entry-level knowledge-based economy jobs than young men, Chung said. Chung said it would be totally incorrect to imply that these women outearn men with similar jobs or similar educations. The bottom line is that in a world where most players are looking for a sound bite to support a specific position, this is actually a rather complex issue, Chung said. Things aren't exactly as equal as some people say, but it's not always as dire as others say. Our ruling Wood said, Young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, who are childless, single young women are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country. The statement tracks back to a credible analysis of 2008 Census Bureau data that looks at median incomes in metropolitan areas -- a fact that Wood ignores. But she gets most of the other details correct, and while the information is now six years old, we were unable to track down more recent research to confirm or disprove the point. Finally, we should note that this comparison holds true because childless, single young women tend to have more education and qualify for higher paying jobs. Woods statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christian-crowdfunding-rittenhouse/

Did Christian Crowdfunding Campaign Raise Money for Kyle Rittenhouse?

Jessica Lee

09/01/2020

After Illinois teen Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with fatally shooting two people and wounding another during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020, Snopes received numerous inquiries from readers wondering if a self-described Christian crowdfunding website was hosting a fundraiser to supposedly help pay Rittenhouse's legal defense. two people and wounding another The killings occurred during a chaotic confrontation between people protesting the Aug. 23 police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, and armed vigilantes who claimed to be patrolling the lakeside city to prevent looting and property destruction. Rittenhouse, 17, was captured in video footage carrying a military-style rifle, marching alongside members of the latter group, and putting his hands up after shots were fired. Authorities arrested him on Aug. 26 in connection with the deaths in Antioch, Illinois, where he was being held without bail and awaiting his next court hearing on Sept. 25. Jacob Blake footage was being held without bail The charges against Rittenhouse included first-degree intentional homicide, which carries a life sentence. The Chicago Tribune reported: The Chicago Tribune Rittenhouses case immediately became a popular cause in conservative circles, where pundits began defending the teenager before he had even been charged. At least two defense funds have been launched in his name in recent days, though its unclear if the Rittenhouse family supports either of those efforts. That brings us to the question from Snopes readers: Was a website that brands itself as Christian called GiveSendGo hosting an apparent online fundraiser to help Rittenhouse pay court costs? First, we searched several crowdfunding sites for online campaigns with a similar stated goal: to raise money to help Rittenhouse or his family fight criminal charges against him. None appeared on GoFundMe, as of this report. GoFundMe Several crowdfunding pages, however, were active and allegedly supporting Rittenhouse's case on Fundly (see partial search results below). Additionally, a conservative student group at Arizona State University pledged to donate half of its future fundraising dollars to the cause. "[Rittenhouse] does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riot," the college group tweeted. Fundly conservative student group pledged tweeted Next, we considered crowdfunding platforms that describe themselves as Christian and researched GiveSendGo at readers' requests. According to the website, which describes itself as the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site," users can organize and run crowdsourcing campaigns for free by using personalized logins and donate to GiveSendGo directly. The website's "About Us" page stated: GiveSendGo GiveSendGo is meant to give Christians the opportunity to be supported by the body of Christ. A place for the body of Christ to get out from their comfortable pews and support people in God's family that they might not have ever known about. [...] A place for Christians. Based on that evidence, it was accurate to claim GiveSendGo describes itself as a website that promotes Christianity. Then we looked for proof of pages supporting Rittenhouse on the platform. A keyword search for "Kyle Rittenhouse" uncovered several pages, including a fundraiser titled "Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense" that had raised more than $314,000 as of this report. Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense It was the most popular and active GiveSendGo campaign created to supposedly help the teen or his family. The page included the following the description: Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one, as he was forced to take two lives to defend his own. Now, Kyle is being unfairly charged with murder 1, by a DA who seems determined only to capitalize on the political angle of the situation. The situation was clearly self-defense, and Kyle and his family will undoubtedly need money to pay for the legal fees. Let's give back to someone who bravely tried to defend his community. On Aug. 28, 2020, the page's organizers "Friends of the Rittenhouse family" of Atlanta, Georgia wrote an update to the page in which they claimed they had spoken with Rittenhouse's mother and legal team and that that party was raising money via multiple methods. The organizers of the GiveSendGo campaign pledged: "All of the money donated ... will go to Kyle's defense, as it is likely to be an expensive and protracted affair." No specific details on the GiveSendGo page's organizers were known, including how or under what circumstances they started the alleged fundraiser. Anyone can establish a campaign on the site; donors are encouraged to report pages that appear suspicious or fraudulent, and there was no evidence to confirm or deny the organizers of the campaign for Rittenhouse were indeed giving the payments to help his legal defense, aside from the above-described pledge from them. That update also read: Kyle is reportedly in good spirits, and I'm told that the incredible support shown by you good people is what's keeping him going. ... This young man has reinvigorated the faith of many that this country and its founding principles are indeed founded upon the rock, not built upon the sand. However, a city upon a hill cannot be hid; Kyle now faces the wrath of those who would see us stripped of our God-given rights and reduced to servitude. He is in dire need of our help. The GiveSendGo page collected more than 7,330 donations as of this report, some of which included messages of support for Rittenhouse. "This young man is a hero. Give him a medal and make him a millionaire. Every patriot can spare him a few bucks" said an anonymous donor who contributed $10, per the page. Another donor said: Based on those findings yes, a self-described Christian crowdfunding website GiveSendGo was hosting a campaign to supposedly help Rittenhouse we reached out to the website's administrators to learn under what terms it hosts campaigns on its platform. Jacob Wells, a co-founder of the site, told us via email: GiveSendGo allows campaigns from all kinds of different people and political/religious ideologies. Just because we are Christians does not mean every campaign on our site has to be one or that we agree with its campaign premise. [...] We will withhold judgement and leave that for the courts and God. Our judicial system works on the principle of innocence until proven guilty. As a veteran owned platform we recognize the freedoms we have in the USA came at a very high price and we will not just trample on them to satisfy political correctness. Additionally, he said site administrators were conducting a review of the page involving Rittenhouse to make sure it follows site guidelines, though they "currently believe the campaign is eligible like any other campaigns because it does not violate our terms of service." On Aug. 27 the crowdfunding site posted the following statement to Twitter: The campaign stoked controversy online among people who believed it wrongfully celebrated the actions of an alleged killer and should be removed from the crowdfunding website. Referring to Blake, who was paralyzed from the waist down after a white police officer shot at his back multiple times on Aug. 23, one Facebook user alleged: paralyzed In response to those critics, Wells told Snopes: We recognize that we live in a world of diverse ideas and opinions and that part of our strength is in that diversity. We will respond with grace to those that disagree with us. We will give grace to ourselves to not always get it right as we learn and grown. Finally we will give grace to the campaign owner, those that support the campaign, and Kyle as he walk out [sic] the ramifications of his actions. In sum, given how GiveSendGo describes itself the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site" as well as evidence of listed donations on a webpage that says it will give all contributions to help fund Rittenhouse's legal defense, we rate this claim Republicans United. "Welcome." Accessed 31 August 2020. The Associated Press. "Arizona Student Fundraiser for Kenosha Shooting Suspect Kyle Rittenhouse Stirs Outrage." Los Angeles Times. 31 August 2020. GiveSendGo. "About Us." Accessed 31 August 2020. GiveSendGo. "Got Questions?" Accessed 31 August 2020. Stone, Michael. "Christian Crowdfunding Site Raising Money For Kenosha Killer Kyle Rittenhouse." Patheos. 28 August 2020. Willis, Haley, et. al. "Tracking The Suspect In The Fatal Kenosha Shootings." The New York Times. 27 August 2020.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/naacp-wants-stone-mountain-sandblasted/

Does the NAACP Want to Sandblast Confederate Figures Off Stone Mountain?

Kim LaCapria

08/10/2015

In mid-2015, thehistoric Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving Stone Mountain In June 2015, rumors claimed that a petition was being circulated that aimed to destroy the Stone Mountain carving permanently, but those rumors referenced a long-inactive petition that antedated the Charleston massacre. Then a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain: Stone Mountain circulate That rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared the carving (along with parts of Southern history) would be permanently destroyed. Confederate symbols Southern history News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on 13 July 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed (and used the term "sand-blasted"): article The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park. "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery," Rose said. Rose said his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks and lands. Rose told Petersen he would start with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said. The following day (14 July 2015) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document (which was undated and nearly impossible to read): article Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's web site, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter. web site Facebook It's true Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose said that the Stone Mountain carving should be "sand-blasted off" the mountain in a June 2015 interview and that the following day the Journal-Constitution referenced a "statement" from the local NAACP chapter. However, we were unable to locate a purported statement released by that chapter (or the larger national NAACP organization) demanding such an action. Moreover, whether such an action is even possible or plausible (not to mention under consideration to any meaningful degree) is doubtful.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-last-letter/

A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a Dying Veteran

David Mikkelson

03/20/2013

Claim: Letter from a disabled veteran criticizes George Bush and Dick Cheney over the Iraq War. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Was this letter really written by a dying veteran? DYING VET'S 'F*CK YOU' LETTER TO GEORGE BUSH & DICK CHENEY NEEDS TO BE READ BY EVERY AMERICAN A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran To: George W. Bush and Dick CheneyFrom: Tomas Young I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care. I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief. I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans my fellow veterans whose future you stole. [Rest of article here.] here Origins: Tomas Young is a disabled veteran who enlisted in the military after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in 2001 and was severely wounded in Iraq in 2004; he subsequently became an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and was featured in the 2007 documentary film Body of War: Body of War Mr. Young's travails began three days after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The 22-year-old from Kansas City, Mo., was watching a speech on TV by President Bush who was atop the rubble at the World Trade Center. The president issued a rallying cry, saying, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon." Motivated to help his country, Mr. Young enlisted in the Army and was sent to Iraq. After just five days, he was shot by a sniper while riding in an unarmored, open truck. A bullet tore through his spine and he was left permanently paralyzed from the chest down. Body of War follows Mr. Young's life after he returns home. Facing struggles with basic bodily functions and neglectful VA medical care that provided him with bottles of pills and limited rehabilitation services, he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, and became a nationally recognized anti-war activist. With his fresh-faced good looks and upbeat humor, Mr. Young attracted a large following at protests and peace rallies, where Gold Star mothers who lost their sons in combat were comforted just to touch him. After a February 2013 screening of that film, Young told the audience via Skype that he planned to end his life in the near future: A screening of the documentary Body of War came to a startling conclusion when the films star told a stunned audience that he was going to end his life. Appearing with his wife Claudia via Skype on a large projection screen, Mr. Young spoke slowly and at times with difficulty. He said on April 20, the date of the couples first wedding anniversary, he intends to wean himself off food, stop taking life-extendingmedications, "and one day go away." He said he will continue to take medication for pain only. It was important, Mr. Young said, for him to be alert and aware when he died. "Its time," he said. His wife said she supported his decision because he "goes through the gauntlet" every day. "We have talked about where he is at and hes exhausted," she said. The audience was transfixed by Mr. Youngs announcement. Wilton actor Charles Grodin and others called Mr. Young "courageous" and "brave." Mr. Young was commended for taking control over the only part of his life he still had any control over. Others condemned the VA medical system for taking such poor care of returning soldiers, and the politicians who appeared to "rubber stamp" the Iraq War. In a March 2013 interview with Chris Hedges, Young provided more detail about his decision to end his life: interview I had been toying with the idea of suicide for a long time because I had become helpless. I couldn't dress myself. People have to help me with the most rudimentary of things. I decided I did not want to go through life like that anymore. The pain, the frustration ... I felt at the end of my rope. I made the decision to go on hospice care, to stop feeding and fade away. This way, instead of committing the conventional suicide and I am out of the picture, people have a way to stop by or call and say their goodbyes. I felt this was a fairer way to treat people than to just go out with a note. After the anoxic brain injury in 2008 I lost a lot of dexterity and strength in my upper body. So I wouldnt be able to shoot myself or even open the pill bottle to give myself an overdose. The only way I could think of doing it was to have Claudia open the pill bottle for me, but I didn't want her implicated. On 18 March 2013, in conjunction with the tenth anniversary of beginning of the Iraq War, Tomas Young submitted a letter (referenced above) that was published on the truthdig web site. Titled "The Last Letter" and subtitled "A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a Dying Veteran," the letter criticized the former president and vice president for sending "hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage." truthdig However, in December 2013, several months after penning "The Last Letter," Young told an NPR interviewer that he had changed his mind about his decision to end his life, saying: "I just came to the conclusion that I wanted some more time with my wife. And I decided that I really don't have the chutzpah to go ahead and do away with myself. If you're in life and you start to think things are a little too rough to handle, just think of me and what I go through, and you realize that hey, I don't have it so bad." Tomas Young passed away on 10 November 2014. His mother attributed the cause of his death to "his body just wore out." Last updated: 7 September 2015 Hedges, Chris. "The Crucifixion of Tomas Young." truthdig. 10 March 2013. Martin, Douglas. "Tomas Young, Army Veteran, Dies at 34." The New York Times. 16 November 2014. Morris, Frank. "Injured Veteran Keeps Up His Fight, Deciding to Live." NPR. 28 December 2013. Szoldra, Paul. "Injured Veteran Who Wrote Scathing 'Last Letter' to President Bush Decides to Live On." Business Insider. 28 December 2013.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-medal-of-freedom-weinstein-clinton-cosby-weiner/

Did Obama Award Presidential Medal of Freedom to Weinstein, Weiner, Clinton, and Cosby?

Dan Evon

10/17/2017

After numerous women came forward to accuse powerful Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, and rape in October 2017, social media users circulated photographs of Weinstein with various politicians in an apparent attempt to smear their characters. One meme went even further, purportedly showing President Obama bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Weinstein, President Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Bill Cosby and joking that it should be renamed the "sexual predator award": producer showing Three women have accused Bill Clinton sexual harassment, rape, or sexual assault -- charges that he denies. Anthony Weiner was sentenced to 21 months prison for exchanging sexual messages with a 15-year-old girl. Dozens of women accused Bill Cosby of drugging, raping and assaulting them. women prison drugging, The only genuine image included in this meme is that of President Obama awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to President Bill Clinton during a ceremony in November 2013. The Washington Post reported at the time that: ceremony It was a ceremony rich in pageantry and politics: President Obama, at the nadir of his presidency, bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on a Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton ... Obama uttered fewer than 300 words about Clinton. But his remarks paid tribute to the sweep of his public life from transforming education as governor of Arkansas to growing the economy as the 42nd president to leading relief efforts in the wake of global natural disasters. Obama said Clintons charitable foundation has saved literally hundreds of millions of people. He still remembers as a child waving goodbye to his mom tears in her eyes as she went off to nursing school so she could provide for her family, Obama said of Clinton. And I think lifting up families like his own became the story of Bill Clintons life. All three of the other images were created by taking a genuine photograph of a different recipient and then using digital manipulation to add the heads of Weinstein, Weiner, and Cosby. The photograph purportedly showing Obama with Weinstein, for instance, originally featured an image of Vice President Joe Biden: Obama surprised Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during a ceremony in January 2017. ceremony The image purportedly showing Obama with Anthony Weiner was created using an image that originally featured actor Tom Hanks: Hanks received his award in November 2016. award The image of Bill Cosby was also fake. The original image featured President Obama bestowing the Medal of Freedom on musician Bruce Springsteen: Although the image of Bill Cosby with President Obama is fake, the comedian truly did receive the award in 2002 -- from President George W. Bush: award Neither Weinstein nor Weiner has received a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Kim, Kyle. "Bill Cosby: A 50-year Chronicle of Accusations and Accomplishments." Los Angeles Times. 17 June 2017. Kessler, Glenn. "A Guide to the Allegations of Bill Clintons Womanizing." The Washington Post. 30 December 2015. The Economist. "Anthony Weiner Is Sentenced to 21 Months in Prison." 25 September 2017. Gittens, Hasani. "President Barack Obama Honors Joe Biden with Surprise Medal of Freedom." NBC News. 13 January 2017. Rucker, Philip. "Obama Honors Clinton and His Legacy with Presidential Medal of Freedom." The Washington Post. 20 November 2013. Grant, Sarah. "Watch President Obama Award Bruce Springsteen Medal of Freedom." Rolling Stone. 22 November 2016. Los Angeles Times. "Harvey Weinstein Went From Power Player to Pariah in Less Than a Week. Here's How it Happened." 16 October 2017. Grant, Sarah. "Watch President Obama Award Bruce Springsteen Medal of Freedom." Rolling Stone. 22 November 2016. Lawler, David. "Barack Obama Presents Medal of Freedom to Stars Including Tom Hanks, Bruce Springsteen and Michael Jordan." The Telegraph. 23 November 2016.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/omicron-movie-made-in-1960s/

Was an 'Omicron' Movie Made in the '60s?

Dan Evon

12/01/2021

The only thing the internet loves more than a good prediction is pretending that a good prediction exists. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we've seen some far-reaching attempts to claim that this contagious and deadly disease had been predicted by episodes of "The Simpsons," George Orwell's book "1984," the alleged soothsayer known as Nostradamus, alleged psychic Sylvia Browne, South Korean television shows, the video game Resident Evil, and a novel by Dean Koontz. far-reaching attempts episodes of "The Simpsons," George Orwell's book "1984," alleged soothsayer known as Nostradamus alleged psychic Sylvia Browne, South Korean television shows Resident Evil novel by Dean Koontz In November 2021, as a new variant of COVID-19 emerged that health officials called "omicron," social media users started looking for old pieces of media containing the word so that they could claim that this variant had been "predicted." What they found was a movie from the 1960s: There really was a movie made in 1963 called "Omicron." And that's where this movie's connection to the current COVID-19 pandemic ends. The word "omicron" isn't new, and it's use in a 1960s movie isn't all that surprising. "Omicron" is the 15th letter of the Greek alphabet and has been in use for thousands of years. In academic fields, it is often used to represent the 15th item in a list. The World Health Organization announced in May that it would be naming new COVID-19 variants as they emerge by using the the Greek alphabet. While the "delta" variant made headlines, there have been several other variants, such as epsilon, Iota and lambda, that didn't warrant too much concern. When the latest variant emerged, WHO skipped two letters, nu and xi, as they are common surnames, and named the new variant omicron. World Health Organization announced in May skipped two letters WHO has assigned simple, easy to say and remember labels for key variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, using letters of the Greek alphabet. These labels were chosen after wide consultation and a review of many potential naming systems. WHO convened an expert group of partners from around the world to do so, including experts who are part of existing naming systems, nomenclature and virus taxonomic experts, researchers and national authorities. The word "omicron" is also frequently used by astronomers to name stars. Omicron Persei, Omicron Andromedae, and Omicron Ceti are all real stars in the galaxy. It's not far-fetched to see how a fiction writer could name a fictional planet or a fictional alien "Omicron." Omicron Persei Omicron Andromedae Omicron Ceti In fact, when some social media users encountered the name of this new COVID-19 variant, a number of people noted how "omicron" would make a great name for a sci-fi movie. Some even created and posted fake movie posters. Here's one fake "Omicron" movie poster (left) next to the original movie poster (right) it was created from: original movie poster While a few fake "Omicron" movie posters were circulated on social media in November 2021, there really have been a few movies with this title. In 1963, Italian writer and director Ugo Gregoretti made a movie called "Omicron" about an alien that took over a human body in order to learn more about earth. Here's one scene from the satirical film: This is a real movie, but it has practically nothing to do with the current pandemic. Furthermore, using "omicron" in a work of fiction isn't all that uncommon. In 2013, "The Visitor from Planet Omicron" explored how an alien invasion could be thwarted by really good cooking. The plot of "The Visitor from Planet Omicron" would probably make better conspiratorial fodder as it involves a botanical virus and a corrupt government, but this low-budget comedy in no way "predicted" COVID-19. The animated show "Futurama" also features an alien character named Lrrr who is the ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8. While one could build a conspiracy theory around Lrrr and the other Omicronians starting the COVID-19 pandemic, Lrrr would probably rather eat humans (or force them to make more sitcoms) than kill them with a plague. ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8 Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is not a work of fiction. It wasn't predicted by old sci-fi movies and it wasn't planned by nefarious forces. The latest variant was named "omicron" because that was the next usable letter in the Greek alphabet. The next variant will likely be called "Pi," the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet, which will undoubtedly lead people to claim that the pandemic was predicted by movies like "Life of Pi" or by Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse who was the first to calculate an accurate approximation of pi. Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse How Futurama Is Related to the New Omicron COVID Variant. MARCA, 28 Nov. 2021, https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/tv-shows/2021/11/28/61a327fe268e3e001c8b4576.html. This Is How the Number 3.14 Got the Name Pi. Time, https://time.com/4699479/pi-day-history-origins/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2021. WHO Announces Simple, Easy-to-Say Labels for SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Interest and Concern. https://www.who.int/news/item/31-05-2021-who-announces-simple-easy-to-say-labels-for-sars-cov-2-variants-of-interest-and-concern. Accessed 2 Dec. 2021.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/incredible-edibles/

Incredible Edibles

David Mikkelson

07/31/2014

Claim: Edible Arrangements funds the terrorist organization Hamas. UNDETERMINED Example: [Collected via Facebook, July 2014] A friend posted an "article" about Edible Arrangements supporting Hamas: "After you see what Edible Arrangments did for Hamas, you'll never buy from them AGAIN." Being suspicious, I did a search and found a number of articles, all from late 2012, and all from questionable "news" sources. Origins: Edible Arrangements International is a U.S.-based business that specializes in selling "fruit bouquets," fruit baskets designed like floral arrangements. As of 2014, the company was a 1,200-store chain with outlets in 14 countries, including the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Italy, Turkey, Hong Kong, Oman, India and China. Since at least as far back as 2012, rumors have circulated claiming that brothers Tariq and Kamran Farid, who founded the company, are "devout Pakistani Muslims" who have, through their Tariq Farid Foundation, donated money to organizations linked with Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist movement engaged in armed resistance and terrorism against Israel: rumors Tariq Farid Foundation Hamas Tariq Farid is the CEO of Edible Arrangements, which he started with his brother, Kamran Farid. Not only are they devout Pakistani Muslims, but they are major donors and fundraisers for American mosques, Islamic schools, and similar enterprises in Pakistan. Recent tax returns of their Farid Foundation, to which they and Edible Arrangements are major contributors, show that their foundation gives tens of thousands of dollars to extremist Islamic schools and mosques in America and to Islamic Relief, the HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood "charity" which sends tens of millions of dollars to finance jihad around the world. The Anti-Defamation League (whose stated mission is to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all citizens alike") said of such rumors back in 2012 that: Anti-Defamation League We have received several such inquiries regarding recent allegations by Debbie Schlussel in an article critical of the owners of Edible Arrangements, which sells fruit baskets and the like. Schlussel claims that the owners of Edible Arrangements are funding Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas, through their Farid Foundation. In our judgment, Schlussel's allegations lack context and nuance and she does not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she references, we believe it is an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements is funding Hamas. The ADL disclaimed these rumors again in August 2014: disclaimed A widely circulated rumor suggests that the owners of Edible Arrangements, a company that sells fruit baskets through a series of privately owned franchises across the country, are funding Hamas through a charitable foundation they support. Several ideologically motivated online sites are urging consumers to boycott the company due to their ties to terrorism." In fact, there is absolutely no truth to these unfounded assertions. While the Farid Foundation has provided funding to various organization in the U.S. and abroad, there is no evidence to suggest that any of those funds have been used to support terrorism. Moreover, the company has clearly and unequivocally denounced terrorism, including those forms of terror used by Hamas. It should also be noted that the company's franchise owners come from a variety of religious backgrounds; some are Jewish, including the companys current president. We do note that in June 2014 Islamic Relief WorldWide (IRW) was banned from operating in Israel due to that country's belief that IRW "funnels cash to Hamas": Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon [has] signed a decree banning Islamic Relief Worldwide from operating in Israel. Israel believes IRW, which markets itself as a charitable agency that solicits donations from all over the world, funnels cash to Hamas. Yaalons ban was decided upon after the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), the coordinator for government activities in the territories, and legal authorities provided incriminating information against IRW. The organization has representatives worldwide, including Australia, the United States, and Britain, where it is headquartered. Some of their local branches in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria are run by Hamas operatives. Ya'alon's decree makes it illegal for IRW to function anywhere in Israel, Judea, and Samaria. It will also be forbidden from transferring funds to any destination in Judea and Samaria. "[The IRW] is another source of funds for Hamas, and we have no intention of allowing it to operate and assist terrorist activity against Israel," Ya'alon said. "This is another in a series of steps that we are taking against Hamas in Judea and Samaria and the pressure we are applying, the goal of which is to harm the organizations leadership and rank-and-file as well as its civilian infrastructure. These serve as the foundation from which Hamas operates among the local population." In March 2014, Blue MauMau reported on a sexual and religious harassment lawsuit against Edible Arrangements and founder Tariq Farid which referenced charitable organizations that the Farids allegedly support: reported Farid and his brother, Kamran Farid (Edible Arrangements' Chief Operating Officer), at all relevant times hereto have been the two trustees of a foundation called the Farid Foundation, operated out of the same location as Edible Arrangements. Farid Foundation makes significant contributions to Islamic causes and organizations, including the Farid Foundation Pakistan; the Salma K. Farid Academy; Islamic Circle of North America Relief; the Muslim Coalition of Connecticut; the Inner-City Muslim Action Network; the Wallingford Islamic Center; Masjid AI-Islam; and the Islamic Association of Southern Connecticut. The funding for these donations is derived in large part from donations by Farid and his brother, and by Edible Arrangements and its affiliated entities. One of those organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) supposedly has financial ties to Hamas, but the evidence presented for that claim only references web links from the ICNA web site to Hamas and similar groups, not any direct financial ties: ICNA evidence Open support for terrorist causes was available on the websites of regional ICNA branches, even after 9/11. As late as November 2002, the ICNA Southeast Zone website linked to the websites of Hamas, Hizballah, and terrorist organizations fighting in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the Pakistani-Indian disputed region of Kashmir. Among its short list of recommended Islamic charities was the Islamic Society in Gaza, which openly touted its connections to Hamas. The day after the Blue MauMau article was published, Tariq Farid's legal representatives issued a letter challenging the truthfulness of its implications, demanding its retraction, and asserting, among other things, that Farid's foundation only donation to ICNA was made "to a special fund of the ICNA called 'ICNA Relief USA', an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing: letter This letter addresses a recent article regarding my clients, Tariq Farid and the Farid Foundation, that was written by Paul Steinberg under the pseudonym "Corbin Williston," and published on your website, Blue MauMau. The article is false and defamatory of Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation, and we demand an inunediate and complete retraction. We also demand that the publication be immediately removed from all websites under your control. The article has been deliberately written to falsely accuse Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation of supporting the illegal acts of alleged terrorist organizations and the activities of alleged war criminals. Moreover, the article is written so that a reasonable reader would believe that Edible Arrangements, the well-known business of which Mr. Farid is founder and CEO, also supports these alleged acts of terrorism. These statements, and the entire message of the article, are patently and outrageously false. Indeed, the author and publisher of these falsehoods could only have acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. The article asserts that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports terrorist activities overseas through the Farid Foundation's donations to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In fact, the Farid Foundation's only contribution was to a special fund of the ICNA called "ICNA Relief USA", an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing. When a rumormonger made similar false accusations against the Farid Foundation some time ago, the Anti-Defamation League responded that such "allegations lack[ed] context and nuance and [the accuser] [did] not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she referenc[ed], we believe it [was] an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements [funded] Hamas." Most egregious and defamatory is the articles clear implication that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports the goals of an alleged terrorist (Ashrafuzzaman Khan) or overseas terrorist groups. There is not a shred of objective fact, cited or existing, to support this false assertion. In addition, the article is in part based on false allegations contained in a complaint of an ex-employee of Edible Arrangements. Mr. Farid and Edible Arrangements have refuted those allegations in their answer and will obtain dismissal of all claims in the litigation. Blue MauMau's original article has not been retracted, and its author published a follow-up the next day stating (in part): follow-up A few observations regarding the Edible Arrangements statement: The franchise does not dispute that the head of ICNA was recently convicted of war crimes in Bangladesh. The franchise says that Edible Arrangements actually gave money to "a special fund" of ICNA. In other words, although ICNA may have been run by a man convicted of torture and murder of 18 people, he also ran "a special fund" which "helps women with temporary housing." Members of the public may find this a distinction without a difference, and they may also find it relevant that Edible Arrangements does not see any problem with ICNA's history of behavior, nor does it see any problem with the head of ICNA being a party to torture. My guess is that the people who were tortured and murdered might disagree with Tariq Farid. The franchise says that a "reasonable reader" may believe that Edible Arrangements and Tariq Farid "support these alleged acts of terrorism." Well, yes. That is a "reasonable" reading of the uncontroverted facts laid out in the BlueMauMau article. Whatever the truth of those issues regarding ICNA may be, the evidence for a direct financial link between ICNA and Hamas (and thus between Edible Arrangements and Hamas) still appears rather tenuous. Last updated: 2 August 2014 O'Connor, Clare. "How Edible Arrangements Sold $500 Million of Fruit Bouquets in 2013." Forbes. 8 April 2014. Williston, Corbin. "Edible Arrangements Suit Renews Questions of Terrorist Support." Blue MauMau. 30 March 2014. Williston, Corbin. "Edible Arrangements Denies Funding Terrorists." Blue MauMau. 31 March 2014. The Jerusalem Post. "Israel Bans Islamic Relief Worldwide from West Bank Due to Hamas Ties." 19 June 2014.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-pledge-of-allegiance/

Red Skelton Pledge of Allegiance

David Mikkelson

06/28/2002

Claim: In 1969, comic Red Skelton lamented on his weekly television show that the Pledge of Allegiance might someday be considered a "prayer" and eliminated from public schools. . Example: [Skelton, 1969] The Pledge of Allegiance: I: Me, an individual, a committee of one. PLEDGE: Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity. ALLEGIANCE: My love and my devotion. TO THE FLAG: Our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job. UNITED: That means that we have all come together. STATES: Individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country. AND TO THE REPUBLIC: A state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people, and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people. FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION: One nation, meaning "so blessed by God." INDIVISIBLE: Incapable of being divided. WITH LIBERTY: Which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation. AND JUSTICE: The principle or quality of dealing fairly with others. FOR ALL: For all, which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine. And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools too? Origins: Red Skelton, a veteran comic who successfully plied his trade as a sentimental clown figure in vaudeville and radio, delighted television audiences for twenty years playing characters he had perfected on radio Clem Kadiddlehopper, Freddie the Freeloader, and the Mean Widdle Kid on his weekly variety television program, "The Red Skelton Show." The Red Skelton Show On 14 January 1969, Skelton offered his television audience his reminiscence of an incident from his schoolboy days in Indiana. Mr. Lasswell, Skelton's teacher, felt his students had come to regard the Pledge of Allegiance as a daily drudgery to be recited by rote; they had lost any sense of the meaning of the words they were speaking. As Skelton related the story, Mr. Lasswell told his class: "I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it's becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?" Skelton then delivered to his audience (accompanied by a background of string music) a stirring version of the explanation provided to his school class by their teacher so many years earlier (and a recitation of the pledge itself), as quoted above. Skelton's explication and rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance proved to be quite popular and widely acclaimed, and in response to public demand it was issued in print and pressed into records. But in 1969, the Supreme Court decisions that eliminated compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools as unconstitutional, Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, were still fairly recent (having been handed down in 1963), and protests over American military involvement in Vietnam had rendered the American flag as much a symbol of divisiveness as of unity. Skelton, a soft-spoken, sentimental personality who ended every program with the invocation "Good night, and may God bless," added a coda to Mr. Lasswell's explanation, a lamentation of the thought that the 1954 insertion of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance might someday cause it to be considered a "prayer" (and thereby eliminated from public schools as well), and given the recent appeals court ruling that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, Red Skelton's words now strike many as remarkably prescient (and perhaps more prophetic than even he imagined). Abington School District v. Schempp Murray v. Curlett unconstitutional Skelton performed a similar explication of the Canadian national anthem, "O Canada," during a visit to that country in 1990: "O Canada": I see mountains and valleys and rivers and trees; it is truly Mother Nature's warehouse. "Our home and native land": A place where families live with dignity on rich soil that shares food and beauty. " patriot": Patriotism, a pride, a privilege to say, I, me, an individual, a committee of one, and dedicate all my worldly goods, to give without self-pity. "love in all thy sons command": That powerful youth that gives all their love and devotion, holding the standard with the Maple Leaf high in the air; for it is a symbol of courage and wherever she waves, she shouts "Freedom is everybody's job." "With glowing hearts we see thee rise": A warmth that incubates incentive; wisdom that feeds beyond superstition and ignorance. "the true north strong": She is that compass needle that points to inspiring reality, and the courage to struggle on, to find a dream and make it come true. "and free": That right of power for one to live his own life without fear or stress or any sort of retaliation. "And stand on guard, O Canada": Not that we want to flaunt our strength, but to be capable of facing the strongest should that enemy appear. "We stand on guard for thee": we protect all doctrines and share thy spirit of logic and reasoning. "O Canada, glorious and free!": That means justice, the principle and qualities of dealing fairly with others. "O Canada , we stand on guard for thee": So we can stand proud and say to our neighbor, "This is as much my country as it is yours." Both of these items are reminiscent of a Christmas segment from the "Amos 'n' Andy" radio program, one which first aired in 1930 and was repeated annually (and was filmed for the 1952 Christmas Day episode of the short-lived "Amos 'n' Andy" television series). As Amos' daughter Arbadella lies in her bed on Christmas Eve, her father tenderly explains the meaning of the Lord's Prayer to her: ARABDELLA: I've been saying the Lord's Prayer with Mommie. What does the Lord's Prayer mean, Daddy? AMOS: The Lord's Prayer? Well, darlin', I'll 'splain it to you. It means an awful lot, and with the world like it is today, it seems to have bigger meaning than ever before. ARABDELLA: But what does the Lord's Prayer really mean, Daddy? AMOS: Now, you lay down, and you listen. The first line of the Lord's Prayer is this: "Our Father which art in Heaven" that means Father of all that is good where no wrong can dwell. Then it says "Hallow'd be Thy name" that means, darlin', that we should love an' respect all that is good. Then it says "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven" that means, darlin', as we clean our hearts with love, the good, the true, and the beautiful, then Earth where we are now will be like Heaven. ARABDELLA: That would be wonderful, Daddy. AMOS: Then it says "Give us this day our daily bread" that means to feed our hearts an' minds with kindness, with love an' courage, which will make us strong for our daily task. Then after that, the line of the Lord's Prayer is "An' forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" you 'member the Golden Rule? ARABDELLA: Yes, Daddy. AMOS: Well, that means we mus' keep the Golden Rule and do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. And then it says "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" that means, my darlin', to ask God to help us do, an' see, an' think right, so that we will neither be led nor tempted by anything that is bad. "For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory forever. Amen." That means, darlin', that all the world an' everything that's in it, belongs to God's kingdom everything Mommie, your Daddy, your little brother and sister, your gran'ma you an' everybody and, as we know that, an' act as if we know it, that, my darlin' daughter, is the real spirit of Christmas. Additional information: The Pledge of Allegiance ((The Red Skelton Show 14 January 1969)) Last updated: 9 March 2007 Sources: Andrews, Bart. Holy Mackeral! The Amos 'n' Andy Story. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1986. ISBN 0-525-24354-2 (pp. 97-98).

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/infinity-tower/

Infinity Tower Flooding Accident

David Mikkelson

01/12/2010

Claim: Photographs show a high-rise construction site flooded by waters from a nearby marina. Status: True. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2007] Nearly 100 workers at the site of the Infinity Tower escaped as excavation work on the 80-floor building was nearing completion. The incident happened as the workers were assisting the project owners and the piling contractor with the foundation works on site 20 meters below ground level. The supervision team noticed a slight movement and cracks in the diaphragm wall adjacent to the Dubai Marina and alerted management, who ordered an immediate evacuation of the site. The diaphragm wall collapsed and crumbled within 2 minutes from being noticed as the workers were scrambling over safety ladders up to the ground level. The whole site was totally flooded within 4 minutes. The construction of the tower will continue to be suspended until the site can be totally dewatered. A special diving team has been brought in to assess the situation. Origins: Construction projects, both large and small, can be delayed or set back for any number of reasons labor problems, material shortages, budget overruns, economicreversals, bad weather, faulty planning, etc. But not often do we see construction delayed in as spectacular a fashion as happened with the Infinity Tower project, an 80-story, helix-shaped high-rise building currently being erected within the Dubai Marina district of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Infinity Tower Dubai Marina The pictures displayed above illustrate a February 2007 accident in which a wall holding back the waters of the Dubai Marina was breached, completely flooding the construction site. As the Gulf News reported of the accident: Nearly 100 workers at the site of the 'tallest building with a twist' had a lucky escape as a wall holding back the Dubai Marina waters breached and flooded the foundation site. Excavation work on the 80-floor Infinity Tower was nearing completion when there was a sharp and loud sound, said a worker. "We then saw sand pouring down the sides," he said. The workers were ordered to evacuate immediately, said the foreman. According to a manager of Arabtec, the incident is under investigation. Additional post-accident photographs of the Infinity Tower site can be viewed at the Dubai News Online web site. photographs Last updated: 7 June 2007 Sources: Gulf News. "Lucky Escape for 100 Workers." 8 February 2007.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/consumer-rebate-program/

$42.4 Billion Consumer Rebate Program

David Mikkelson

09/18/2016

For over a year, unscrupulous financial sites (primarily the Oxford Club) have been trying to peddle costly memberships and newsletter subscriptions to consumers by deceptively touting that Congress recently passed a $42.4 billion "consumer rebate program" entitling taxpaying Americans to a "cash rebate on every single purchase" a program that you, too, could cash in on ... if you paid $49 for a subscription to find out how: Such come-ons typically referenced a "new" or "secret" law that had been "quietly" enacted at the end of 2015: Late on Friday, December 18, 2015, President Obama quietly signed a new 233-page Congressional act into law. There was little fanfare. After all, it was the weekend before Christmas. And most of the White House reporters had already gone home for the holidays. But buried deep inside the act, in Section 106, is a hidden bombshell ... one that I believe deserves your immediate attention. In short, it contains a program that Gives Every Taxpaying American the Right to Collect a Cash Rebate on Nearly EVERY Single Purchase Made in 2016 This is not a joke. Were talking about an opportunity to collect a cash rebate on virtually anything you pay for during this year. All of this was highly misleading. The referenced "cash rebate" program was actually a decade-old tax deduction provision that applied to a small minority of taxpayers and could not fairly be described as a program to provide consumers with "cash rebates on nearly every purchase" (at least not without stretching the definition of the word "rebate" to the breaking point. In general, the U.S. income tax code has long allowed taxpayers who itemize their federal income tax returns to deduct any state and local income taxes they pay during the year. However, some state and local governments don't impose income taxes on residents and instead fund their operations in other ways (such as higher sales or property taxes), so those who live in such states were disadvantaged by not having a federal tax deduction to offset what they paid to keep their local government services running. To make things a little more equitable, for ten years running Congress voted in an exception every year that allowed taxpayers to choose to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local sales taxes on their federal returns. Finally, at the end of 2015, a bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama making this temporary yearly provision a permanent part of the law. signed So, the minority of taxpayers who live in one of the nine no-income tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming) and itemize their federal tax returns may see some benefit to this not-new-but-recently-permanent law, as may a few others (such as taxpayers who have relatively low incomes but made large taxable purchases during the course of a given year). But it's a tax deduction rather than a "cash rebate" program, and it affects only a small percentage of taxpayers and not "every taxpaying American." As the Stock Gumshoe site summarized the issue: Stock Gumshoe I expect lots of you were already fully aware of this, or blissfully unaware because it will never impact on your lives or your tax obligations, but [the "permanentization" of this tax break] is real and it has certainly made a difference for folks in no-income-tax states and a few other folks in non-typical circumstances. And its also been the law of the land for about ten years, and has recently been made permanent so you wont have to be on pins and needles each Winter as you watch to see if Congress extends the break another year. And no, it is not a rebate to 119 million Americans ... but for at least the 24 million or so households in no income tax states (or the ~8 million of them who itemize deductions, anyway) it could certainly make (and in all cases where theyve been paying attention since 2004, probably already has made) a difference on their tax returns.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-accounted/

Etymology of 'Card Shark' and 'Card Sharp'

Barbara Mikkelson

05/25/2008

Claim: Someone who cheats at cards is properly styled a card shark, not a card sharp. Status: Multiple see below. Origins: Long has the debate raged over whether a card cheat is properly termed a card sharp or a card shark. Sharks, after all, are known for dispassionately rending the flesh of their prey, which would seem in this linguistic battle to favor the card shark camp, since those who manipulate the pasteboards for the purpose of bilking others have no more conscience or concern for their victims than do their finned counterparts. Yet card sharp also has in its favor that it seems to conjure up mental images of the poker cheats of the Old West, sharp-featured men with cards up their sleeves. Which, therefore, is it? Both terms still mean someone skilled in cheating at cards, although in recent years card shark has also come to acquire the less odious definition of someone skilled at the play of cards. (Were that not so, one would have to wonder at the naming of the 1978 TV game show Card Sharks, on which contestants tried to guess whether the next card in a sequence was higher or lower than its predecessor.) As to whether card sharp or card shark entered the English language first, the answer is far from straightforward. A print sighting of card sharp dates to 1884 and one of card sharper to 1859, while the first print sighting of card shark takes us back only to 1942 evidence which would seem to settle matters. However, both sharper and shark (in the sense of one who cheats) antedate all of the above, sharper to 1681 and shark to 1599, evidence which could be seen as giving the nod to shark. (By the way, the "shark" in question has nothing to do with carnivorous fish; it instead likely entered the English language via the German schurke, a word that in the 16th century had the meaning of a cheat or swindler.) If you thought the answer might be found via looking at the words sharp and shark absent the word card, that pursuit also leads down a blind alley, because some definitions of both those words contain elements of cheating or connivance. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a sharp as "A worthless and impecunious person who gains a precarious living by sponging on others, by executing disreputable commissions, cheating at play, and petty swindling; a parasite; a sharper." While that use of the word is rarely encountered these days, remnants of it are still with us, such as when we accuse someone of engaging in "sharp practices" (meaning the cutting of corners to achieve desired ends while the person so engaged may be staying within the strict letter of the law, his behavior could still be regarded as unethical and suspect). As for the word shark, in addition to encompassing the species of flesh-eating fish it identifies, it has over time come to serve as a label for certain dislikable characters: those who prey greedily upon others (such as successful businesspeople famous more for their love of profit than for adherence to ethics) and those who by virtue of superior skill outmaneuver less capable opponents (highly effective divorce attorneys, for instance). Common compound nouns have been formed from 'shark' that address both meanings, such as loan shark in the "prey greedily" category and pool shark in the "superior skill" category. Barbara "all sharks, finned or otherwise, are best avoided" Mikkelson Last updated: 13 June 2008 Sources: The Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warning-shot/

Lockheed Martin Layoffs

David Mikkelson

10/27/2012

Claim: Lockheed Martin is going to lay off 123,000 workers due to military downsizing but is not sending out layoff notices at the behest of the Obama administration. OF AND INFORMATION Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] My son-in-law works at Lockheed Martin and we just found out that Lockheed is going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military. This hit the Drudge report yesterday. We are livid. This is true! The law requires Lockheed to give 60-day notice to all to-be-fired employees within 60 days. That drop dead date would be November 1st. Since this would be bad for the election, Obama has promised that our government would cover all Lockheed severance packages to fired employees if Lockheed would not release the names and locations of those losing their jobs until after the election! Origins: In August 2011 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to resolve the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis and prevent the federal government from heading into default over its debt. That piece of legislation identified $1.2 trillion in budget cuts to be made over 10 years and called upon Congress, through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "super-committee"), to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit by another $1.5 trillion (through revenue increases and/or spending reductions) by 23 November 2011. If that committee failed to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan by the deadline, or if Congress failed to approve the committee's plan, then the legislation called for automatic, across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestration") to go into effect. The super-committee did not agree on a deficit reduction plan, stating that "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," so unless and until lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, the sequestration budget cuts are set to take effect with the 2013 budget. Since those cuts, if they take place, may include large reductions in Pentagon spending, some defense contractors are anticipating that they may have to engage in significant layoffs of personnel in the upcoming year, and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, enacted in 1989, most employers with 100 or more employees are required to issue 60-day advance notification of mass layoffs. WARN When one such defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, announced on 1 October 2012 that it would abide by White House guidance not to issue WARN Act-mandated layoff notices to thousands of employees just before the November presidential election, Republican critics contended that President Obama was engaging in a partisan political ploy to protect votes in a key battleground state (Lockheed Martin has a large business presence in Virginia) at the expense of workers who might soon find themselves without jobs: contended U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement on Obama Administration guidance issued instructing defense companies and other government contractors not to issue mass layoff notices to their employees, as is required under the WARN Act, in anticipation of the $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur under sequestration on January 2, 2013: Today, President Obama put his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. The WARN Act exists to protect workers by providing at least 60 days' notice of layoffs from government contracting work. But today, the Office of Management and Budget published guidance for the defense industry and other government contractors that they do not have to provide that notice now even though, under current law, $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur on January 2 are estimated to result in as many as 1 million lost defense jobs. Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs. At issue is a Training and Employment Guidance letter issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on 30 July 2012, and reiterated in a 28 September 2012 memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), advising employers that the issuance of WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration was not required by law and would be a waste of resources because it is currently unknown which contracts might be affected by potential budget cuts and when the effects of those budget cuts might take place. The DOL's letter also informed employers that if they followed the DOL's advice and refrained from issuing WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration, and they later had to engage in mass layoffs due to sequestration, the government would cover any legal costs they incurred as a result: letter memo Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable. In addition, the sequester's impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted. Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur. Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown. Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable. DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors: In reaching this conclusion, DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers. Despite DOL's guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration. To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resultingemployee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable. GOP critics maintain the legality of the DOL's advice is questionable and amounts to "giving contractors a free pass" in exchange for a "multi-billion dollar campaign contribution": As a result of the OMB guidance, the Department of Defense will have to allow companies to claim repayment for the salaries of workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices a cost to the taxpayer that could be as much as $4 billion. In addition, DOD will have to reimburse companies for any legal damages paid to workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices a cost that is inestimable. Facing intense lobbying by defense companies and other government contractors for financial protection if they agreed not to issue WARN notices, the Obama Administration is giving contractors a free pass and will have potentially stuck the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar campaign contribution. We also have questions regarding the legal authority of OMB to interpret the WARN Act as it has, and to obligate the Federal government to pay billions of dollars of potential claims from private contractors arising as a result of this interpretation. The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis. The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as recently as three days ago, called on the president to work with us to avert the looming threat of sequestration to our national security. Other labor officials contended that the DOL's advice to employers about implementation of the WARN Act was consistent with the law: William Gould, a Stanford Law School professor emeritus specializing in labor law and a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the Labor Department was correct when it said the possibility of sequestration-induced layoffs did not warrant Warn notices. "The courts have been very clear that mere conjecture does not trigger the obligation," he said. Rick McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, agreed. "The obligation to give notice arises once the employer believes or should have known that a mass layoff or plant closing is going to happen at a particular worksite. At this point, no one knows with any certainty [whether] layoffs will be taking place or not at a particular worksite," he said. Lockheed Martin never announced that it was planning to lay off 123,000 workers (a number which represents the entirety of the company's workforce). What happened was that in June 2012 a Lockheed Martin official expressed frustration with the uncertainty of the sequestration issue and stated that if it weren't resolved soon, the company would have to send WARN Act notices to the "vast majority" of their workers because they had received no guidance on the issue from the government and thus had no idea who might be affected: Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 workers that they're at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company's vice president of legislative affairs. Walters's comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that's trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013. Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base," Walters [said]. The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months' notice to workers facing layoffs. "We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect," he said. The layoffs, of course, won't all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors' bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts along with the requirement of 60-day notice provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November. Only a fraction of Lockheed's workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out. "We've wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like," Walters said. "But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB." (In a July 2012 memo, Lockheed Martin projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000.") projected Ultimately, Lockheed Martin announced on 1 October 2012 that after "careful review of the additional guidance" provided by the government, they would not be issuing sequestration-related WARN notices this year: announced For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending. In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees. We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions. After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan. The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable. We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry. We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation's challenges. If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. Finally, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue: No one thought [sequestration] would happen. The idea was to design something ... that was so onerous that no one would ever let it happen. Of course, it did, because [Congress] couldn't reach agreement. They all believed that the supercommittee was going to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, so there would be no sequestration. Of course, the supercommittee failed and so the trigger went off, which has all of these very Draconian [budget] cuts. Last updated: 27 October 2012 Munsil, Leigh. "Bob Woodward: Obama 'Mistaken' on Sequester." Politico. 23 October 2012. Pender, Kathleen. "U.S. to Contractors: No Layoff Notices." San Francisco Chronicle. 1 October 2012. Wright, Austin. "Lockheed Martin Eyes Layoffs This Fall." Politico. 24 June 2012.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/couple-divorce-beanie-babies/

Does a Picture Show a Divorcing Couple Dividing Up Beanie Babies?

Dan MacGuill

04/20/2022

In April 2022, internet users shared an unusual old photograph along with a caption that read "A divorcing couple divide up their Beanie Baby collection in the court room, 1990s" (or words to that effect). The picture was authentic and unedited, and such descriptions were entirely accurate. Our rating is shared For example, one April 17 Facebook post included the picture, along with the caption "A divorcing couple dividing Beanie Babies in court, 1999": April 17 Facebook post That is exactly what the strangely moving picture shows. It was captured by Reuters photographer Aaron Mayes on Nov. 5, 1999 at the Clark County Family Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. The original Reuters caption reads as follows: original Reuters caption Attorney Frank Totti looks over papers while his client Frances Mountain sorts out Beanie Babies with her ex-husband Harold Mountain in Judge Gerald Hardcastle's Family Courtroom in Las Vegas November 5. The couple, who were divorced four months ago, were ordered to divide up the collection valued at $2,500 to $5000 but were unable to do so by themselves. The collection was ordered spread on the court floor and divided up one by one under the supervision of Family Court Judge Hardcastle. According to Clark County court records, the couple jointly filed for divorce in August 1998, one that Judge Gerald Hardcastle granted in May 1999. A Nov. 5, 1999 entry on the case docket notes "Return Hearing (9:00 AM)...DIVISION OF BEANIE BABIES." Clark County court records The Las Vegas Sun reported at the time that Hardcastle was intent on making an example of the erstwhile couple, due to their failure to resolve the distribution of the toys: reported at the time This morning, a frustrated Clark County Family Court judge ordered an erstwhile couple to divide up their collection of Beanie Babies one by one under his supervision in the courtroom. Maple the Bear was the first to go. "This isn't about toys. It's about control," Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle told the couple. "Because you folks can't solve it, it takes the services of a District Court judge, a bailiff and a court reporter." ...Frances and Harold Mountain divorced four months ago. According to the divorce decree, the parties were supposed to divide up their Beanie Baby collection, estimated to be worth between $2,500 and $5,000. But the man and woman failed to split up their toys by themselves. The collection was still in Frances' possession Thursday when Hardcastle heard Harold's motion to get his share of the litter. "I'd just had enough," said Hardcastle, who has been a Family Court judge for seven years. "We spend a lot of time dealing with some simply unreasonable issues. They are time-consuming, expensive issues. A lot of our calendar is made up of just this kind of nonsense. "So I told them to bring the Beanie Babies in, spread them out on the floor, and I'll have them pick one each until they're all gone." Hardcastle also invited reporters. pumpkinmum. A Divorcing Couple Dividing up Their Beanie Babie Collection in the Court Room, 1990s. R/WTF, 19 Apr. 2022, www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/u7bfww/a_divorcing_couple_dividing_up_their_beanie_babie/. Reuters Pictures - BEANIE BABIES. https://pictures.reuters.com/archive/BEANIE-BABIES-RP1DRILJYVAB.html. Accessed 20 Apr. 2022.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/26/west-virginia-republican-party/unemployment-women-lowest-point-almost-70-years/

Womens unemployment has been lower under President Trump than its been in nearly 70 years.

Caroline Cassedy

09/26/2019

The West Virginia Republican Party recentlytweetedpraise for President Donald Trumps handling of the economy, particularly as it relates to women. On Aug. 27, the state party tweeted, Womens unemployment has been lower under President Trump than its been in nearly 70 years. #WVGOP #WomenforTrump #WV4Trump. Women's unemployment has been lower under President Trump than it's been in nearly 70 years.#WVGOP#WomenforTrump#WV4Trumphttps://t.co/88rzHcS16h Is that correct? We took a closer look. (The West Virginia Republican Party did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) According to theFederal Reserve Economic Datawebsite, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate for women was 3.7% in July 2019, the latest data that was known at the time of the partys tweet. In August 2019, the rate ticked down slightly, to 3.6%; the best showing came in April, with a rate of 3.4%. Heres a chart showing the full run of data for womens unemployment. The data shows one period with a lower unemployment rate for women: a 12-month period in 1952 and 1953. Thats about 66 years ago, which qualifies as nearly 70 years ago. Brian Lego, an economist at West Virginia University, told PolitiFact that the Korean War in the early 1950s created some labor market distortions. Because the military draft pulled men out of the labor market, temporary jobs opened up for women. Its important to note that presidents dont deserve either full credit or full blame for the unemployment rate on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. In fact, the unemployment rate for women has been falling since 2010, when President Barack Obama was president. The unemployment rate for women fell from 8.7% in October 2010 to 4.7% when Obama left office in January 2017 -- a decline of four percentage points, or almost half. Since Trump entered the White House, womens unemployment has fallen by one point, or almost one-fifth. The West Virginia Republican Party said, Womens unemployment has been lower under President Trump than its been in nearly 70 years. The actual number is 66 years, which qualifies as nearly 70. However, its important to note that presidents dont deserve full credit or blame for such statistical changes on their watch. The statement is accurate but needs additional context, so we rate it Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-doocy-stupid-bitch/

Yes, Biden referred to Fox's White House Correspondent as a 'foolish child of a female dog.'

Jordan Liles

01/24/2022

On Jan. 24, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden responded to a question shouted out by Fox News reporter Peter Doocy as members of the press were being ushered out of the room, calling him a "stupid son of a bitch." Joe Biden Fox News It happened at a meeting of the White House Competition Council. According to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, the purpose of the meeting was "to discuss its success thus far in providing concrete cost savings to for Americans families, and to discuss plans for further actions in the weeks, months, and years ahead." Jen Psaki purpose U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting with the White House Competition Council in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 24, 2022. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) As members of the press were departing the East Room, Doocy shouted to Biden, asking: "Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?" According to CNN correspondent Brian Stelter (and as can be heard in the video clip below), Biden "deadpanned" the following answer: "It's a great asset. More inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch." Brian Stelter CNN, LiveNow from Fox, and perhaps others referred to Biden's remark as a "hot mic" incident, though it's unclear whether or not Biden was aware that the microphone was still picking up what he said. At the time when Biden responded to Doocy, cameras were still on and he was sitting in front of a microphone with 10 members of his Cabinet, "the heads of seven independent agencies," White House staff members, and some members of the press who were still making their way out of the room. CNN LiveNow from Fox

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/15/antonio-villaraigosa/villaraigosa-claims-california-oregon-washington-p/

California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world.

Chris Nichols

12/15/2016

Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles and 2018 Democratic candidate for California governor, recently called for the state to unite with like-minded cities and states on the West Coast to oppose dangerous policies advanced by a Trump administration. Californias large economy, Villaraigosa said in aDec. 8, 2016 op-edin theSacramento Bee, gives it leverage in any possible showdown. In making this call, Villaraigosa repeated a favorite claim by California politicians that the states economy ranks as the sixth largest in the world -- a claim PolitiFact Californiarated Mostly Truein July. He then took the economic comparison further -- all the way to the Pacific Northwest. California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world, Villaraigosa said. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. Thats power power we must use to protect our people against any dangerous policies advanced by a Trump administration, he added. We decided to fact-check the part of Villaraigosas claim that if the GDPs of California, Washington and Oregon were somehow combined, theyd represent the fifth largest economy on the planet, ahead of the United Kingdom. Gross domestic product, or GDP, is used to measure the health of a countrys or states economy. Its the total value of all goods and services. Our research A campaign spokeswoman for Villaraigosa pointed us to 2015 GDP figures from the International Monetary Fund. We used the same data in July to verify that California, with a GDP of nearly $2.5 trillion, had the sixth-largest economy behind the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. California Gov. Jerry Browns administrationreleased GDP figuresin June showing the state had jumped two spots in these unique world rankings ahead of France and Brazil and into sixth place behind the United Kingdom. In our July fact check, we noted that when adjusted for Californias very high cost of living, the states GDP drops several places. This led us to our Mostly True rating for the claim, which we define as accurate but needs clarification or additional information. To come up with a combined GDP for three West Coast states, we added Californias nearly $2.5 trillion to Oregons $217 billion and Washingtons $445 billion, using 2015 figures from theU.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Together, their GDPs add up to $3.1 trillion. This hypothetical West Coast powerhouse economy would be larger than the United Kingdoms $2.8 trillion GDP. Villaraigosas claim, however, needs the same disclaimer about high cost of living. California, Oregon and Washington are all expensive places to live. We realize Villaraigosas comparison is hypothetical -- and it looks like he got his numbers right. But to do this, he creates a fictional California economy that magically annexes the GDPs of two nearby states. Our ruling Antonio Villaraigosa recently said: California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. We rated the first portion of this claim Mostly True in a separate fact check in July. We crunched the numbers on the second part of Villaraigosas claim, about a combined and hypothetical California-Oregon-Washington economy. At $3.1 trillion, it would surpass the United Kingdoms $2.8 trillion GDP and would rank fifth in the world. Its important to note that some economists factor in cost-of-living when assessing a states or countrys GDP. Expenses are high in all three states, which means this mega-economy could be knocked down a few spots in the rankings. The former mayors statement needs this clarification. Overall, we rate Villaraigosas claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/5b83a74d-fde6-48d9-9c72-c93824f92b4e

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/walt-disney-born/

Was Walt Disney Born in Robinson, Illinois?

David Mikkelson

07/24/2004

We can't all be famous, but many people who aren't have tried the next best thing: associating themselves with someone famous. Others, denied the opportunity even to hobnob with anyone of renown, have taken the process a step further and manufactured such associations themselves. A particularly prevalent genre of "brush with fame" legends involves those who claim to have had chance encounters with notable personages during their formative years, contributing something an idea, a suggestion, or maybe just a helping hand that had a lasting impact and aided those later-famous people in becoming successful in some artistic, scientific, or political endeavor. After all, the early lives of people who later become famous are often not well documented, making it difficult to dispute a claimant's tale of a chance encounter way back when. Not surprisingly, Walt Disney is the subject of several such legends, in this case one having to do with the site of his birth and the origin of his given name. In 1982, the Robinson Argus newspaper, based in Robinson, Illinois, published a local resident's recollection of the putative circumstances surrounding Walt's birth: So many great people were born in Robinson! And, now we must add Walt Disney to the list. The Argus is indebted to Doris Davis and Ada York for the surprising information that the famous Walt Disney actually was born in Robinson. On Friday, February 12, Ada gave the following information to Doris Davis, who in turn brought it to the Argus on Monday of this week. This is February 12, 1982, at Cotillion Ridge, and this is Ada talking to Doris Davis: "In 1925-26 I worked for Mr. George Walter on West Plum Street. This was a time when Walt Disney was coming into great popularity. He told me that several people knew that Walt Disney was born in Robinson and I asked him how he developed the knowledge and he said that he owned the brick yard at the time and they were migrating through Robinson back to Chicago and ran out of money while in this town. Mr. Walter gave him a job and he got a room over what is now the Rembrandt Studio and their baby was due at any time. When the baby was born, it was a boy and they named him Walter for Mr. Walter who had been so kind to them and gave Mr. Disney work to enable him to support his wife and baby son." Doris: "Later, you heard an interview?" Ada: "Yes! Edward R. Murrow interviewed Walt Disney and he asked him where he was born. Walt Disney said, 'Well the record shows that I was born in Chicago, but actually I was born in a little town 200 miles south Robinson!' So that sort of tied the ends together!" It's a charming story, but the logical holes in its premise and timeline are legion: Every significant piece of Disney biography states that Walt was born in an upstairs bedroom of his parents' house in Chicago. If Walt had publicly stated, to a news reporter as prominent as Edward R. Murrow, that he was actually born somewhere else, how is it that fact has somehow eluded every Disney biographer to the point that none of them so much as mention it? And if Walt both knew and publicly proclaimed that he was really born in Robinson, why did he nonetheless maintain in his autobiography (published under his daughter's name) that he was indeed born in Chicago? Walt Disney's parents could not have been "migrating back to Chicago" just before his birth in 1901, as they had been living in Chicago continuously ever since 1889. Even if Elias Disney, Walt's father, had some reason to travel away from Chicago in late 1901, it is extremely unlikely (given the rigors of travel in those days) that he would have taken a heavily-pregnant wife along with him except under the most exigent of circumstances (and there is no record of any such circumstances affecting the Disney family in 1901). The account quoted above states that a brickyard owner in Robinson gave Elias Disney work immediately after Walt's birth "to enable him to support his wife and baby son." By the time Walt came along, the Disneys already had three children who was taking care of them? Surely Mr. and Mrs. Disney had not left their three young sons behind somewhere to fend for themselves, so why does this recollection fail to mention anyone but Walt? Why in the world would the Disneys, who already had a permanent home in Chicago (in a house built by Elias himself), have been traipsing around the countryside with three children in tow and Mrs. Disney about to give birth to a fourth? (Again, there is no record of the Disneys having left their three eldest children in someone else's care for an extended period of time just before Walt's birth.) The statement that Walt Disney was "coming into great popularity" in 1925-26 (a claim made to explain why the narrator clearly remembered a story she'd been told over fifty years earlier obviously she wouldn't have found the tale so memorable if Walt Disney wasn't already famous when she heard it) is a bit off the mark: the debut of the character who made the name 'Disney' a household word, Mickey Mouse, was still several years in the future, and even Disney's first successful animated character, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, would not first appear until late 1927. Disney had moderate success in the mid-1920s with his Alice in Cartoonland series (short silent films which mixed live action and animation), but he was hardly a nationally-known figure in 1926. (As a point of comparison, we note that although Disney began working in Los Angeles in early 1923, his name appeared in the pages of the Los Angeles Times but once prior to 1929.) Oswald the Lucky Rabbit Alice in Cartoonland Wherever Walt may have been born (and no matter what the circumstances of his birth), his given name was demonstrably not the result of a spur-of-the-moment decision by his parents to honor someone who had aided them at the time of Walt's birth in 1901. As the following birth record demonstrates, the Disneys had already selected "Walter" as a name for one of their sons as far back as 1890: Walt Disney, of course, was not born until 1901 this certificate, which documents a birth on 30 December 1890, records the arrival of one of Walt's older brothers, Raymond Arnold Disney. Evidently Mr. and Mrs. Disney considered naming one of their earlier children "Walter" to the extent that that name was listed on the birth certificate, but they later changed their minds and named him "Raymond" instead. The important point, however, is that this certificate documents the Disneys had the name "Walter" in mind for one of their sons a full eleven years before Walt was born. So, we leave off where we began, by noting that people sometimes manufacture their own brushes with greatness, as was evidently the case here. To mangle a familiar phrase: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some fabricate greatness out of whole cloth." Cooper, Jacob. "Comics Mean Hard Labor." Los Angeles Times. 13 April 1930 (p. B11). Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince. New York: Birch Lane Press, 1993. ISBN 1-55972-174-X. Miller, Diane Disney. The Story of Walt Disney. New York: Dell, 1957. Mosley, Leonard. Disney's World. New York: Stein and Day, 1985 (pp. 16-21). Thomas, Bob. Walt Disney: An American Original. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976. ISBN 0-7868-6027-8 (p. 24). Thomas, Bob. Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire. New York: Hyperion, 1998. ISBN 0-7868-6200-9 (pp. 1-16). Los Angeles Times. "Actors Mix with Cartoons." 6 July 1924 (p. B31). Los Angeles Times. "Maclean Provides Screen Fun." 28 September 1929 (p. A9). The Robinson Argus. "Many Great People Born in Robinson Even Walt Disney." 25 February 1982.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-physics-degree/

Is Elon Musk in possession of a Bachelor's degree in Physics?

Alex Kasprak

12/21/2022

A thread authored by the Twitter account "Capitol Hunters" went viral in December 2022 when it alleged that billionaire Elon Musk lied about his educational background, specifically regarding a bachelor of arts degree in physics from the University of Pennsylvania, as well as his claim of attending, briefly, a Ph.D. program at Stanford. This article explores the controversy around the physics degree. thread Elon Musk In early biographies, Musk stated he received degrees in economics and physics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1995. In a 2002 SEC filing for the company PayPal, for example, Musk provided this information regarding his educational and professional background: 2002 SEC filing PayPal Mr. Musk co-founded Zip2 Corp. in 1995 where he worked in a number of roles including Chairman, CEO and CTO from 1995 to February 1999. Mr. Musk received a B.S. in Physics from the University of Pennsylvania and a B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1995. In a 2007 lawsuit alleging that Musk stole business secrets, internet advertising entrepreneur John O'Reilly sued Musk over allegedly false statements Musk made to secure a business meeting with him in 1995. In that filing, O'Reilly claimed: 2007 lawsuit Musk has falsely claimed to have a degree in Physics from the University of Pennsylvania that he obtained in 1995, when in fact he has no such degree and the only degree he holds was obtained later than that. Upon information and belief, Musk's only known undergraduate degree is a Bachelor's of Science in Economics, obtained from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997. The suit, which ended with a ruling in Musk's favor, entered into the public record copies of Musk's diplomas. These documents were then used in a 2009 lawsuit filed by Tesla founder Martin Eberhard, who accused Musk of "taking control of the company [Tesla], orchestrating his ouster in 2007 and attempting to 'rewrite history' to take credit for developing the pioneering electric Roadster the two men worked together to create." a ruling The case was settled out of court, but Musk spoke about his academic background during a deposition compelled by this case. Musk, in that instance, equivocated about the timing of when he actually received these degrees. out of court Q. Okay. So you received a B.S. in Computational Physics from Penn?Musk: Yeah. [] Musk: Actually, I should be clear about that. So, I obtained the one Graduate degree in Business and Physics but [had] an agreement with the.. University of Pennsylvania. They said that I could have.. I could complete the English and History credit when I was no longer a student at Stanford. So they would delay transmitting the degree until I had done that." This explanation also comes up in an early edition of a biography of Musk written by reporter Ashlee Vance. Vance was unable to confirm the specific academic timeline in Musk's early biographies. In an appendix, however, Vance explained his research on the topic and included Musk's explanation for the discrepancy in dates and degrees : an appendix While playing detective, O'Reilly unearthed some information about Musk's past that's arguably more interesting than the allegations in the lawsuit. He found that the University of Pennsylvania granted Musk's degrees in 1997two years later than what Musk has cited. I called Penn's registrar and verified these findings. Copies of Musk's records show that he received a dual degree in economics and physics in May 1997. Musk had an explanation for the weird timing on his degrees from Penn. "I had a History and an English credit that I agreed with Penn that I would do at Stanford," he said. "Then I put Stanford on deferment. Later, Penn's requirements changed so that you don't need the English and History credit. So then they awarded me the degree in '97 when it was clear I was not going to go to grad school, and their requirement was no longer there." "I finished everything that was needed for a Wharton degree in '94. They'd actually mailed me a Wharton degree. I decided to spend another year and finished the physics degree, but then there was that History and English credit thing. I was only reminded about the History and English thing when I tried to get an H-1B visa and called the school to get a copy of my graduation certificate, and they said I hadn't graduated. Then they looked into the new requirements, and said it was fine." The explanations for the delay in degree granting are not entirely consistent, the Capitol Hunters Twitter account noted, and that account has also called into question the existence of the "new requirements" regarding History and English that would have facilitated Musk's being granted a degree after the fact. noted Another area of controversy concerns the appearance and nature of the physics degree, specifically. Certificates of both a Penn economics degree and an alleged physics degree are included in documents filed as part of the O'Reilly and Eberhard lawsuits. While the economics diploma filed as evidence specifically indicates the academic discipline, name, and other details involved in the degree, the physics diploma appears to be a largely blank diploma and indicates no specific concentration: documents (@CapitolHunters) The University of Pennsylvania Department of Physics and Astronomy does describe Musk as an alumnus. In 2009 the same year the dispute with Eberhard was litigated Musk gave Penn's Center for Particle Cosmology a "generous endowment" allowing for an annual "Elon Musk Public Lecture": generous endowment The Elon Musk Public Lecture is made possible through a generous endowment gifted to the Center for Particle Cosmology in 2009 - its inaugural year. Mr. Musk is an alumnus of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Penn, and a proud advocate for the preparation that a physics education provides in many different careers. In 2019, Aaron Greenspan, owner of the legal website Plainsite, as well as a frequent critic of, and litigant against, Elon Musk, asked Penn for a statement on Musk's degrees. In response, the university's public affairs office stated that: critic response Elon Musk earned a B.A. in physics and a B.S. in economics (concentrations: finance and entrepreneurial management) from the University of Pennsylvania. The degrees were awarded on May 19, 1997. The University of Pennsylvania considers Musk to be a graduate of both the economics department and the physics department. Musk's past statements about his educational background, however, have been, at best, imprecise. He has claimed on several occasions to have received a physics degree in 1995 a claim that was never fully true but which may have aided Musk's early business career. APPENDIX 1 - Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future (2017). https://publicism.info/biography/elon_musk/14.html. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. CapitolHunters. "Someone Has to Say It: Elon Musk Has Lied for 27 Years about His Credentials." Twitter, https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1593307541932474368. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. Martin Eberhard v Elon Musk et Al. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3cberzj42/superior-court-of-california-county-of-san-mateo/martin-eberhard-v-elon-musk-et-al/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. "O'REILLY v. MUSK | No. H034863. | 20100928061 | Leagle.Com." Leagle, https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20100928061. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. O'Reilly v. Musk, No. H035288 | Casetext Search + Citator. https://casetext.com/case/oreilly-v-musk-1. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. Tesla Investor Latest To Sue Elon Musk For Libel By Tweet - Law360. https://www.law360.com/articles/1275973/tesla-investor-latest-to-sue-elon-musk-for-libel-by-tweet. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. Yarow, Jay. "Tesla Settles Lawsuit--Everyone Is A Founder." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-founders-end-bitter-legal-fight-2009-9. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022. https://www.plainsite.org/documents/tbdmox/2019-email-from-the-university-of-pennsylvania-confirming-elon-musks-physics-degree/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2022.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/jan/27/rick-perry/us-sen-kay-bailey-hutchison-us-sen-kay-bailey-hutc/

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has voted nine separate times to raise the national debt ceiling.

W. Gardner Selby

01/27/2010

Gov. Rick Perry casts his leading Republican challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, as a fiscally irresponsible lawmaker whod bring a free-spending approach to state government.Amplifying that theme, Perrys campaign said Nov. 30: Hutchison has voted nine separate times to raise the national debt ceiling.We wondered if that was so.Perrys camp compiled votes undisputed by Hutchison showing that since joining the Senate in 1993, Hutchison has voted nine times to raise the ceiling. But shes also voted five times against raising the ceiling.Our request for an explanation of Hutchisons votes didnt generate an immediate reply from her. If she does pipe up, well update this item. UPDATE: Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky offered a statement Jan. 28 suggesting that Hutchison's aye votes while George W. Bush was president reflected her support for his across-the-board tax cuts and spending initiatives including commitments to fight terrorism, provide prescription drugs to senior citizens and rebuild after 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike. Sadosky said: She has voted against efforts to increase the debt ceiling when it is necessitated by wasteful spending like that seen in the stimulus bill and in the annual discretionary appropriations bills proposed by the Democratic-led Congress and presidency.We wondered anyway what any vote on the debt ceiling really means.Josh Gordon of The Concord Coalition, which was founded by the late Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass) to advocate for long-term fiscal responsibility, advised that votes to raise the ceiling might be portrayed as big deals to score political points. In reality, theyre not, he said, though they are necessary.If they didnt do it, the (U.S.) Treasury would no longer be able to borrow money, Gordon said. Everything from savings bonds to Treasury bills to very short-term financial instruments of the Federal Reserve would cease to be worth anything. It would basically destroy the economy.Unlike congressional votes on taxes or spending, Gordon said, lawmakers' votes to increase the debt limit aren't necessarily indicators of members' fiscal philosophies.Gordon said the fact all but two of Hutchisons votes to raise the ceiling occurred with Republicans in charge of the Senate was probably not a coincidence.Typically in Congress, the majority party bears responsibility for attending to essential business, including hikes in the debt ceiling if necessary. When the ceiling issue comes up, members of the minority party can vote no knowing the other side will muster the votes to do it. Hutchisons five no votes occurred when Democrats controlled the Senate. With Democrats holding the Senate majority, she voted for raising the ceiling as part of the Wall Street rescue plan approved in October 2008 and earlier voted for raising the ceiling in June 2002.Perry got all of Hutchisons yes votes right. We rate his claim as True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/outsource-of-confusion/

What a Great Idea - U.S. Presidency Outsourced to India

David Mikkelson

07/23/2009

Claim: The job of President of the United States is being outsourced to India. Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Is this true? What a GREAT IDEA!!! Washington, DC June 11, 2009 Congress today announced, that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to India, as of September 1, 2009. The move is being made in order to save the President's $500,000 yearly salary, and also a record $750 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 3 months. It is anticipated that $7 trillion can be saved to the end of the President's term. "We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are huge," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). "We cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted. Obama was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time. Gurvinder Singh, a tele-technician for IndusTeleservices, Mumbai, India, will assume the office of President as of September 1, 2009. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, NY. Thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month, but no health coverage or other benefits. It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President." A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem as Obama had never been familiar with the issues either. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at all. "We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson. "Obama has used them successfully for years, with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was talking about." Obama will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two-week waiting period, he will be eligible for $140 a week unemployment for 26 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit. Obama has been provided with the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Obama may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of any successful work experience during his lifetime. A greeter position at WalMart was suggested due to Obama's extensive experience at shaking hands, as well as his 'special' smile. Origins: As we've noted on many occasions, really good satire hews a fine line between plausibility and absurdity, so it's not surprising we often receive "Is this true?" inquiries about satirical articles that circulate widely via e-mail the receipt of an out-of-context, news-like article with a premise that seems vaguely credible with a quick read-through can easily leave readers confused about its authenticity. This humor piece about the U.S. presidency's being outsourced to India is actually an updated version of a 2004 satirical article about President George W. Bush. Although the 2009 version's topical references a weak economy, a updated growing budget deficit, the looming threat of job outsourcing might strike a chord with many Americans, and those who are no fans of the current U.S. president might appreciate its sly digs at Barack Obama, why we've received so many inquiries about this particular article is something of a puzzle, as its premise isn't at all plausible: The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law have very specific provisions about the line of succession to the presidency, and that line does not encompass Congress' arbitrarily bypassing the vice president (and everyone else in the chain of succession) to hand over the office of chief executive to an unelected foreign resident. Not to mention that if the U.S. presidency were really set to change hands within the next few months, that subject would be the dominant topic of every American news outlet, not an obscure bit of information spread solely via e-mail. If nothing else, the notion that the U.S. presidency would be given over to someone who would undertake it as a moonlighting job for $320 per month crosses the line from believability to absurdity. Last updated: 23 July 2009

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/detroit-slums/

Detroit's impoverished urban areas

David Mikkelson

10/18/2009

Claim: Photograph shows Detroit slums with downtown skyscrapers in the background. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] Several website list this photograph as Detroit. The skyline looks likely, but the slum in front looks more like a composite of the edge of a Brazilian city with the modern Detroit skyline. Is this photo legitimate? Ive only been to Detroit once, and while I wanted to kill myself after driving through, I dont remember it being this bad. Origins: Just as the recent financial woes of the "Big Three" U.S. automobile manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) have been held up as exemplars of the decline of American industry, so has their home base Detroit, Michigan been offered as symbolic of the decay of the "rust belt" manufacturing-industrial cities of the northeastern United States. Detroit was once the fourth-largest city in the U.S., a booming industrial metropolis that in 1950 boasted a population of 1.85 million. By 2009 it was home to less than half as many people (770,000), the median household income of its remaining residents was $28,370 (about half the national average), and the median home price was a minuscule $7,100. The news magazine The Week described Detroit's modern status thusly in October 2009: Outside the city's downtown core of office buildings, Detroit looks like a post-apocalyptic nightmare. The collapse of the auto industry, political dysfunction, and epidemics of crime, drugs, and arson have battered Detroit like a slow-motion hurricane, leveling entire neighborhoods and causing a major chunk of the population to flee. Nearly 30 percent of the city, an area almost the size of San Francisco, has been abandoned to "urban prairie" vast depopulated stretches of high grass and shattered asphalt. An Asian plant species sometimes called "ghetto palm" sprouts from the remains of abandoned buildings, where wild pheasants are occasionally sighted. The torched skeletons of homes are commonplace. In the 1980s and '90s, demolition permits outnumbered building permits by more than 10-1. Nearly 30 percent of the city's remaining housing stock more than 100,000 units lies vacant. Although the above-displayed photograph of a shantytown juxtaposed against the background of a gleaming, skyscraper-filled downtown core might superficially match a description of modern Detroit, elements of the picture don't match that location. (It's unlikely, for example, that either residents of the thin wood and tin-sheet shacks or palm trees could survive the harshly low wintertime temperatures common to that area.) This type of picture is one that, unfortunately, could have been snapped in any number of places around the world. Specifically, it's a photograph of Makati, which is part of the greater metropolitan area of the Philippine capital city of Manila and is an international financial and commercial hub. It's not uncommon for news stories to feature photographs of Makati as a way of illustrating growing economic disparities found within some rapidly developing countries and regions: Shanty houses are cramped in the foreground while construction of new high rise buildings rise in the background at Manila's financial district of Makati. Asia is broadly on track to reduce extreme poverty by half by 2015, reflecting the positive impact of its dynamic economy in the lives of its nearly four billion people, according to a joint report released by the Asian Development Bank and the UN Development Programme in Manila. Another photograph of Makati taken from a similar vantage point can be seen in a 2006 BusinessWeek article about squatter cities. photograph article Last updated: 8 September 2013 The Week. "Detroit: A City on the Brink."

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kavanaugh-fatal-shooting-verdict/

Did a Jury Find That a Cop Had Lied About a Fatal Shooting, But Brett Kavanaugh Threw Out the Verdict?

Alex Kasprak

10/01/2018

At 1:30 am on the morning of 23 March 2002, a 41-year-old dental surgery student was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer while pulling his car from a parking lot in front of a D.C.-area apartment complex: killed In the middle of a night in March 2002, Brian Hundley and a woman were in a car parked outside an apartment complex in Washington, D.C. Off-duty Metropolitan Police Department Officer Marcus Gaines tapped on the window of the car as he walked past. Hundley, who was in the drivers seat, began to drive the car in the direction of Officer Gaines. Officer Gaines pulled his gun, yelled police, and ordered Hundley to stop and get out of the car. Hundley complied and exited the car. According to Officer Gaines, while Hundley was standing outside the car, Hundley suddenly moved his right hand from behind his back and began lunging toward Officer Gaines, who was about 10 to 15 feet away. In apparent self-defense, Officer Gaines shot and killed Hundley. The Hundley family brought a civil suit against Gaines, another officer, and the District of Columbia in three separate areas: First, a tort law claim of assault and battery based on the officers fatal shot; second, a violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on excessive force; and third, a tort law claim of negligence based on Gaines initial stop of Hundley. civil suit A jury awarded the Hundley estate $242,000 based on the the third claim, ruling that Hundleys death was the result of a the officers negligence in performing this initial traffic stop. Both sides were unhappy with the ruling, according to the Washington Post's 2004 coverage of the trial: coverage The jury found that Officer Marcus Gaines was negligent in the steps leading to the shooting of Brian Hundley, 41, in a Northwest Washington parking lot. But it rejected the family's bid for more damages, finding that Gaines did not abuse Hundley, violate his civil rights or inflict emotional distress upon him when he killed him with a single gunshot to the chest ... Although the verdict was a victory on paper, Hundley's relatives and lawyers called the amount of the award a bitter insult to Hundley's life and said they will appeal. "It really defies logic," said Carl Hundley, who brought the wrongful death suit on behalf of his late brother. "They found the [traffic] stop was negligent, they found my brother didn't threaten the officer. One is left to wonder if they are just deciding his life had no value." The family's attorney, Gregory L. Lattimer, called the award a "travesty ... A 41-year-old man dies at the police's hands without threatening him or doing anything wrong, and his life is worth $241,000. How are the police allowed to get away with this?" ... A spokeswoman for the D.C. attorney general's office, which defended the department, said that the jury erred in siding with the family and that the city might seek to overturn the award. On appeal, both the defendants (Officer Gaines et al) and the plaintiffs (the Hundley family) challenged that ruling, as described in court documents: described Hundleys estate challenges the assault and battery and excessive force verdict, arguing that the jurys verdict was inconsistent with the written interrogatory answer. Defendants challenge the judgment for plaintiffs on the negligence claim. This appeal was heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the opinion was written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who later became President Trump's controversial nominee to the Supreme Court. controversial The crux of the appeal argument centered on jury inconsistency. In the original trial, the jury was asked to rule on the three issues brought to the court and, in what is known as an interrogatory jury question, on the reliability or truth of Officer Gaines' version of events: In addition to asking the jury to render a verdict on the assault and battery and excessive force claims, the judge also instructed the jury to answer a written interrogatory: Do you find that Brian Hundley was shot after placing his right hand behind his back and then making a lunging motion toward Officer Marcus Gaines? ... The written interrogatory tracked Officer Gainess testimony regarding the apparent self-defense shooting. The jury answered No. Both the lawyers representing Gaines as well as the lawyers representing the interests of the Hundley family pointed to this fact as a reason for appeal, as jury inconsistency is a valid grounds for appeal under in Federal Law. In the Hundley familys case, they argued that the jurys written interrogatory response is inconsistent with the jurys findings for defendants on the assault and battery and excessive force claims. Gaines et al, on the other hand, pointed to the finding as a reason to reject the damages awarded to the Hundleys by the jury, as their verdict with respect to negligence relied on a narrative the jury themselves said was not truthful. Kavanaugh agreed that the jury verdict was inconsistent: Two distinct versions of events were presented to the jury. The jury could conclude either that Officer Gaines shot Hundley in self-defense as described by Officer Gaines, or that he shot Hundley without justification. In making their cases to the jury, both sides agreed that liability turned on which version of events the jury believed ... Yet the jury found for defendants [Gaines et al] on the assault and battery and excessive force claims while simultaneously answering a written interrogatory indicating that the jury did not believe Officer Gainess version of events. The two answers cannot coexist; they make no sense in the context of the evidence presented in this case. Ultimately, Kavanaugh rendered a 180-degree shift on both sides of this argument. He ruled that because the negligence claim relied on a narrative deemed false by the jury, that that charge and the damages awarded because of it should be overturned. This aspect of the decision has led to the online narrative that a jury found that a cop lied [but] Brett Kavanaugh threw out the verdict: While this meme expresses a factually accurate statement, it tells only a portion of the story. Using the same logic that prompted the reversal of the negligence charge, Kavanaugh also overturned the earlier rulings that did not hold the officer liable for assault or excessive force, remanding that aspect of the case for a new trial: new trial We agree with Hundley's estate that the jury verdict on the assault and battery and excessive force claims was inconsistent with the jury's answer to the written interrogatory. We agree with defendants that the negligent stop, as a matter of law, did not proximately cause the shooting death and thus cannot justify the damages for the shooting death. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for a new trial for Hundley's estate on the assault and battery and excessive force claims. It is uncertain if the Hundley family sought a retrial after this ruling or reached a settlement with the defendants. (An email to the lawyer who represented the Hundleys in this matter was not immediately returned.) Regardless, Kavanaughs ruling did have the effect of reversing a cash settlement given to the Hundley family, but it also allowed for a new trial on first two claims the Hundleys had lost during their initial trial. U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. No. 05-7152 & 05-7161" 24 July 2007. Tucker, Neely. "Family Sues in Police Slaying." The Washington Post. 6 April 2002. Leonnig, Carol D. "$242,000 Award Ordered by Jury In Police Killing." The Washington Post. 8 December 2004. Levy-Edwards, Ariel. "Brett Kavanaughs Poll Numbers Are Firmly in the Red." The Washington Post. 26 September 2018. U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 49. Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions." Accessed 1 October 2018.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronaldo-snub-cost-coke-billions/

Did Ronaldo's Coca-Cola Snub Cost the Company Billions?

Dan Evon

06/18/2021

On June 14, 2021, Portugal soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo sat down for a news conference to discuss his team's upcoming match against Hungary in the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship. Before Ronaldo took questions, he took the two Coca-Cola bottles that were left out for him, moved them out of frame to the side of the table, then held up a bottle of water and said, "Agua." Coca-Cola As this video went viral, a number of outlets reported that Ronaldo's Coca-Cola snub had cost the company billions of dollars. The exact cost of the snub varied from outlet to outlet, but the general claim was that it cost Coca-Cola between $4 and $5 billion. Here's an excerpt from The Guardian's report: The Guardian's report Cristiano Ronaldo snub wipes billions off Coca-Colas market value Cristiano Ronaldos removal of two Coca-Cola bottles during a press conference at the European Championship has coincided with a $4bn fall in the share price of the drinks company. The Portugal captain is a renowned health fanatic and made it clear what he thinks of the carbonated soft drink. The 36-year-old shifted the bottles of Coca-Cola away from him during a press conference in Budapest on Monday in the prelude to his countrys Group F game against Hungary. [...] Coca-Cola is one of the official sponsors of Euro 2020. The companys share price dropped from $56.10 to $55.22 almost immediately after Ronaldos gesture, a 1.6% dip. The market value of Coca-Cola went from $242bn to $238bn a drop of $4bn. While Coca-Cola's stock truly fell after this news conference, there was no indication that this drop was entirely (or even in part) caused by Ronaldo's preference for water. In fact, Coca-Cola's stock was already falling by the time that Ronaldo snubbed Coke products in favor of water. Coca-Cola's stock price closed on Friday, June 11, at $56.16. At 9:30 a.m. shortly after the market opened again on Monday, the company's stock had fallen to $55.35. Ronaldo's news conference hadn't even started by this time. After Ronaldo's news conference (held at 3:45 p.m. Central European Time (or 9:45 am CST according to Sportico), Coca-Cola's stock briefly rose and then dropped again. Coca-Cola's stock price closed even started It's certainly possible that Ronaldo's endorsements (or disapproval) of Coke products could temporarily influence the stock market, but a few other facts should be noted. For one, while a $4 billion stock drop may sound like an absolutely devastating turn of events, this really isn't a major story for Coca-Cola. The company has seen a number of similar drops and rises over the last year, and those changes had nothing to do with Ronaldo. As of this writing, Coca-Cola's stock is up about 15% from where it was at this time last year: Furthermore, Coca-Cola's stock is not based purely on sales of their most well-known product, Coke. While Ronaldo may prefer water to soda, Coca-Cola has a large portfolio that includes a variety of products, including the water brand Dasani.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mr-burns-based-on-jacob-rothschild/

Is the character Mr. Burns from 'The Simpsons' inspired by banker Jacob Rothschild?

Alex Kasprak

09/06/2023

For nearly a decade, claims have circulated online that "The Simpsons" television character Mr. Burns, Homer Simpson's boss at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, was based on Jacob Rothschild, a billionaire financier and member of the BritishRothschild banking family commonly at the heart of illuminati-based conspiracy theories. A2015 post from the Instagram account nwoprophecies asserts, for example, that: Rothschild banking family 2015 post Mr. Burns from the Simpsons is modeled after the British Banker, Jacob Rothschild. The Rothschilds are one of the most prominent of the top thirteen illuminati families. The House of Rothschild is in charge of the illuminati's finance. The claim continued to circulate online. A September 2023 post on X, formerly Twitter, asserted the same: post These claims are baseless. Mr. Burns is based on several American business tycoons John D. Rockefeller primarily as well as creator Matt Groening's high school teacher.According to the book "100 Things the Simpsons Fans Should Know Before They Die": According Mr. Burns is [...] wildly and opulently wealthy. A vessel for jokes and ideas about America's history of greed, Mr. Burns was modeled after famous rich American men like John D. Rockefeller, Howard Hughes, the fictional Charles Foster Caine, and Matt Groening's high school teacher Mr. Bailey, the last of whom is probably not a billionaire unless the state of Oregon has really started paying teachers more. In a 2015 article in Fortune magazine, a representative for Groening said that the best source on the inspirations for Mr. Burns was an October 2000 TV Guide story, in which the creator said that "that the twin models for Burns' personality are real-life oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, and Henry Potter, the miserly banker played by Lionel Barrymore in the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life." 2015 article In that same story, animator David Silverman stated that Mr. Burn's physical appearance was "based on Barry Diller, who was running Fox Broadcasting when The Simpsons debuted on the network in 1989." Silverman added that "Burns' body language is modeled on a praying mantis." added Barry Diller (Getty Images) In addition to incorrect information about the origin of Mr. Burns, these memes misrepresent Jacob Rothschild's wealth, which stood at just over a billion dollars in 2019. over a billion Because the character Mr. Burns was not inspired by Jacob Rothschild, according to the people who developed it, we rate the assertion as "A Rothschild Broke From Dynasty and Still Became Super Rich." Bloomberg.Com, 10 May 2019. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-10/a-rothschild-broke-from-dynasty-and-still-became-fabulously-rich. Goertz, Allie, et al. 100 Things The Simpsons Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die. Triumph Books, 2018. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/9Wh-aByH80/?hl=en. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023. "Who Is the Real Montgomery Burns?" Fortune, https://fortune.com/2015/03/07/who-is-the-real-montgomery-burns/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-credit/

Does Representative Ocasio-Cortez possess a low credit rating, previously closed checking accounts, and a record of being evicted?

Dan Evon

01/21/2019

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) became a favorite target of conservative trolls after winning election to the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2018. The freshman lawmaker was subjected to a number of false rumors, most of which focused on her inexperience (at age 29 she was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress), her financial status (she was a bartender before running for election), or, inexplicably, her dance moves. false youngest bartender dance moves On 16 January 2019, a day after Ocasio-Cortez announced that she would be joining the House Financial Services Committee, Facebook user Donn Johnson posted a message alleging that Ocasio-Cortez was an ill fit for this position and claimed, without evidence, that she had had two checking accounts closed, that she had been the subject of two "sheriff evictions," and that her credit score was a lowly 430: House Financial Services Committee message A credit score of 430 puts a consumer in the "very poor" range of credit worthiness: Although this message was posted without any evidence to support its claims, many viewers accepted its unverified information as fact and spread it around Facebook. The rumor was also picked up by an army of Twitter trolls who continued to parrot the claim as if it were based on some sort of credible reporting: Repeating this claim over and over again, however, did not make it true. We encountered several dozen accounts spreading this rumor, yet not a single one pointed to any sort of news report, interview, financial record, witness statements, or anything else even slightly resembling evidence. In addition to a lack of evidence, it should be noted that it is highly unlikely that Johnson, a security officer living in Florida, would have access to information regarding Ocasio-Cortez's credit score, as this information cannot be obtained by a third party without written consent under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Fair Credit Reporting Act Johnson claimed that Ocasio-Cortez had been evicted from her home twice with the help of a sheriff's office. We did a background check on the congresswoman and found no mention of such an incident, no court cases tied to her living arrangements, and no irregularities in her housing history. She was a rising political star in 2018. As such, a number of news outlets published profiles about her that detailed Ocasio-Cortez's upbringing, her education, and her political motivations. We examined several of these stories and also found no mention of her alleged "sheriff evictions," closed bank accounts, or low credit score. profiles detailed Fox News, for instance, published an article headlined "Who is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? 5 things to know about the New York congresswoman." That article briefly went into Ocasio-Cortez's financial history and stated that, rather than facing evictions and account closures, she worked multiple jobs to help support her family after the death of her father: article She grew up in the Bronx and helped support her family after the death of her dad. Born in the Bronx, Ocasio-Cortez was raised by a mother from Puerto Rico and a father who was a small business owner. After her father passed away from cancer in 2008, Ocasio-Cortez worked two jobs in the restaurant industry to help her family make ends meet. After returning to the Bronx after college, Ocasio-Cortez pushed for greater childhood education and literacy, according to The New York Times. She also started a publishing company that produced books portraying the Bronx in a positive manner, The New York Daily News reported in 2012. Her upbringing also helped her foray into politics, she told Elite Daily. Politics were talked about at the table every single day, she said. Its the culture. In Puerto Rico, you talk about politics all the time, even when people disagree. In general, we found nothing indicating financial irresponsibility in Ocasio-Cortez's background, whose April 2018 Financial Disclosure Report detailed a modest amount of assets and income, but also no liabilities other than a federal student loan. We also note that low credit scores potentially attach not only to persons who have poor credit histories (i.e., numerous late or unpaid debts), but to those persons who simply have not built up their scores through means such as taking out credit-building loans and using credit cards. Financial Disclosure Report Chappell, Bill. "Who Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?" NPR. 27 June 2018. Hess, Abigail. "29-Year-Old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Makes History as the Youngest Woman Ever Elected to Congress." CNBC. 7 November January 2018. Hess, Abigail. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is the Youngest Woman Ever Elected to Congress -- She Still Cant Afford an Apartment in D.C.." CNBC. 8 November January 2018. Leonhardt, Megan. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, The Youngest Woman Ever Elected To Congress, Is Down to Less Than $7,000 in Savings." CNBC. 16 November 2018. Meyer, David. "Wall Street, Brace Yourself: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Joining House Financial Services Committee." Fortune. 16 January 2019. Schallhorn, Kaitlyn. "Who is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? 5 Things to Know About the New York Congresswoman." Fox News. 8 January 2019.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pgeatmos-phishing-scam/

PG&E/Atmos Phishing Scam

David Mikkelson

01/09/2014

Phishing bait: Billing statements from PG&E and Atmos Energy. SCAM Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2014] Comment: I received 2 emails like this. I don't have an account with PGE,nor do I use gas. I didn't click, just in case that's how they get theirinfo. Any insight will be appreciated. PG&E ENERGY STATEMENT Account No: 441401665-1Statement Date: 01/07/2014Due Date: 02/01/2014 Your Account Summary Amount Due on Previous Statement $344.70Payment(s) Recieved Since Last Statement 0 Previous Unpaid Balance $344.70 Current Electric Charges $165.20Current Gas Charges 49.20 To view your most recent bill, please click here. You must log-in to youraccount or register for an online account to view your statement. Total Amount Due BY 02/01/2014 $559.70 Origins: In January 2014, Internet users began receiving messages like the one reproduced above that purported to be energy statements (i.e., utility bills) from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Such messages included instructions for the recipients to follow a hyperlink or open an attachment in order to view their statements and/or register for an online account. These messages were intended to lure recipients, concerned about receiving unexpected bills, into attempting to view the referenced statements a process which would lead them not to viewing a document but into launching an executable file. Similar messages have been sent out in the name of Atmos Energy as well, and that company has posted a warning on their web site and advised customers that: warning As an Atmos Energy e-Bill customer you are accustomed to receiving yourmonthly bill notice by email. We would like to inform you of a widespreademail scam which portrays a bogus Atmos Energy bill. The emails have beensent to individuals nationwide including Atmos Energy customers. The "phishing" message references a fake account number and contains linksto fraudulant websites. The email provides links to mislead you inbelieving you are going to view your bill, learn more about natural gas orview bill inserts. Actually, the links lead you to a compromised websitethat hides malware. We are asking anyone who receives that deceptive emailto delete it immediately and do not click on any links. PG&E has also posted a warning on their site advising consumers to "Please be alert to an email scam using PG&E's name," with a link to an article about confirming contact from PG&E: warning Individuals and companies are posing as PG&E employees or contractors to gain access to your account information or entry into your home. Here are ways to protect your home or business. You should always ask to see identification before allowing anyone claiming to be a PG&E representative inside their home. PG&E employees always carry their identification and are always willing to show it to you. If a person claiming to be a PG&E employee has identification and you still feel uncomfortable, call PG&E's customer service line at 1-800-PGE-5000 to verify an appointment and/or PG&E's presence in the community. If you have an appointment with PG&E, you will receive an automated call back within 48 hours prior to a scheduled visit, or a personal call from a PG&E service representative prior to a scheduled visit. If you have concerns about the legitimacy of a call you have received about a past due bill, a service request or a request for personal information, call PG&E immediately at 1-800-743-5000. PG&E's Credit Department will never ask for personal information, a credit card number or a gift card number over the phone. If you have received such a phone call and provided credit card or checking account information should report it immediately to the credit card company or bank and law enforcement. Last updated: 9 January 2014

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-doubt/

What is the destination of the donations raised through the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge?

David Mikkelson

08/29/2014

Claim: Most of the $100 million raised from ALS 'Ice Bucket Challenge' donations won't go to ALS-related research and services. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Origins: The email quoted above and other versions of it began to circulate on 28 August 2014, with widespread social media concern over the fate of 'Ice Bucket Challenge' funds donated to the ALS following shortly thereafter. On 27 August 2014, The ALS Association posted a press release confirming that the organization had received $94.3 million in donations between 29 July and 27 August 2014 due to the popularity of the Ice Bucket Challenge. In the release, Barbara Newhouse, President and CEO of The ALS Association, addressed the large infusion of funds and the organization's sudden social media fame: press release Given the large amount of cash suddenly flowing in the direction of The ALS Association, it's natural a public questioning of sorts would follow. After all, not every charity is well administrated, and not every cause is free of bad actors who would exploit public interest for financial gain. Services such as Charity Navigator, an independent assessor of charitable organizations, can be helpful in diffusing concerns in a situation such as the Ice Bucket Challenge phenomenon. According to the site, the ALS Association has a record of high transparency and ranks high in other areas, receiving an overall 90.73/100 rating anda four out of four stars ranking from Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator The claim made in the email above, that 73% of donations fund executive salaries and overhead, is demonstrably false. Charity Navigator's breakdown of the ALS Association's finances for the fiscal year ending January 2013 shows that 72.4% of the ALS Association's budget during that period was used for program expenses that is, the programs and services the ALS Association delivers to the ALS community according to its mission, such as professional and public education, research into ALS treatments and cures, and patient and community services. Of the remaining budget, 11% went to administrative expenses and 16.5% to fundraising expenses. It appears that someone confused the term "program expenses" with "overhead" and mistakenly assumed the former represented money spent on bureaucracy rather than the vital ALS-related services provided by the ALS Association. The ALS Association's most recent fiscal year reporting is available on its website, with more detailed reports linked on the same page. fiscal year Last updated: 29 August 2014

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/walmart-change-donated/

Did a Walmart Customer's Change Get Donated Without Consent?

Dan MacGuill

08/25/2020

In the summer of 2020, readers asked Snopes to examine the authenticity and accuracy of a widely shared Facebook post whose author claimed that the cashier at their local Walmart had donated their change without asking their permission in advance, or offering alternative ways of paying or receiving their change. On July 20, 2020, Sheryl Jacob posted a photograph of a receipt from the Walmart store on Worcester Road in Framingham, Massachusetts, indicating that at around noon that day, she had purchased two items priced at 49 cents and 88 cents. She paid $2 in cash. The remaining 63 cents in change had been donated, so the cashier didn't owe her any change. In the accompanying post, Jacob claimed that the cashier asked her for $2 (rather than the $1.37 total price of the items), and that she only realized afterwards that her 63 cents in change had been donated without her consent. According to Jacob, the cashier said the store's policy was to not give out change in the form of cash. She wrote: wrote So folks here we go. Watch your receipt at Walmart. I bought a bag of chips and a candy bar. I paid with cash $2.00 and they just donated my 63 cents without even telling me. I thought both items were a dollar a piece and didnt think twice about giving her the 2 bucks.. then I looked at the receipt. I questioned the cashier and she said they dont give change. Its not about the amount of money. Its the principle. They could have Told me. At the very least offer me a Walmart card with .63 cents on it. I feel like Ive been ripped off. Whos to say where my 63 cents is going to go. It just says donation. Is this just the beginning? Whos to say they wont find different ways to take more of my/our money in the future. Its not right. In an interview with WCVB, a local news station in Boston, Massachusetts, Jacob said the cashier did not offer her the opportunity of paying with exact change, or paying by credit, or debit card: Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the United States was hit by a nationwide coin shortage in 2020 because lower in-person shopping volumes meant fewer coins were in circulation but also because the virus slowed coin production at the U.S. Mint. As a result, several major retailers introduced policies to encourage or request customers to pay with exact change, use a credit or debit card, or have the amount of their change loaded onto a loyalty card. coin shortage Those policies occasionally caused confusion among both shoppers and supermarket staff, as we have examined elsewhere, and this appears to have been what happened at the Framingham Walmart on July 20. examined A spokesperson for Walmart told Snopes the company had investigated the transaction in question, which Jacob described accurately, and found it was an isolated incident. They added that the company's policy is still to give customers the choice of whether to get change, or donate the difference. Since the company corroborated Jacob's account, we are issuing a rating of However, it's worth noting that, by donating the change for Jacob, rather than offering her that option, the cashier in question misunderstood Walmart's policy, which is to provide coin change if a customers wants it. Mac Guill, Dan. "Did a Nationwide US Coin Shortage Occur in Summer 2020?" Snopes.com. 8 July 2020. Mac Guill, Dan. "Did Kroger Supermarkets Overcharge Customers Due to a Coin Shortage?" Snopes.com. 23 July 2020.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trumps-flip-flop-on-flag-burning/

Did Donald Trump approve of flag burning?

Kim LaCapria

11/28/2016

On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: flag burning Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 November 29, 2016 Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest: Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. February 2011 Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency. Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet seen above, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted less than a hundred of each: Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75JiuI want to answer more of your questions, tweet me..... Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011 ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/ Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011 Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/native-americans-airplane-arrows/

Did Native Americans Shoot Down an Airplane with Arrows?

Dan Evon

05/04/2017

A photograph purportedly showing an airplane with dozens of wooden arrows stuck into its underside is frequently shared online, accompanied by one of a number of fabricated backstories: LinkedIn Someone sent me this as the natives are protesting all the pipelines being built. Greenpeace supplied all the arrows since they are more environmentally friendly than bullets. In April 2014, the web site Fellowship of the Minds shared the same image along with text holding that it depicted President Obama's plane after he undertook a flight over a reservation in Oklahoma: shared Obama took a private plane flight over an Indian reservation in Oklahoma. This is what happened ... This photograph does not show a plane that was attacked by Native Americans. Rather, it captures an installation that was created by the art collective Los Carpinteros. The piece, entitled Avio (Plane), was displayed at the Faena Art Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012: Los Carpinteros displayed Faena Art Center Through an economy of improvisation and precariousness, the artists work utilizes industrial objects to ironically challenge the notions of civilization and the mechanisms of perception by juxtaposing affluent western society against a rationed society with minimal consumption. An imposing Piper Comanche aircraft pierced by wooden arrows makes up Avio, a large-scale installation alluding to the development and conquest of space, and symbolizing the cultural shock caused by technological progress in various different civilizations. Stolz, George. "Los Carpinteros: Seeing Double." Art News. 24 June 2013. Hosmer, Katie. "Hundreds of Wooden Arrows Pierce Airplane from Below." My Modern Met. 24 June 2013.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/

Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global Warming?

Alex Kasprak

10/18/2016

On 11 October 2016, the Facebook page Sustainable Business Network NZ posted a photograph of a clipping from the 14 August 1912 edition of the Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette that included a brief item headlined Coal Consumption Affecting Climate: photograph item The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries. This articles authenticity is supported by the fact it can be found in the digital archives of the National Library of New Zealand. found Further attesting to its authenticity (and perhaps its role as a bit of stock news used to fill space) is that an identical story had appeared in an Australian newspaper a month prior, in the 17 July 1912, issue of The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, as found in the digital archives of the National Library of Australia. found An even deeper dive reveals that the text of this news item has its origins in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, where it appeared as a caption in an article titled "Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate What Scientists Predict for the Future": issue Some online commenters expressed skepticism over the notion that such a clear understanding of the mechanisms relating to greenhouse gases existed in 1912, or that anyone back then would have suggested humans could play a role in altering their concentration. In fact, the timing of these news clips is consistent with the historical record. The first person to use the term greenhouse gases was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In a paper published that year, he made an early calculation of how much warmer the Earth was thanks to the energy-trapping nature of some of the gases in the atmosphere. Even at this early stage, he understood that humans had the potential to play a significant role in changing the concentration of at least one of those gases, carbon dioxide (carbonic acid back then): paper The world's present production of coal reaches in round numbers 500 millions of tons per annum, or 1 ton per km of earth's surface. Transformed into carbonic acid, this quantity would correspond to about a thousandth part of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere. Though he didnt explicitly say in that paper that human activity could warm the planet, Arrhenius would go on to make that argument in later works. A 2008 tribute to Arrhenius published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences stated that his ideas about coal and climate were popular and well known in his day but fell out of favor for a while after his death in 1927: later works tribute While Arrhenius prediction [of warming] received great public interest, this typically waned in time but was revived as an important global mechanism by the great atmospheric physicist Carl Gustaf Rossby who initiated atmospheric CO2 measurements in Sweden in the 1950s. In this sense, the content and date of the newspaper clips in question are consistent with both what was known to scientists about greenhouse gases then and what the general public was interested in at the time.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-fall-of-the-athenian-republic/

The Fall of the Athenian Republic

David Mikkelson

01/28/2004

The item below began circulating on the Internet since shortly after the 2000 U.S. presidential election, reappeared briefly after the 2004 presidential election, saw a strong resurgence in a modified form which replaced the names "Bush" and "Gore" with "McCain and "Obama" after the 2008 presidential election, and was circulated again after the 2012 election in a shortened version with the names "Obama" and Romney" replacing the original's "Bush" and "Gore": [Collected via e-mail, December 2000] At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough [sic]) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith;From spiritual faith to great courage;From courage to liberty;From liberty to abundance;From abundance to complacency;From complacency to apathy;From apathy to dependence;From dependence back into bondage." Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recentPresidential election: Population of counties won by:Gore = 127 millionBush = 143 million Square miles of land won by:Gore = 580,000Bush = 2,2427,000 States won by:Gore = 19Bush = 29 Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:Gore = 13.2Bush = 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare ..." Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. [Collected June 2013] Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election: Number of States won by:Obama: 19 Romney: 29 Square miles of land won by:Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by:Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the .territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population Already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. What follows is our analysis of the statements included in the original piece as it initially appeared in 2000: I really enjoyed one recent message that was circulated extremely widely, at least among conservatives. It gave several interesting "facts" supposedly compiled by statisticians and political scientists about the counties across the nation that voted for George Bush and the ones that voted for Al Gore in the recent election. Supposedly, the people in the counties for Bush had more education, more income, ad infinitum, than the counties for Gore. I didn't have time to check them all out, but I was curious about one item in particular... the contention that the murder rate in the Gore counties was about a billion times higher than in the Bush counties. This was attributed to a Professor Joseph Olson at the Hamline University School of Law. I never heard of such a university, but went online and found it. And Prof. Olson does exist. "Now I'm getting somewhere," I thought. But in response to my e-mail, Olson said the "research" was attributed to him erroneously. He said it came from a Sheriff Jay Printz in Montana. I e-mailed< Sheriff Printz, and guess what? He didn't do the research either, and didn't remember who had e-mailed it to him. In other words, he got the same legend e-mailed to him and passed it on to Olson without checking it out, and when Olson passed it on, someone thought it sounded better if a law professor had done the research, and so it grew. Who knows where it originally came from, but it's just not true. Alexander Fraser Tytler likely apocryphal election result map U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NAJCD) made available by CNN By calculating the murder rate for each county and then taking the averages, we found a murder rate (defined as number of murders per 100,000 residents) of about 5.2 for the average Gore county and 3.3 for the average Bush county. But since people, rather than counties, commit murders, a more appropriate approach was to calculate the total number of murders in the counties won by each candidate and divide that figure by the total number of residents in those counties. This more appropriate method yielded the following average murder rates in counties won by each candidate: Gore: 6.5 Bush: 4.1 There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted email message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush). analysis of federal spending In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. The information in that study corresponds to a chart prepared by the Tax Foundation for fiscal year 2005 that ranks states according to federal spending per dollar of taxes paid. chart prepared by the Tax Foundation Hamrick, Dave. "Don't Believe, Or Pass On, All You Read." The [Fayette] Citizen. 17 January 2001. Lacy, Dean. "A Curious Paradox of the Red States and Blue States." 2 March 2002. Tax Foundation. "Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005." 9 October 2007. 24 June 2013: updated for 2012 election

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-gofundme-page/

Was a GoFundMe Page Established for Brett Kavanaugh?

David Emery

10/05/2018

The fate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh hung in the balance in early October 2018 as the Senate Judiciary Committee awaited the results of an FBI investigation into allegations that he had committed a sexual assault some 30 years before -- allegations that Kavanaugh angrily denied in his Senate testimony. The Senate was already sharply divided along party lines on the urgency of pushing ahead with the confirmation, with Democrats demanding a full and unimpeded investigation into the charges and Republicans accusing the Democrats resorting to delaying tactics and attempting to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. Public opinion was divided as well, with 45 percent of Americans saying they believed Kavanaugh's accuser (Professor Christine Blasey Ford) and 33 percent saying they believed Kavanaugh in an opinion poll taken four days after their testimonies. poll This clash of opinions played out on social media as uncivil debates raged in which each faction claimed the moral high ground and accused the other of lies and hypocrisy. A meme shared on 1 October took aim at Kavanaugh by calling out a GoFundMe account supposedly established in his and his family's name: The implication, of course, is that as a presumably wealthy and privileged member of the Washington elite, Judge Kavanaugh doesn't need a fundraising account. Other social media users made the same point: Yes, a gofundme page has raised over $100,000 for poor Brett Kavanaugh. Thats right, some people think he needs money even though he has a job, government body guards, and will either soon be a Supreme Court justice, or he will get a six figures book deal. pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco Alex Morash (@AlexMorash) September 29, 2018 September 29, 2018 Why are people giving money to SUPER WEALTHY #Kavanaugh & #DrChristineBlaseyFord ??? Both are RICH, should be GIVING MONEY, NOT GETTING!!! RT @thehill: GoFundMe campaign for Kavanaugh raises over $500,000 https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0 #Kavanaugh #DrChristineBlaseyFord @thehill https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0 Trixy Wh (@trixywh) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018 Whether or not it addressed an actual financial need on his part (press reports suggest that Kavanaugh, though by no means poor, is less well off as several current members of the Supreme Court), a number of Kavanaugh supporters did launch GoFundMe accounts in his name in late September and early October. The most successful of these had raised more than $600,000 by 5 October. It was opened by John Hawkins of North Carolina, who runs a partisan news and opinion website called Right Wing News. reports successful John Hawkins Right Wing News In an introductory note on the GoFundMe page, Hawkins explained the thinking behind it as follows: Like many decent people from both parties, I have been disgusted by the unsubstantiated 36 year old smears aimed at Brett Kavanaugh. We live in a country where innocent until proven guilty is supposed to mean something; yet Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is being dragged through the mud while his family is facing non-stop death threats. This is a horrible way to treat a good man who has dedicated his life to public service. So many unethical people are giving unprovable 36 year old accusations the same weight as 6 FBI background checks, hundreds of hours of hearings and testimony under oath. It is disgraceful. What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit. All of the money collected will go to Brett Kavanaugh's family or alternately, if they refuse to accept it, to a charity of their choice. I have already reached out to a contact who should be able to put me in touch with Brett Kavanaugh's family. If he can't do it, I have plenty of other contacts who should be able to make it happen. I will update this page after I have talked with his family. I hope you will show your support for a good man who has been treated very, very badly. Hawkins posted updates chronicling his efforts to get in touch with the Kavanaugh family to discuss disbursing the funds. After many unsuccessful attempts he finally spoke to one of the judge's staffers, who told him that although the family is aware of the GoFundMe account and "extremely appreciative" of the donations, it would be a while before they could address the question of whether or not Kavanaugh, as a political appointee, can accept the money. On 30 October, Hawkins posted an update which included an "official statement" from Kavanaugh's representatives saying he would not accept the funds: "Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose." GoFundMe accounts were also started for Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The most successful of those had accumulated more than $540,000 in donations as of 5 October. A note from Ford posted on the GoFundMe page expressed her appreciation to all those contributing: accumulated I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening. And some journey it has been and continues to be. We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing. Thanks to you, I am able to feel safe, my family can be together, and my children can continue to go to school. On 21 November, Ford announced the closure of the GoFundMe account, pledging to donate any unused funds to trauma survivors: The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence generously loaned to us. With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete. Adams, Becket. "Kavanaugh Declines $600,000 Raised in His Defense." Washington Examiner. 31 October 2018. Albrecht, Leslie. "Brett Kavanaugh's GoFundMe Page Raises $603,770, Surpassing $540,000 Raised for Christine Blasey Ford." Market Watch. 5 October 2018. Bekiempis, Victoria. "Christine Blasey Ford to Give Donations to Charity for Trauma Survivors." The Guardian. 27 November 2018. Goldstein, Steve. "Brett Kavanaugh May Become the 'Poorest' Supreme Court Justice." Market Watch. 14 July 2018. [29 November 2018]: Added information about the closure and disposition of the largest GoFundMe accounts in Kavanaugh and Ford's names.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/oct/29/wendy-davis/wendy-davis-said/

Greg Abbott has benefitted from payday lenders who have given him $300,000 and then received a ruling from him that they can operate in a loophole in the law that allows them to charge unlimited rates and fees.

Dylan Baddour

10/29/2014

Wendy Davis, asked if shes unethically profited while in public office, suggested her opponent has committed infractions including one that resulted from hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations. Responding to a reporter at the Sept. 30, 2014,gubernatorial debatein Dallas, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee and Fort Worth state senator accused Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, her Republicanfoe, of selling out Texans to serve the interests of people who make donations to his campaign. As an example, Davis pointed out payday lenders who have given Abbotts campaign $300,000 and then received a ruling from him that they can operate in a loophole in the law that allows them to charge unlimited rates and fees. Davis was revisiting a topic shes consistently explored: that a 2006 letter from Abbotts state office allowed payday lenders to skirt state lending laws. After Davis proclaimed link between Abbotts campaign donations and official action wasdescribedby theEl Paso Timesin January 2014, we foundHalf Trueher statement that Texas payday lenderswere charging 1,000 percent interest. In rare instances, lenders charged 1,000 percent annual interest, but payday loan rates then averaged 465 percent. For this fact check, we gauged whether Abbott piled up hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations and then issued a ruling favorable to payday lenders, which offer low-dollar, high-interest short-term loans targeting low-income people who live paycheck to paycheck. The loans are generally for $100 and $500 and are most often issued for two weeks. Theyre considered risky because low-income borrowers are relatively unlikely to be able to pay them back. Abbott campaign contributions To our inquiry about the $300,000 described as given to Abbott, Davis campaign spokesman Zac Petkanas emailed usrecordsof Abbott campaign contributionsas filed in campaign reports atthe Texas Ethics Commission covering Sept. 16, 2002 nearly through July 2014. Our own sampling of state records showed Abbotts campaign fielded: --$80,000 from Trevor Ahlberg, CEO of Irving-based payday lender Cash Store, in eight installments from Aug. 16, 2006 to June 16, 2014; --$57,500 from Roderick Aycox, founder of Georgia-based payday lender LoanMax, in five installments from Nov. 12, 2009 to June 9, 2014; --$30,500 from Cash America International Inc. PAC in 14 contributionsfrom Sept. 16, 2002 to July 29, 2014; --$30,000 from Ace Cash Express Inc. PAC, in eight donations from Oct. 5, 2005 to July 29, 2014. Then again, according to Petkanas and state records, less than 5 percent of the tallied payday-lender donations, or $13,000, had come in by Jan. 12, 2006, which was the date Abbotts office issued the ruling criticized by Davis. By phone, Petkanas said Davis did not mean to sayin the debate that all the $300,000 was given before Abbotts office ruled on payday lending. Texas Payday Lenders: Regulation and Evasion There's a lot of background to state actions involving payday lenders. In 1999, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, Abbotts predecessor,filed lawsuitsagainst selected payday lenders, saying the companies were dodging state laws regulating interest rates. Separately, ausury provisionin the Texas Constitution caps interest rates on short-term loans from unlicensed lenders at 10 percent. Cornyn,saying lenders were getting away with interest rates of up to 1,000 percent, said: This kind of abusive payday lending is illegal in Texas, and those companies who continue this practice will face serious consequences. An October2000 reportby the Sunset Advisory Commission found that in recent years, different types of lending businesses have attempted to evade regulation including payday lenders. It recommended the Legislature authorize the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner to regulate payday loans in order to help control unlawful interest rates. In 2001, state lawmakers agreed tochanges in lawbringing payday lending under the offices regulation and directing the Texas Finance Commission to adoptrulesguiding the industry. According to a May 2001bill analysisby the House Research Organization, the requested rules would prohibit a lender from using a device, pretense, or subterfuge to avoid regulation of the lenders transactions, including by recharacterizing fees on a loan as a purchase of a good or service. Resulting additions to Texas law includea chartspecifying acceptable fees for payday loans of various dollar amounts and durations. But in subsequent years, according toAustin American-Statesmannews reports, Texas payday lenders found a way around the law by partnering with out-of-state banks, which financed payday loans out of the reach of Texas laws. State and national legislators then raised concerns about payday lenders dodging the restrictions; the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation cracked down in 2005,limiting the numberof payday loans a bank could issue and constricting the profitability of partnerships between payday lenders and banks. Thats when Texas payday lenders, under pressure from regulation, started transitioning to a new business model, called acredit service organization(CSO) in summer 2005, theStatesmanreported In January 2006. Its news story said Texas payday lenders ditched partnerships with FDIC-regulated banks and began working with third-party unregistered lenders. It also said Texas payday lenders got a boost recently from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in the form of a letter affirming the legality of the CSO model. Between 2004 and 2014, payday lender storefronts increased more than tenfold in Texas, theEl Paso TimesreportedFeb. 4, 2014. Abbotts interpretation of state law Next, we looked at the Abbott ruling declared by Davis. It turned out to be an aide's legal analysis. In 2005, the attorney generals office, headed by Abbott, fielded two requests to review the legality of payday-lender CSOs, agency spokesman Jerry Strickland said by email, one an August 2005 verbal request from the consumer credit commissioner, who inquired after a court case raised questions about whether the state had any sway over CSOs. In Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., the plaintiff accused payday lender Ritemoney Ltd. of disguising illegal interest fees as service charges. A state district judge, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, wrote that Texas law does not construe such credit service fees as disguised interest, and the complaint was dismissed. Strickland said the other request for Abbotts judgment camein writingSept. 8, 2005 from then-state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. Shapleigh wrote that as a CSO, a payday lending company dodges both federal guidelines restricting payday loans and the interest-rate limits established by the Texas Finance Commission. As the states leading enforcement agency, it is imperative that your office investigate this new business model and take necessary enforcement actions against businesses purposefully and illegally skirting Texas laws. On Jan. 12, 2006, Barry McBee, the states first assistant attorney general,signed a letterresponding to the commissioner, Leslie Pettijohn, saying there was nothing patently illegal about payday lender CSOs under state lawand there was no statutory limit to the fees they could charge. McBees letter pointed out that, in keeping with state law, payday lender CSOs were charging the maximum-permitted 10 percent interest on loans plus service fees to arrange the loan between a borrower and third-party lender. He wrote that, according toChapter 393 of the Texas Finance Code, there is not any limit on the amount of fees a CSO can charge in such transactions. Any discussion of whether the use of this model is the best public policy choice for the State of Texas, McBee wrote, is one that must be addressed by the Legislature and has not been explored by this office. Legislative Review In the 2013 legislative session, lawmakersdebatedreformingpayday lending practices, but attemptsstalled. Expert Analysis By phone, Don Baylor, a former senior policy analyst for the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving low-income Texans, said that after the Lovick v. Ritemoney ruling, payday lenders remained uncertain if they could legally operate as CSOs. But, Baylor said, its fair to say the OAG letter provided enough regulatory certainty for the entire (payday lending) industry to jump on board with the CSO model. Baylor also said that after the Lovick ruling, the attorney general doesnt have the authority to prohibit loans from being made under the CSO model. He credited the explosion of payday lender CSOs to ambiguous wording in the 1987Credit Services Organization Act, which was written to help Texans improve credit scores and not with payday lenders in mind, he said. Payday lenders found the CSO costume and dressed up in the costume, said Baylor. Its a very creative way they came up with to get around the constitutional usury limits. Our Ruling Davis said paydaylenders gave Abbott $300,000 in campaign donations and then received a ruling from him that they can operate in a loophole in the law that allows them to charge unlimited rates and fees. This statement references a 2006 legal analysis -- not a ruling -- from a top state aide to Abbott that tracked with a court ruling permitting payday lenders to charge unlimited fees in spite of state caps on related interest. Clarification is needed in that only 5 percent of the described $300,000 in donations occurred before the analysis was issued. Regardless, Abbott's office reaffirmed a way for politically supportive payday lenders to squeeze Texas borrowers. We rate this statement 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.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/f-15-crash/

F-15 Crash

David Mikkelson

05/05/2008

Claim: Photographs show an F-15 fighter jet breaking up in mid-air. . Example: [Collected via e-mail, March 2008] What a ride !!!! Just flying along, enjoying the ride ... Oh my, this is so much fun ... it's so great being a pilot. Hmmm, something feels different ...Hey, why am I looking up? Oops, my controls aren't working?Where's my F-15? Oh, there it is ...I think I'm having separation anxiety. OK, I'm out here, but first the canopy has to go. Glad that worked! That's it ... now I'm gone Can you imagine what was going through this poor pilot's mind? AND, just what caused the mid air break up..... U.S. Air Force's announcement on Thursday said that a Missouri National Guard F-15 jet broke apart in midair on Nov. 2, 2007; the pilot evacuated the plane safely. The breakup in mid air was blamed on parts that didn't meet specifications; which raises issues ranging from national security to potential legal action and even foreign sales. Origins: It's a common phenomenon that when a spectacular disaster strikes, "real" photographs of it begin to circulate via e-mail that are actually recycled images from earlier, similar events (such as this set of storm photos) or images that aren't actually photographs (such as these movie stills passed off as photographs of the Space Shuttle Columbia exploding). The images displayed above fit that latter category: The underlying incident they depict is a real one, but the images shown here aren't photographs of that incident, nor are they photographs at all. storm stills On 2 November 2007, a Boeing Co. F-15C Eagle fighter jet flown by the Missouri Air National Guard crashed during a training exercise. The following day, the U.S. Air Force grounded the country's global fleet of 676 F-15s out of "airworthiness concerns" while they conducted inspections to investigate a possible structural failure in the aircraft. An animated video simulation of the Missouri F-15's mid-air breakup was prepared during the course of the investigation, and the images displayed above are frames taken from that simulation: simulation The Air Force ultimately determined that the cause of the accident was a defective metal support beam: A failure of the upper right longeron, a critical support structure in the F-15C Eagle, caused the crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C, four miles south-southeast of Boss, Missouri, Nov 2. According to the Air Combat Command Accident Investigation Board report released Jan. 10, a technical analysis of the recovered F-15C wreckage determined that the longeron didn't meet blueprint specifications. This defect led to a series of fatigue cracks in the right upper longeron. These cracks expanded under life cycle stress, causing the longeron to fail, which initiated a catastrophic failure of the remaining support structures and led to the aircraft breaking apart in flight. At the time this report was issued in January 2008, about 60 percent of the Air Force's F-15 fleet had cleared inspection and been returned to service; approximately 40 percent of the inspected aircraft were found to have at least one longeron that did not meet blueprint specifications, and nine of them were discovered to have longeron fatigue-cracks: The Air Force's 224 newer F-15E fighter jets do not have the same flaws and have been returned to service. This week, the Air Force returned 261 F-15 A-Ds to service after they were cleared for flight. Although some of the flawed beams known as longerons have been deemed just millimeters off of their blueprint specifications, Air Force officials said they are not taking chances with aircraft that could be susceptible to the same cracks that led to the dramatic crash last year. Nine of the F-15 A-D models have been grounded because of actual cracks in the aircraft; Air Force officials said yesterday that they are weighing the possibility of replacing the longerons on the other defective planes or giving up on the aircraft in favor of $132 million F-22s, a cutting-edge fighter that the Air Force prefers. Lt. Gen. Donald J. Hoffman, a military deputy in the Air Force acquisition office, said the Air Force is beginning to investigate potential liability on the part of the manufacturer, but Air Force officials also said they are having difficulty locating the original contracting paperwork and are unsure whether McDonnell Douglas made the specific part that is failing or whether it was made by another vendor for inclusion in the airplanes. Boeing officials said they have been working with the Air Force to determine the extent of the problem, and the Air Force said Boeing tests led to the discovery of the manufacturing defect after the November crash. By failing to conform to blueprint specifications, the metal beams in some cases weakened and cracked after years of experiencing high speeds and G-forces, according to the accident investigation. [Boeing spokesman Paul] Guse said Boeing is gathering data from its F-15 inspections and expected it to take about four weeks to determine a course for fixing the aircraft. Despite the spectacular nature of the accident, the pilot was able to eject safely and suffered only the (relatively) minor injuries of a dislocated shoulder, a broken arm, and some cuts and bruises. Last updated: 6 May 2008 Sources: Borak, Donna. "Air Force Grounds F-15s in Wake of Training Crash." The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer. 6 November 2007. Buzanowski, J.G. "Air Force Leaders Discuss F-15 Accident, Future." Air Force Link. 10 January 2008. Lardner, Richard. "Defective Part Cited in F-15 Jet Crash." ABC News. 10 January 2008. White, Josh. "Air Force Indefinitely Grounds Many F-15 Jets." The Washington Post. 11 January 2008 (p. A3). Air Force Link. "Air Combat Command Clears Selected F-15s for Flight." 9 January 2008. Air Force Link. "F-15 Eagle Accident Report Released." 10 January 2008. KSPR-TV [Springfield, MO]. "Air Force Releases F-15 Crash Animation." 10 January 2008.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jul/04/bill-weimer/fireworks-executive-says-theyve-never-been-safer-a/

Fireworks have never been safer, and their use continues to increase each year.

Tom Feran

07/04/2012

Picking a favorite holiday is almost like picking a favorite child, but PolitiFact Ohio admits to particular fondness for the Fourth of July.We enjoy the invocations of history, especially when they're factually accurate. We like the annual cookout with old friends. And we love fireworks.So we were especially interested to read a newspaper commentary by Bill Weimer, vice president of Youngstown-based Phantom Fireworks, the nations largest retailer of consumer fireworks.Fireworks have never been safer, and their use continues to increase each year, he wrote. This alone provides a strong case for the regulated and sensible use of consumer fireworks.Really? Safer than ever?In 1994, Weimer said, the United States imported 117 million pounds of fireworks, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 12,500 fireworks-related injuries. By 2010, fireworks imports grew more than 75 percent to 205.9 million pounds, but the number of fireworks-related injuries dropped by more than 30 percent to 8,600.This is phenomenal progress in safety, Weimer wrote, calling on Ohio's General Assembly to relax state laws and legalize consumer fireworks.PolitiFact Ohio looked at the law and checked the numbers.Ohio law, which now permits the use of only novelty and trick fireworks, is among the more restrictive nationally. Three other states have similar laws, and four ban all consumer fireworks. Forty-one states and Washington, D.C., allow some or all types of consumer fireworks permitted by federal regulations, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association.We found that Weimer's numbers, as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, are accurate.The same day Weimers column was published, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, which set standards for consumer fireworks in 1976, issued its annual fireworks report last week. It confirmed the injury number Weimer used -- 8,600 for 2010.CPSC spokeswoman Nikki Fleming said the injury rate as measured by injuries per 100,000 persons has leveled off.The Massachusetts-based National Fire Protection Association takes the position that using consumer fireworks is simply not worth the risk, division manager Guy Colonna said.We don't seem to be trending that rapidly toward zero, he said of the injury numbers. Youhaven't moved the needle so much in terms of saying it's safe for consumers to use.The NFPA -- which coordinates the national Alliance to Stop Consumer Fireworks -- said in its annual report in June that there are more fires on a typical July 4th than any other day of the year, and that fireworks account for 40 percent.Colonna acknowledged statistics showing that the rate of injury per 100,000 pounds of imported fireworks has declined, but said it is still a significant number.The American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, cites the latter statistic. It shows that the rate of injuries dropped from 38 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 1976 to 7 in 2000 and to 4 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 2010.The trade group considers that significant because U.S. fireworks consumption has skyrocketed. It more than doubled between 2000, when the trade group says the trend in relaxing (state) consumer fireworks laws was first initiated, and 2011, when 212 million pounds were sold.The trade group credits safety education efforts and the ever improving quality of its products. It says that injuries and fires most typically result from illegal fireworks and from improper use, especially involving children.But does that mean that fireworks themselves are safer?We asked Weimer what he had to support his statement. He immediately credited the work of the CPSC and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory.In the 1970s, the CPSC set federal requirements for consumer fireworks that cover cautionary labeling, the burn time of fuses, explosive powder content, stability for both ground-based and aerial devices and proper performance.In 1988, the CPSC started an inspection and enforcement program for Chinese-manufactured fireworks. China -- which now supplies 98 percent of the fireworks in the United States -- began exporting fireworks to this country in 1973.Initially, 75 percent of fireworks tested by the CPSC failed to comply with the regulations.The quality truly wasn't very good, Weimer said. The quality was inconsistent. The industry knew that if it didn't so something there would be big issues.Working with the CPSC, importers established the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to set additional, stricter requirements for consumer fireworks. The AFSL went to factories in China, conducted seminars, worked with manufacturers and started a testing program in China in 1994.The linchpin of the system is the testing, Weimer said.The testing is conducted by an independent laboratory hired from outside China by the AFSL. Each fireworks shipment is tested for compliance with 15 quality standards, Weimer said. If any standard is not met by any of the randomly selected cases, the entire case lot fails.In the program's first year, 1994, 36 percent of the random lots of tested fireworks were rejected. By 2002, that number was less than 10 percent. The compliance rate exceeded 90 percent.CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, speaking at a symposium in China last January, noted that the agency has been working for years with manufacturers and with China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.While AQSIQ and CPSC may work to improve product safety with somewhat different motivations, everyone benefits from the end result, which is improved product safety, she said, adding that we have increased the frequency, scope, and depth of our training in China.Weimer thinks that the availability of regulated consumer fireworks diminishes the use of the really lethal illegal and homemade variety.So what's the grand finale?PolitiFact Ohio is not ruling on the advisability of maintaining, relaxing or tightening Ohio laws regulating fireworks. And were not taking a position on whether consumer use of fireworks is even a good idea.Weimers statement addressed legal and proper use of fireworks by consumers -- not use of homemade or illegal products. And fireworks are -- as Weimer told us -- a product with risk associated with it.But, the statistical record shows that the rate of injury from fireworks declined nationally while their use increased dramatically, and while laws governing their consumer use loosened. There still are injuries, but the annual rate has plateaued even while consumption continues to grow.We found no stronger explanation than the concurrent regulatory and policing work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to make fireworks safer.Weimers claim is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter it rates True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gun-toting-children-photographed-united-states-border/

Were Gun-Toting Children Photographed on the United States Border?

Dan Evon

06/18/2018

On 18 June 2018, the front page of the Drudge Report news aggregator blog put up a link to a story accompanied by a photograph of a group of children, two of which appeared to be holding guns, and the headline "Border Battle: USA Taking in 250 Kids Per Day": Drudge Report Even though the Drudge Report linked to a 2018 article about how the Trump administration "could be holding 30,000 border kids by August" published by the Washington Examiner, the featured photograph was not taken in 2018, was not taken anywhere near either Mexico or the United States, and it has nothing at all to do with immigration. Washington Examiner The Drudge Report apparently deliberately chose to feature the misleading photograph (and phrase "border battle") amidst increasing outrage surrounding a Trump administration policy to separate children from families at the Mexico-United States border while failing to offer a description, note that the children in the image are holding toys, not actual weapons, or even credit the photographer, Christiaan Triebert, who took the picture in Azaz, Syria in 2012: policy photographer Four young Syrian boys with toy guns are posing in front of my camera during my visit to Azaz, Syria. Most people I met were giving the peace sign. This little city was taken by the Free Syrian Army in the summer of 2012 during the Battle of Azaz. The web site eventually removed the image of Syrian children and replaced it with a slightly more relevant photograph, but this second attempt was still misleading and still failed to offer proper context or even attribution: This photograph was not taken on the border of Mexico and the United States, and it was not taken in 2018. The image, which is from Associated Press photographer Eduardo Verdugo, was taken in 2013 in the southern Mexico city of Juchitn. It shows immigrants atop the infamous "Tren de la Muerte" ("Train of Death"), also known as La Bestia or The Beast, trying to make their way north to safety: Associated Press Migrants ride on top of a northern bound train toward the US-Mexico border in Juchitan, southern Mexico, Monday, April 29, 2013. Migrants crossing Mexico to get to the U.S. have increasingly become targets of criminal gangs who kidnap them to obtain ransom money. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) La Bestia has that name because it is an exceptionally dangerous method of travel that is only used by the most desperate, and few survive the ride unscathed: unscathed The cargo trains, which run along multiple lines, carry products north for export. As there are no passenger railcars, migrants must ride atop the moving trains, facing physical dangers that range from amputation to death if they fall or are pushed. Beyond the dangers of the trains themselves, Central American migrants are subject to extortion and violence at the hands of the gangs and organized-crime groups that control the routes north. Giaritelli, Anna. "Trump Administration Could be Holding 30,000 Border Kids by August, Officials Say." Washington Examiner. 18 June 2018. Drudge Report. "Border Battle: USA Taking in 250 Kids Per Day." 18 June 2018.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-lennon-anticipate-donald-trump/

Did John Lennon Anticipate the Election of Donald Trump?

David Mikkelson

02/06/2017

One prominent class of rumor associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign was the notion that various prominent people had foretold the unlikely political ascendancy of Donald Trump decades in advance, everyone from President Ronald Reagan to Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain. Ronald Reagan Kurt Cobain In early 2017, another example of this class of rumor hit social media, holding that former Beatle John Lennon had opined in 1981 that "the only way we are going to get ourselves out of the messes we've created for ourselves is to find strong and independent leaders ... perhaps a businessman": The implication of this item was obvious: Lennon had presciently discerned, some thirty-five years in advance, the surprising rise of Donald Trump (a businessman who had never held any public office) to the Republican Party nomination and, ultimately, the White House. The notion that John Lennon actually said anything like the statement attributed to him above in 1981 (or at any other time) has several questionable aspects, however: 1) John Lennon was shot to death in December 1980, so he couldn't have said anything in 1981. 2) Nearly every word of every interview and public statement John Lennon gave during his adult lifetime has been documented and analyzed, yet we found no evidence that this putative quotation of his had been recorded and reproduced anywhere prior to its online appearance in 2017. 3) This statement doesn't even sound like something John Lennon would have said if there was one group he held greater disdain for than politicians, it was businessmen. When the Beatles were attempting to gain a controlling interest in their publishing company, Northern Songs, in 1969, Lennon famously derailed negotiations at one point by reportedly proclaiming that he was sick of "being fucked around by men in suits sitting on their fat arses in the City." If the former Beatle had proposed looking to someone other than politicians for leadership, his suggested alternative likely would have been anyone other than businessmen.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-washington-firearms/

Did George Washington Say 'Firearms Stand Next in Importance to the Constitution Itself'?

Bethania Palma

04/26/2019

On 20 April 2019, the verified Facebook page belonging to the non-profit organization Turning Point USA posted a meme containing a statement falsely attributed to George Washington. Facebook page Turning Point USA meme The statement attributed to the first U.S. president reads, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. Firearms are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." Much like the cherry tree legend about him, however, the quote appears to be a fabrication.The statement, which is often referred to as the "liberty teeth" quote, is listed by Mount Vernon (Washington's historical estate) under "spurious quotations" attributed to Washington. It "does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote," per the estate. cherry tree spurious quotations Nevertheless, the quote gets trotted out with some regularity. In 2013 the progressive media watchdog organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) noted it was employed in a Playboy magazine article as far back as 1995, and was thus the subject of a subsequent retraction. The quote was also one of several erroneous ones included in the language of a Washington state bill dubbed the "firearms civil rights act" in 2016. employed erroneous ones One of the most famous myths about the first president is probably the story of the cherry tree. In the story, a young Washington takes a hatchet to a cherry tree. When confronted about it by his father, the boy says, "I cannot tell a lie" and confesses. Although the tale is meant to demonstrate the virtue of honesty, it is an invention of biographer Mason Locke Weems. The Mount Vernon estate notes that "Weems biography, The Life of Washington, was first published in 1800 and was an instant bestseller. However the cherry tree myth did not appear until the books fifth edition was published in 1806." Santos, Melissa."Fake Founding Fathers Quotes Make Their Way Into Gun Bill in Washington." Sacramento Bee.6 February 2016. Rendall, Steve."George Washington on GunsAccording to Sean Hannity." FAIR.9 January 2013. Mount Vernon."Spurious Quotations." Mount Vernon."Cherry Tree Myth."

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Are 16 states utilizing voting machines manufactured by a company reportedly under the control of George Soros?

David Mikkelson

10/20/2016

With the advent of electronic voting systems and public unease with casting ballots that are not tangible physical objects every election cycle brings rumors that some individual or group with a heavy investment in the outcome of the election owns or controls the machines that record and count votes and those parties will use their powers to "rig" the voting systems they control to ensure the election outcome conforms to their preferred results. individual group Billionaire business magnate George Soros was tagged in such rumors in 2012, and he was back in 2016 as the subject of articles by disreputable web sites such as the Daily Caller falsely claiming that Soros' ties to the Smartmatic company, purportedly the manufacturer of voting machines used in 16 states, put him in a position to "rig" the election in Hillary Clinton's favor: tagged Daily Caller HILLARY IS RIGGING THE ELECTION! Surprised? You shouldnt be. Weve just learned that Hillary is tied to the one company that has the power to sway this entire election Smartmatic. Smartmatic manufactures the voting machines that will be used this November. The Chairman of Smartmatic, Mark Malloch-Brown, is on the board of George Soros Open Society Foundation. Yes, George Soros, the billionaire CROOK who is one of Hillarys biggest donors. SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES: ArizonaCaliforniaColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaIllinoisLouisianaMichiganMissouriNew JerseyNevadaOregonPennsylvaniaVirginiaWashingtonWisconsin HILLARY IS TRYING TO RIG THIS ELECTION BECAUSE SHE KNOWS ITS THE ONLY CHANCE SHE HAS! George Soros has no hand in the management or ownership of Smartmatic. As is typical of such claims, this one is based on nothing more than the most tenuous of connections namely that among the number of non-profit boards on which Smartmatic Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown sits is the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation, an international grantmaking network founded by George Soros. That fact that one of the many people on one of the many boards of one of the many organizations with which George Soros (a large Clinton donor) is involved also happens to chair an electronic voting company is taken as proof enough by conspirators that George Soros has the means, motive, and intent to commit a massive act of voting fraud. And, despite being the multinational billionaire business magnate that he is, Soros utterly lacks the common sense not to rig an election through a confederate so obviously connected to him. Global Board donor As is also typical of such claims, those who propagate them mistakenly assume that every company in the business of providing electronic voting services is producing machines that record and count votes, which isn't the case such services can include anything from providing streamlined systems for reporting election results to the press to automating the process of voter authentication. In this case the assertion that "Smartmatic's voting machines will be used in 16 crucial states" is a false one, apparently a misinterpretation of a statement on Smartmatic's web site touting that the company had previously offered unspecified "technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States" a statement that didn't say that Smartmatic supplied voting machines used in all if those states, or that Smartmatic was even currently working with any of those states in any capacity. Indeed, the Case Studies section Smartmatic's web site chronicles their primarily dealing in providing equipment and services for foreign elections there's no mention of Smartmatic's being involved in U.S. elections beyond providing a voting system for a Utah state Republican caucus in March of 2016 and pilot testing an ePen for capturing provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots in parts of Los Angeles County. Case Studies In fact, a search using Verified Voting shows that not a single one of the listed 16 states is using voting machines provided by Smartmatic in the upcoming election Smartmatic isn't even listed as a vendor of any voting machines being used in any state. Verified Voting Nonetheless, the false rumor has grown so prevalent that Smartmatic has addressed it themselves on their web site, in a page that includes a statement confirming that no Smartmatic technology is being used in any state during the 2016 U.S. presidential election: addressed Smartmatic is 100% privately owned. Smartmatic has no ties to political parties or groups in any country and abide by a stringent code of ethics that forbids the company to ever donate to any political campaigns of any kind. The companys headquarters were based in Florida for many years, but have since moved to London to service its global client base. George Soros does not have and has never had any ownership stake in Smartmatic. It is no secret that our Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is a member of a number of non-profit boards addressing global issues from poverty reduction to conflict resolution, including the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation. This is stated clearly in his official biography. Lord Malloch-Brown is a highly respected global figure whose credentials include former Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and former Vice-Chairman of the World Economic Forum. He also served in the British Cabinet, as Minister of State in the Foreign Office. Smartmatic will not be deploying its technology in any U.S. county for the upcoming 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Our election technology has handled more than 3.7 billion votes over the past 12 years in election projects on five continents, without a single discrepancy. As a technology provider, Smartmatic is only responsible for, and concerned with, the technical aspects of the vote. Smartmatic does not comment on specific candidates or outcomes. Smartmatics voting technology has never been compromised. George Soros' philanthropic organization comprises 22 different boards, but Smartmatic's chairman sits on only one of them. Soros himself has never worked for, or held an ownership share in, Smartmatic. boards <!-- As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it. 2012 a pilot test with Smartmatic to streamline and expedite election reports during the California Primary Presidential Elections of June 7. Smartmatic provided its ePen solution in Malibu, Littlerock and Downey to enable the fast capture of the provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots from reporting precincts. The item went on to claim the 2016 Democratic primary was similarly rigged in Clinton's favor, using a chart from a mid-2016 viral paper examining the integrity of primary results in contests between Clinton and Sanders: Clinton and Sanders Just take a look at this chart detailing some of the primary results between Hillary and Bernie. Look how much better Hillary did in states that used HER voting machines: That chart (published in July 2016) had nothing to do with Smartmatic or "HER voting machines"; it pertained to the paper's authors' assessment of purported variations in results between states with and states without "paper trails" on electronic voting machines: published We found that while the polls were quite successful at predicting Clintons numbers in states with paper trails (just a statistically inconsequential 1% difference), Clinton over-performed by an average of 9% in the states that use electronic voting machines but fail to provide paper evidence of this vote: Thus, pollsters were quite accurate in predicting the outcome, but only in states where fraud is hardest to hide. This situation is completely flipped in the states where the placed vote cannot be verified, as the vote only ever existed in the machines. An interesting point of deviation between the two separate election fraud claims was that the initial paper focused in part on potential impropriety involving voting machines. But in that earlier claim, Smartmatic (the vendor purportedly in control of 16 states) was not mentioned: Interestingly, much information has recently come to light about the Clinton candidacy. Notably, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation. One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors. In conclusion, the data suggests that Clinton won in counties and in states where Clinton Foundation donors are responsible for the voting machines. Thus, we strongly believe that the risk posed by unverifiable electronic voting should not be taken. Our country should go back to verifiable voting. An honest election is more important than a day of labor. Off the bat, a discrepancy arose vis a vis the chart. In July 2016, vote skeptics eyed links between two voting vendors and the Democratic National Committee (DNC); neither of those vendors was Smartmatic. In October 2016, the same chart was used to claim Smartmatic had already rigged the primary for Clinton, and would do so for her again in her face-off against Donald Trump on 8 November 2016. Given the source material for the chart named entirely different equipment vendors, its inclusion in claims about Smartmatic was suspect. Missing from the later claim was any information about how the 16 states and their use of Smartmatic machines to ostensible exclusion was obtained. The claim was simply stated as fact with no citation, along with assertions that George Soros (a Hungarian-American mogul and political activist) was heading up Smartmatic. We contacted Smartmatic via phone and e-mail to ask about the states and the rumor, but did not receive a response. However, Smartmatic (like most companies) heralded their own work and achievements on their web site, and voting machines were not a primary highlight: heralded highlight It appeared the list of 16 states came verbatim from the unreferenced Smartmatic web site, where the company explained that in its tenure it had worked with 307 counties in 16 states (not that it supplied all voting machines to all 16, or even currently worked in any capacity with any of the states): In the US, Smartmatic has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States. By contrast, the circulating articles used slightly different framing: SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES[.] The "Soros connection" was also described openly on Smartmatic's web site, via a biography and professional history for company chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Although the articles claimed Malloch-Brown "sat on the board" of George Soros Open Society Foundation, his resume suggested that any work with Soros was not current: openly Mark Malloch-Brown is a former number two in the United Nations as well as having served in the British Cabinet and Foreign Office. He now sits in the House of Lords and is active both in business and in the non-profit world. He also remains deeply involved in international affairs. Mark served as Deputy Secretary-General and Chief of Staff of the UN under Kofi Annan ... Other positions have included vice-chairman of George Soross Investment Funds, as well as his Open Society Institute, a Vice-President at the World Bank and the lead international partner at Sawyer Miller, a political consulting firm. Thus far the rumor amounted to Smartmatic's potential and possibly prior involvement in "offer[ing] technology and support services" to 307 counties in 16 states, a misrepresented chart of alleged election irregularities involving other voting equipment vendors, and a company chair who once worked for Soros' Investment Funds and Open Society Institute. As for the level of Smartmatic's specific involvement in the vote in those 16 states, most state election officials provided information about their voting methods up to and including vendors that supplied equipment used on Election Day. Ballotpedia hosted a color-coded map of the U.S. with information about voting methods by state, and not all the 16 states voted identically: color-coded map Going by color-coding alone, it was clear the states' election equipment and processes varied tremendously. The oft-included chart (which evolved to identify "HER voting machines") in actuality referenced states that employed Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) without a paper trail. But several of the 16 states with a paper trail included Arizona, California, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, and Wisconsin -- they were not included in tabulations from states without. Of the 16, only Louisiana and New Jersey employed the DRE without paper trail method of voting, and the balance of states used either paper ballots, a combination of DRE and paper ballots, or mail-in voting -- none of which could be easily corrupted by Hillary Clinton or George Soros. As of 2014, the District of Columbia offered both paper and DRE voting with receipts. offered As Smartmatic stated, "support" and "technology" was provided to the 16 states mentioned; extant information indicated that the states were not equipped identically with specific machines; some used paper or mail-in ballots, some employed DRE with a paper trail, and two used DRE without any "receipts." Arizona (the first state listed) made information about voting machine manufacturers available on its web site [PDF]; only Maricopa county used Sequoia technologies, bought and later sold by Smartmatic in 2006. California relied on a a variety of vendors for DRE voting, including Sequoia, Election Systems and Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic, InkaVote, and Premier; Smartmatic was not listed on California's election web site as a current or prior vendor of voting machines (but as evidenced above, the company did provide electronic pens for some primary election functions). Illinois also did not list Smartmatic as a vendor, Colorado used Diebold equipment before switching to vote by mail (a vendor also used by Missouri), and Florida listed several vendors (none Smartmatic) for their machines. PDF 2006 Sequoia ES&S Hart InterCivic InkaVote Premier Illinois Diebold Missouri vendors In fact, in a search using Verified Voting, not a single one of the 16 states was listed as using voting machines provided by Smartmatic -- Smartmatic was not even listed as a vendor of any voting machine in any state. As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it. --> Verified Voting 2012 Barragan, Rodolfo Cortes. "Study Shows Voting Irregularities Linked to Companies That Donated to the Clinton Foundation." The Bern Report. 7 July 2016. Cohen, Zach C. "How D.C. Votes: Paper or Scantron?" The Washington Post. 2 April 2014. McCord, Susan. "Augusta Getting 100 Used Voting Machines from Colorado County." The Augusta Chronicle. 2 August 2016.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/progressive-donations-lewis/

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

David Mikkelson

09/08/2010

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. Forbes Progressive Insurance 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' supposed political leanings and involvement: This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. Theyre 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 who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot 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 drugged out 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 group 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 thugs 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 clown. Boycott Progressive Insurance 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.") Case Western Reserve $7 million $8 million 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. America Coming Together MoveOn.org 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.) letter Marijuana Policy Project charitable 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: regulations [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. defend Clarke, Josie. "Eccentric Billionaire Has High Profile at Home." The New Zealand Herald. 31 August 2000. Edsall, Thomas B. "Soros-Backed Activist Group Disbands as Interest Fades." The Washington Post. 3 August 2005. Healy, Rita. "Mellowing Out on Marijuana." Time. 8 November 2007. Kranish, Michael. "Rich Activists, Hoping to Sway Voters, Give Vast Sums to 527s." Boston Globe. 21 September 2003 (p. A8). Leinwand, Donna. "Super-Rich Trio Put Cash into Marijuana Initiatives." USA Today. 5 November 2002 (p. A8). ACLU. "Individual Donor Sets Record with $7 Million Donation." 18 July 2001. ACLU. "$8 Million Gift Will Boost Campaign to Fight Bush Administration's Assault on Civil Liberties." 15 January 2003. Forbes. "The Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2009." 30 September 2009. The Nation. "The Beat-Bush Brigades." 26 April 2004. USA Today. "Partisan Groups' attack Ads Dodge Disclosure Rules." 16 March 2004 (p. A12).

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/10/bernie-sanders/sanders-correct-nafta-china-trade-cost-thousands-j/

Trade agreements like NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China, which forced American workers to compete against people making pennies an hour, has resulted in the loss of 160,000 jobs here in Michigan.

Jon Greenberg

03/10/2020

Having lost his early lead in the delegate count to Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has a lot riding on his appeal to blue-collar workers. Speaking days ahead of the Michigan primary on NBCs Meet the Press, Sanders said his opposition to major trade deals marked a sharp difference between him and Biden, the former Delaware senator and vice president. Trade agreements like NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China, which forced American workers to compete against people making pennies an hour, have resulted in the loss of 160,000 jobs here in Michigan, Sanderssaid from Grand Rapids on March 8. I helped lead the effort, as you may recall, against these disastrous trade agreements. I worked with the unions, not with the CEOs of large corporations. On the other hand, Joe Biden strongly supported these agreements. While he voiced some reservations at the time, Biden voted for both bills the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, and normalization of trade with China in 2000. In this fact-check, we look at whether the two agreements cost Michigan 160,000 jobs. Teasing out the impact of trade deals can be difficult. Theres lots going on in the economy regardless of tariff agreements, including the 2008-09 financial crisis that plunged two of Detroits hometown auto companies into bankruptcy. But overall, studies back up Sanders claim. Sanders point hinges on trade with two countries, Mexico and China. But of the two, U.S. trade with China was much larger, and with that came a bigger impact. The studies Sanders relied on estimated Michigans job losses at nearly 44,000 (as of 2010)due to NAFTA, and about112,000 due to China(as of 2018). Well get to those estimates in just a bit, but add them together and you get 156,000, which is essentially Sanders number. But first, focusing just on China, thelatest research by a group of economists from four universitiesoffers a broad picture of what took place after 2000 when the United States gave it permanent normal trade status. The groups study doesnt put a number to Michigans losses, but it does highlight its struggles. Interestingly, the study found that the ultimate effect on jobs nationwide was neutral, neither a gain nor a loss. But among regions of the country, the upheaval was substantial. Both the type of jobs and the location of jobs shifted. Chinese competition reallocated employment from manufacturing to services, and from the U.S. heartland to the coasts, the report said. A Midwest state like Michigan was on the losing end of the deal. This research dug down to the level of individual companies and found that large multinational companies offshored manufacturing jobs and expanded service jobs, in areas such as research and management, in the U.S. The study also found that the China effect disappeared after 2007. We find strong employment impacts from 2000 to 2007, but nothing since from 2008 to 2015, the authors wrote. Sanders is correct that both NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China exposed Michigan to competition from factories that paid their workers much less and spent less on worker safety and environmental protection. But the manufacturing employment numbers reveal one of the challenges to drawing quick conclusions on the impact of the two trade deals. The job numbers show different paths after passage of each trade agreement. (Passage of trade bills is marked in red.) After NAFTA, the number of manufacturing jobs rose to 888,000. After the China deal, the number fell to 638,000 (as of 2006 and before the Great Recession), a decline of 250,000 jobs. The raw numbers support the idea that the China impact was great. For NAFTA, the analysis is more complicated. Economist Susan Houseman at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich., said those rising manufacturing job numbers after NAFTA passed dont tell the whole story. She said the studies Sanders used are valid. The country was experiencing record job growth in the 1990s, so you wouldnt necessarily expect the number of manufacturing jobs to fall, Houseman said. Rather you might expect for them to grow more slowly. The fraction of all jobs that were in manufacturing did fall by one percentage point between 1993 and 2000, suggesting that NAFTA did more for sectors other than manufacturing. Houseman also said that the NAFTA impacts would play out over time, as companies built new plants in Mexico, something that could not happen overnight. The analysis Sanders relied on came from economist Robert Scott at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. For NAFTA, Scott took the rising U.S.-Mexico trade deficit and teased out how that translated into job effects at the state level. Between 1993 and 2010, and accounting for the Great Recession, Scott found a loss of 43,600 jobs in Michigan. Houseman said that is a conservative figure. The types of calculations in this, if anything, may understate job losses, she said. I dont believe there is any basis for calling the Sanders claim of job losses for Michigan wrong. The primary caveat for Scotts estimate is that its for 2010, which is a decade ago. Michigans manufacturing sector has recovered a bit since then. However, for workers who lost their jobs during the first decade of the 2000s, the disruption was real. And even after rebounding, manufacturing remains well short of where it stood before NAFTA. Multiplestudies also lend weight to Scotts overall findings of the impact on the Midwest from trade with China. Research by economistsJustin Pierce at the Federal Reserve and Peter Schott at YaleUniversity, suggests over 1 million jobs nationwide have been lost due to trade with China. Some economists argue that productivity gains played a major role in displacing manufacturing jobs, but recent work casts doubt on how productivity has been calculated. Studies of the impact of automation find that it has been significant, but muchless than competition from China. The latest studies go to great lengths to filter out the various factors that have shaped jobs in states like Michigan, and the trade deals emerge as a potent force. Sanders said that NAFTA and normalized trade with China cost Michigan 160,000 jobs. The studies he cited produced nearly that result. While precision is challenging, one economist said if anything, those studies underestimate the job loss due to trade. We found four studies that concluded that both trade agreements hurt the manufacturing sector in Midwest states like Michigan. We rate this claim Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/won-both-ohio-florida-lost/

Has No Presidential Candidate 'Won Both Ohio and Florida and Lost'?

Dan Evon

12/09/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In December 2020, as states certified their election results and confirmed that Democratic candidate Joe Biden had won the U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump continued to push baseless claims that the election was "rigged," "stolen," or marred with widespread voter fraud. On Dec. 9, Trump furthered this false narrative by claiming on social media that his election loss was an historic oddity: voter fraud claiming This claim is factually inaccurate and this argument is moot. Precedent exists for a candidate losing an election while winning both Florida and Ohio. In 1960, Republican candidate Richard Nixon received more votes than his Democratic opponent, John F. Kennedy, in both Ohio and Florida, but still ended up losing the election. Nixon only managed to secure a total of 219 electoral college votes, while Kennedy won the election with 303 electoral college votes. Here's the electoral college map from the 1960 election: electoral college map Winning in both Ohio and Florida may increase a person's chances of winning a presidential election, but it is in no way required to do so. In order to secure the presidency, a candidate must win 270 electoral college votes. Like Nixon, Trump won both Florida and Ohio during the 2020 election, but he fell short of the 270 electoral college votes required to secure the presidency. Trump's electoral college results were slightly better than Nixon's at 232 electoral college votes, but they simply weren't enough compared to Biden's 306. electoral college results

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/apr/27/alan-grayson/alan-grayson-says-he-no-1-house-small-donations/

Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200.

Amy Sherman

04/27/2015

A day after a Florida man landed a gyrocopter on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to demand campaign finance reform, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson talked up his own efforts to focus on small donations and his potential U.S. Senate bid. Grayson, an Orlando Democrat, told a reporter forDemocracy Nowon April 16 that he will probably run in a primary againstU.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, for Marco Rubios Senate seat in 2016. As Democratic Party activists and leaders consider their best path to winning that seat, Grayson wants to remind them of his populist fundraising: Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200, he said. We decided to check if Grayson holds a record in the House for contributions of less than $200. (A spokesman for Grayson told PolitiFact Florida that he is likely a few weeks away from making his decision but reiterated that he has said he willprobably run.) Counting small donations The Federal Election Commission considers donations of less than $200 as small donations, which dont have to be individually reported. Instead, candidates report a total amount of money from small donors. In the House for the 2013-14 election cycle, those who received the largest share of their campaign revenue from small contributions were Democrats -- andGraysonwas indeed No. 1, according to a November 2014analysisby the Center for Responsive Politics. Graysons small donations totaled about $1.8 million and equaled 57 percent of his $3.1 million donations. The House member who raised the next highest amount in small donations was FloridasDebbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, and head of the Democratic National Committee. She raised $1.2 million in small donations, which equaled 47 percent of her contributions. (Wasserman Schultz recently ruled out running for Senate in 2016.) The third place House finisher wasU.S. Rep. Keith Ellisonof Minnesota who raised about $850,000 in small donations, or 41 percent of his pot. On theSenate sidefor the 2013-14 cycle, Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota topped the list with $11.7 million in small donations, equaling about 40 percent of his donations. (During his Democracy Now interview, Grayson mentioned U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a leader in the Senate in raising small donations. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and was re-elected in 2012, raised almost $5 million in small donations, or about61 percent.) Who racks up small donations and why? So why are some member of Congress small donor leaders? In the case of Franken, a formerSaturday Night Livestar, the Center for Responsive Politics noted that name recognition in combination with hailing from a state with a strong grassroots tradition doesnt hurt. Graysons persona as a Democratic firebrand likely contributes to his fundraising abilities. The most successful small-money fundraisers mix media exposure with partisan taunting and ideological appeals,Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, wrote in 2011. Graysonis famous for his provocative taunts against Republicans, such asdescribing the GOPhealth care plan as if you do get sick, die quickly, orcomparing Dick Cheney to a vampire. Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute and a political science professor at the University at Albany,saidpolarization alone wont get candidates a lot of money in small donations. In many cases, candidates are tapping into political organizations with an existing network of small donors. Grayson, for example, has received money bundled through ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising group that focuses on competitive races. Candidates got their boost from national organizations that created support for the candidates by recommending them to donors who trusted the bundling organization(s) and who probably would not otherwise have known who the candidates were, Malbin wrote. Our ruling Grayson said, Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200. Graysons small donations equaled 57 percent of his donations during the most recent cycle, putting him ahead of second-place finisher Wasserman Schultz at 47 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. We rate this claim True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dog-and-human-years/

Dog Years vs. Human Years

David Mikkelson

05/07/2002

When we human folk exchange information about each other, age is one of the most important pieces of data we pass along. Knowing someone's age immediately allows us to infer a great deal of information about that person with a reasonable degree of certainty: Age not only tells us whether someone is a child, an adult, or an elderly person, but it allows us to place people into much finer gradations of categories infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, middle-aged, elderly from which we can deduce a good deal about their physical, psychological, and social statuses. We know a 4-year-old child should be walking, but a 6-month-old baby is unlikely to be capable of the feat. We understand a couple of 16-year-olds might well have a baby together, but an 8-year-old boy is generally too young to father one and a 58-year-old woman is usually too old to conceive one. We're aware most 9-year-olds haven't yet reached puberty, but a 39-year-old might well have started experiencing many of the infirmities of advanced age (e.g., lessened eyesight, loss of hearing, weight gain, persistent aches and pains). We grasp that a 29-year-old is in what we would term "the prime of life," while an 89-year-old has well exceeded the average human lifespan. We can make pretty good guesses from a person's age about whether he's old enough to have finished his schooling, live away from his parents, be married, or hold an important professional position, or whether he's too old to still be working or raising children of his own. And even those of us who still have most of our lives ahead of us know all this. When it comes to our pets, however, many of us are mystified how to relate their ages to ours. Sure, knowledgeable owners and breeders may be quite familiar with all the developmental stages of their chosen animals, but many of us casual pet owners can't do much more than distinguish between "puppy," "dog," and "old dog." At what age are kittens weaned from their mothers? What's the average lifespan of a dog? When is a cat old enough to reproduce, and when is a dog too old to bear a litter? Is an 8-year-old dog in the prime of life, or is he closer to middle age? Lacking a good deal of observational experience, many of us simply don't know. Since knowledge and experience take time and effort to acquire, we've developed simple shortcuts to help us answer these questions, such as the well-known formula for "dog years": multiply your dog's age by seven, and you'll have his equivalent age in human terms. Although this formula might work roughly well for the middle years of a dog's life, it's too simplistic to accurately reflect a dog's developmental status closer to either end of its lifespan. Using this calculation, for example, an 18-month-old dog would be at a developmental stage similar to a 10-year-old child's, but while many 18-month-old dogs are fully grown and capable of reproducing, few 10-year-old children are. The "dog years" measurement tells us a 15-year-old dog is supposed to be the equivalent of a 105-year-old person, but (factoring out accidents and other unnatural causes of death) a much larger proportion of dogs live to the age of 15 than humans live to the age of 105. As well, age is more than just a chronological measurement of years lived; it's also an expression of how our bodies have been affected by the passage of time. Different types of animals age at different rates, so we can't employ a simple, direct, proportional relationship to correlate the ages of species as disparate as dogs and humans, especially since variable factors such as genetics, nutrition, and environment play an important role in the aging process. The bottom line is just as we wouldn't raise a litter of puppies or kittens the same way we'd raise a baby, neither should we care for our pets based on how old we think they'd be if they were people. For those who would like a rough idea of how the ages of our canine and feline friends compare to ours (strictly for entertainment purposes), we present the following charts courtesy of ANTECH: ANTECH Dog Human1 year 15 years2 years 24 years4 years 32 years7 years 45 years10 years 56 years15 years 76 years20 years 98 years Cat Human1 year 15 years2 years 24 years5 years 36 years7 years 45 years12 years 64 years15 years 76 years18 years 88 years21 years 100 years However, smaller dog breeds tend to live longer on average than larger breeds, so no single chart can adequately represent all dogs with much accuracy. Therefore a better charting of equivalent ages is one based on the weight of the animal:

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/why-obama-will-lose-in-a-landslide/

Wayne Allyn Root -- Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

David Mikkelson

10/04/2012

Claim: Wayne Allyn Root opined that President Obama will lose his re-election bid in 2012 by a landslide. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Root, May 2012] Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races. Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I dont believe its possible to turnaround America. But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980. Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge? [Rest of article here.] here Origins: Wayne Allyn Root, a political commentator who was the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, is a regular contributor to FOX News and the author of several books, including The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts. He writes political opinion columns published on Townhall.com,and his entry for 30 May 2012 was the article excerpted above, entitled "Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide." Wayne Allyn Root columns article Last updated: 11 June 2012

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-increase-social-security/

Did 'Biden's Leadership' Play Role in Social Security Increase for 2023?

Alex Kasprak

11/02/2022

On Nov. 1, 2022, the official White House Twitter account suggested that an increase in the amount of money provided to seniors via Social Security benefits occurred "through President Biden's leadership." Several users on Twitter, including Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, Ky., took issue with the suggestion that specific actions taken by the Biden administration could have led to an increase in the value of these benefits, in large part because the adjustment to benefits "is an automatic formula." including This critique, also spelled out beneath the White House tweet when it was flagged through the crowd-sourced misinformation Twitter initiative Birdwatch, is valid. In short, no action performed by the Biden administration could plausibly hold any direct bearing on the size of the increase in Social Security payments. This is because the amount of increase from year to year as a result of a law passed50 years before Biden took office is directly tied to a standardized index. The White House deleted its tweet the following morning. Birdwatch Biden administration Social Security 50 years tied to Prior to 1975, the only way to adjust the size of Social Security payments was through an act of Congress. Without regular acts of Congress, then, the effective value of Social Security benefits would decline over time due to inflation. Beginning in 1975, thanks to legislation passed in 1972, the benefit size increased based on anautomatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). inflation The CPI is calculated each month by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and "represents changes in prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households." Their data come from "75 urban areas throughout the country, " from "about 23,000 retail and service establishments," and also from a survey on rent prices collected from around 50,000 landlords or tenants." calculated The COLA update for 2023 is 8.7%, which makes it the fourth-largest increase since COLAs were introduced. The three higher adjustments occurred in 1980 (14.3%), 1981 (11.2%), and 1979 (9.9%) is 8.7% three higher Such adjustments are standardized, and the causes of inflation are myriad, complex, and at least in part international in nature. As a result, the assertion by the Biden White House that its leadership was responsible for larger Social Security payments to seniors in 2023 is untenable. causes of inflation

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jul/11/mark-warner/mark-warner-says-donald-trump-has-bankrupt-four-se/

Says Donald Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses.

Sean Gorman

07/11/2016

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner says presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a lot of ammunition to fire at Donald Trumps business record. To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that hes a successful business guy. Hes failed miserably, bankrupt four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va.,saidduring a June 21 interview on CNN. We looked at Warners contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when shespokein front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J.. Earlier this year, many of Trumps GOP primary opponents also accused him of running businesses into the ground. Kevin Hall, Warners communications director, sent us a series of media reports about Trumps business problems. Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcylaw, which shields businesses from creditors as as they reorganize with hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of its liabilities over time. Thats different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a companys assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors. PolitiFact National has explored several claims about Trumps business record and has tallied a list of bankruptcies for his companies. Lets take a look. 1991 bankruptcy Trumps first bankruptcy came when he sought protection for the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump funded most of the casinos $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates,accordingto the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt. As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015story. 1992 bankruptcies Two more of Trumps Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press Internationalreportedat the time. A fourth bankruptcy also occurred in 1992 when Trump sought protection for The Plaza hotel in midtown Manhattan. The hotel, which Trumpboughtfor $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company,accordingto The New York Times. Most recent bankruptcies Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he still was the companys largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according toABC News. The companydeclaredChapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the companys chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trumps name in licensing. All told, the record shows that three of Trumps Atlantic City casinos as well as The Plaza hotel went bankrupt in the 1990s. His overall casino and resort company went bankrupt twice in the 2000s while operating under different names. So you could argue that five Trump companies have gone into bankruptcy. Beyond the numbers The next question: Is Trump personally to blame for driving these ventures into bankruptcy, as Warners statement says? Trump defends his use of bankruptcy laws, saying theyve allowed him to keep businesses afloat and that hes rarely relied on them during a career of making hundreds of business deals. In a statement released the day Clinton made her Atlantic City trip, Trump pegged the number of bankruptcies at four. It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs, Trumpsaidin a July 6 statement. ExpertstoldPolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didnt entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled. A 1991articleby United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the citys 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses. The New York Times noted in astoryearlier this month that Trumps share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined. Trump told the newspaper that his casinos ran into trouble because they began competing against each other - a statement that The Times said was a tacit acknowledgement that he overbuilt. Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine,toldthe Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly. But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino resorts, doesnt blame Trump for the bankruptcies. HetoldForbes magazine in 2011 that he didnt blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money. Theyve all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged, Viscount told Forbes. What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it. Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015poston a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesnt demonstrate a lack of business acumen. Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes its because of factors beyond their control, Levitin wrote. And indeed, how much, if at all, was Trump involved in the management of the companies? Levitin wrote. I wouldn't be shocked if he was basically licensing his name. Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that its not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his companys bankruptcies because hes acted as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,Levitinsaid. The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space, Levitin said. These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him. Our ruling Warner said Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses. The number, if anything, is conservative. We count five. But beyond the number, Warners statement also asserts that Trump was the cause of the bankruptcies, and thats harder to parse out. Theres no doubt he had a role in many of the failings, having larded his casino operations with huge debts. But analysts note that Trump wasnt acting alone; he had willing investors who put up big sums of money in the risky gaming industry. Theres also questions about how involved he was in running all of the casinos that bore his name. So on the whole, we rate Warners statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prisoners-of-wore/

Tomaselli Letter

David Mikkelson

02/26/2002

Item: Texas doctor pens opinion piece about the treatment of prisoners captured in Afghanistan. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I was just reading Yahoo news and the San Antonio Express newspaper. You know what upsets me? People with absolutely nothing to do with their lives, so they complain on how the U.S. is treating the prisoners or "Detainees" from Afghanistan. Do you know why they are complaining? They see a picture on the news or the Internet and they see someone who is shackled and blindfolded and walking with two armed guards behind razor wire. This picture tells them they are treated unfairly. Here is what I see . . . I see a thin, sickly looking person who under severe mental duress from being bombed, was cleaned up, given a haircut to prevent infestation of parasites, and given new clothes and shoes to wear. I see a person who is given three nutritious meals per day and a bed to sleep in a tropical climate, not the cold desert floor of Afghanistan, eating worms, bugs, and goat. I see a person who will be able to get relief from their pains and illnesses without paying a dime for medical expenses. They will get rest, educated, and their mental stress levels will have dropped tremendously because they were taken out of a combat area and will not be shot at again. I see these people blindfolded and shackled behind razor wire. I have the intellectual ability to understand why they are this way. For those that do not have this ability, let me explain it to you. They are blindfolded to protect OUR U.S. SOLDIERS from further harm. These people can not plan to destroy something if they can not see it. They are shackled because these same people have proven they will easily give up their lives to kill just ONE AMERICAN. We are protecting their life as well as our own. The razor wire is a mental deterrent, just like the little alarm company warning signs most of you out there have on your home, but don't have the actual alarm system. You would think many times over before actually trying to cross that razor wire. For all of you people out there thinking how bad these poor detainees have it under such strict guard, you need to do a lot more thinking about other things in your life. I was born on September 11th, 1966, and every birthday I have from now on will never be a happy one. Why, do you ask? Because as I am out somewhere trying to have a nice dinner, someone will have a candle or a ribbon or something, crying about the anniversary of a national tragedy. And then I will think, about how insignificant my one little birthday actually is compared to everything else that had happened on that one day. It boggles my mind that there are actually people out there in this world, in leadership positions, head of companies that actually think that we are doing something wrong when it comes to protecting our nation and our people. These same people will be the first ones to complain about something that happens to them when they are vacationing outside this country. They will ask why the U.S. does not do anything about their misfortune. These are the same people that complain about taxes and how bad their lives actually are. If you receive this email, please pass it on to everyone in your address book. I am not afraid or ashamed to speak my peace. I am an American, my father fought for this country, and was willing to die for it. Dr. Steven TomaselliUvalde, TexasUnited States of America Origins: This item is another entry difficult to categorize with a simple "true" or "false," as it's merely an opinion piece, not an article asserting any factual claims. Even though this item was not written by an established journalist or published as an editorial in any newspaper (even as a letter to the editor), it has been circulated widely because a great many people seem to give anything authored by someone identified by the title of "Dr." a good deal of unwarranted credibility. If the good Dr. Steven Tomaselli holds that title because he has earned a doctorate in a field such as political science, his opinions might be expected to offer informative insights; if he's a dentist or a mathematics professor, there's no real reason to expect his opinions to be more noteworthy than those of millions of other citizens. (For the record, "Dr." Tomaselli is a chiropractor.) chiropractor As of mid-February 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners (or "detainees") held in Camp X-ray at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, numbered 220. The U.S. drew criticism from representatives of European nations and human rights organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross for maintaining that captured Taliban and al-Qaeda soldiers did not qualify for prisoner of war status under the Geneva Convention, and for asserting that the captives were being treated humanely while nonetheless denying the Red Cross permission to visit the camp. The issue at the heart of the dispute has been the application of Geneva Convention treaties, which provide international safeguards for the humane treatment of battlefield captives. The United States asserted that under the terms of the 1949 agreement, to which the U.S. was a signatory, Taliban soldiers did not qualify as prisoners of war because they wore no uniforms or insignia, nor did they have an organized command structure established according to the "laws and customs" of war. Al-Qaeda combatants were even further removed from this classification, the U.S.stated, because they operated in different countries and targeted civilians as well as military forces, and lumping all these captives into one "prisoner of war" category would blur important distinctions between legitimate national military forces and armed terrorist groups. (Granting captives POW status entitles them to additional legal rights, such as the right to legal representation; the right to respond to interrogation by providing no more than name, rank, and serial number, and the right to be sent home when military hostilities have ceased.) The International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland said it considered both the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters held by U.S. forces to be prisoners of war under revisions made to the Geneva Convention treaties in 1977, although those revisions were never ratified by either the United States or Afghanistan. The Geneva Convention treaties also state that "should any doubt arise" about the status of captives, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal," and human rights organizations and European nations criticized the U.S. government for refusing to hold such a tribunal. They were also critical of the treatment some of the captives were reportedly receiving, including being blindfolded, sedated, and held in metal cages. revisions On Thursday, 7 February 2002, the Bush administration modified its position and announced that it would apply Geneva Convention rules to Taliban detainees, although it refused to offer the same treatment to al-Qaeda fighters and continued to decline categorizing either group as prisoners of war. It also allowed Red Cross representatives to visit at Camp X-ray to review the conditions there and interview some of the detainees held there, and it implemented some of the recommendations (allowed prisoners to talk more freely among themselves, changing meal times to allow for earlier prayers, allowing prisoners more exercise) made by those representatives. (The relaxation of some of the stricter rules regarding prisoners might also have been a by-product of the fact that newer arrivals were generally less dangerous than those who had been captured earlier.) Last updated: 15 April 2008 Sources: Aurora, Chris. "Hicks Allowed to Talk with Fellow Prisoners." The [Sydney] Daily Telegraph. 12 February 2002 (p. 21). Becker, Elizabeth. "Red Cross Man in Guantanamo: A 'Busybody,' but Not Unwelcome." The New York Times. 20 February 2002 (p. A10). Bender, Bryan. "Red Cross Disputes U.S. Stance on Detainees." The Boston Globe. 9 February 2002 (p. A1).

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-recuse/

Robert McCulloch Sold Fundraising T-Shirts for Darren Wilson?

David Mikkelson

11/26/2014

Claim: St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch runs a charity called Backstoppers that sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund. : : St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch was the president of Backstoppers, an organization aimed at supporting the families of first responders in crisis, during the controversy in Ferguson. : Backstoppers sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund. Example: [Collected via email, November 2014] Is St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch Helping RaiseMoney for Ofc. Darren Wilson? Origins: On 24 November 2014, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced in the course of a lengthy press conference that a grand jury had declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown. The decision was both controversial and widely criticized, and it intensified existing criticism regarding McCulloch's putative partiality toward law enforcement officers. McCulloch is the president of the board of Backstoppers, a local organization that supports the families of first responders (particularly those killed in the line of duty). A Washington Post opinion column published following the press conference on 24 November 2014 criticized McCulloch's role in the Mike Brown case with respect to his personal and professional history: president criticized Asked Monday night whether he had any regrets about the way he handled the case, McCulloch replied, "No, not at all." This shouldn't be a surprise, given McCulloch's history. That his father, a police officer, was killed by a black suspect doesn't by itself disqualify him, but his record should have: not a single prosecution of a shooting by police in his 23 years on the job. Four times he presented evidence to a grand jury in such a case and didn't get an indictment; now he can add a fifth. The points made by the columnist were not unique; in fact they dovetailed with rumors that started in St. Louis in the weeks following Brown's death. According to claims that began to circulate on or around 15 September 2014, McCulloch's partiality outstripped even his charitable work and record of not prosecuting officers. Several blog posts from mid-September 2014 focused on an Internet fundraising effort using the web site Teespring.com. Folks with an interest in the case noticed an online T-shirt fundraiser selling shirts that read "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" (with "PRO POLICE" printed on the back) touted a connection between Wilson's defense and McCulloch's organization. The shirt's description explained: explained "I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON" is an officer inspired design to show support for officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department in Missouri. Donations from purchases will be divided between a fund set up for Officer Wilson at gofundme.com as well as The BackStoppers Inc. organization which can be visited at backstoppers.org for more information. A post on 14 September 2014 included the following board member list (which did not reflect McCulloch's move from Vice President to President of the organization): The controversy made it to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by 15 September 2014, at which time the newspaper spoke with Backstoppers' executive director, Ron Battelle. Battelle told the outlet Backstoppers had not initiated the fundraiser, was not affiliated with it in any fashion, did not know who was responsible for selling the shirts, and should any money be offered from the proceeds to Backstoppers, the group would reject the funds. newspaper The controversy abated but resurfaced on 25 November 2014 in the wake of McCulloch's statement to the press on 24 November 2014. A Facebook user shared an image questioning Backstoppers' connection to the shirts: shared In response, Backstoppers issued a statement via Facebook, reiterating the fundraiser was not connected with their organization: statement Contrary to recent posts on social media, The BackStoppers is not participating in or has benefited from any fund raising activity involving the Ferguson matter. We scrutinize our contributions and if we receive funds involving the Ferguson matter, those funds would be rejected by the Board of Directors. Our mission is to provide assistance to families of police, fire and EMS officers who die in the line of duty. We are currently helping 66 families which includes 64 children. This is and always will be our first priority! We greatly appreciate the support of the St. Louis community! Thank You!! Ultimately, only nineteen "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts were sold during the initial Teespring campaign. It isn't clear who created the fundraiser or how the proceeds were distributed; but any party is free to raise funds for any other party, and someone's pledging half their proceeds to Backstoppers does not indicate Backstoppers was necessarily involved with or even aware of the fundraising effort. Last updated: 26 November 2014 <

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chase-and-wells-fargo-among-banks-financing-dakota-pipeline/

Are Chase and Wells Fargo among the banks funding the Dakota Pipeline?

Bethania Palma

11/30/2016

As the protests against an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation escalated in November 2016, environmentalist activists began targeting financial institutions backing the Dakota Access Pipeline and urging supporters to boycott them with various memes shared around social media, or petitions calling on the banks to pull their funds out of the project: Financial documents from Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline builder, lists a number of large banking institutions that have provided credit for the project, including: Credit Suisse; Royal Bank of Canada; Suntrust Bank; BNP Paribas; HSBC; Citibank; Morgan Stanley; Wells Fargo, Bank of America; and JP Morgan Chase. documents The Standing Rock Sioux, who fear the pipeline's route presents a threat to their sacred sites and water supply, have been fighting the project since 2014, but protesters calling themselves "water protectors," lead by the tribe, have been camping near the site since April 2016 in an effort to stop the project. As of late November 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages the land, and the governor of North Dakota, have made statements indicating they want the thousands of demonstrators encamped near the project site to leave. statements But the demonstration and continued opposition by the Standing Rock Sioux have turned an oil pipeline project into an intensifying cause that has drawn international scrutiny, an open letter from BankTrack notes: BankTrack The debacle has escalated into a national crisis and an international scandal. A member of the UNs Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has been deployed to North Dakota to monitor the situation, while President Obama has intervened to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to examine alternative routes for the pipeline. Meanwhile, the protest at Standing Rock is backed by over a million and growing allies worldwide, with numerous solidarity actions springing up across the United States and beyond, including protests at EPFI headquarters and outlets. The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project. Given the presumed Indigenous rights commitments of EPFIs, it is for us inexplicable that gross violations of Native land titles, threats to water sources and the desecration of burial grounds have not been identified early on as reasons for EPFIs to not provide funding for this project. However, this unfortunately fits into a documented and consistent pattern of disrespect of local communities and Indigenous rights by EPFI-backed projects worldwide. We understand that it is not the role of the EP Association to intervene in specific project situations. Nevertheless, we consider it crucial for the credibility of the Equator Principles as an effective safeguard against violation of Indigenous Peoples rights that your meeting calls upon the EPFIs involved in financing DAPL that they take swift action to stop the ongoing violation of the rights of Native Americans. The letter urges the banks to halt further loan payments and raises the concern that the project falls out of line with Equator Principles, a consortium that sets minimum standards to which signing institutions are expected to adhere on matters of community and environmental accountability. According to Energy Transfer Partners, the end project will be a 1,172-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline: ....that will connect the rapidly expanding Bakken and Three Forks production areas in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois" enabling the domestic production of light sweet crude oil "to reach major refining markets in a more direct, cost-effective, safer and environmentally responsible manner. The pipeline is expected to carry 470,000 barrels of oil per day. Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren has said the company will not reroute the pipeline. Frijns, Johan. "An open letter to the Equator Principles Association." BankTrack. 7 November 2016. Tabuchi, Hiroko. "Environmentalists Target Bankers Behind Pipeline." The New York Times. 7 November 2016. The Associated Press."Trumps Stock in Dakota Access Pipeline Company Raises Concern." Fortune.26 November 2016.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/betsy-devos-yacht-cayman/

Has Education Secretary Betsy DeVos officially listed her yacht in the Cayman Islands?

Dan MacGuill

08/17/2018

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been the subject of intense scrutiny since even before her appointment, both about her qualifications and positions on education policy and also about her (and her family's) financial connections, investments, and donations. qualifications connections donations That scrutiny continued in August 2018, when the investigative web site Capital & Main published a report detailing the registration and management of a yacht associated with the DeVos family: report When someone untied a yacht owned by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVoss family, Fox News portrayed the episode as an illustration of uncouth anti-Trump sentiment. The yachts foreign flag, though, was an illustration of how an allegedly America First administration is chock-full of moguls who have eagerly stashed their wealth offshore -- as long as doing so means avoiding taxes, regulations, transparency requirements and domestic employment laws. ... When her familys 164-foot yacht was untied from a Huron, Ohio dock, it was flying a flag of the Cayman Islands, where VesselTracker says the yacht is registered. According to federal records, the yacht is owned by RDV International Marine, which is an affiliate of the company that controls the DeVos familys fortune. ... When buying a vessel or cruising in U.S. waters, American yacht owners like the DeVoses could face state sales or use taxes. However, registering a yacht in a locale like the Caymans under what has come to be known as a flag of convenience allows those American yacht owners to effectively characterize themselves as foreigners for tax purposes, thereby avoiding the obligation of paying the standard sales and use levies, while enjoying police and Coast Guard services during times their vessels are untied. The report, which was also published by Newsweek, prompted several memes from left-wing and progressive social media accounts, such as the following Occupy Democrats post: Newsweek Occupy Democrats "The Other 98%" posted a similar meme of their own: meme On Facebook, the progressive "Americans for Tax Fairness" coalition posted a meme which claimed that the Cayman Islands registration applied to all the yachts owned by the DeVos family: meme The yacht in question, Seaquest, is registered in the Cayman Islands, an arrangement that has potentially allowed its owner(s) to avoid paying taxes that they would otherwise face when travelling in the United States. However, it cannot be affirmed with certainty that this was the motivation behind the overseas registration. Furthermore, Betsy DeVos is not the owner of the vessel (although members of her family are), and a spokesperson for the DeVos family's main management company told us that neither she nor her husband Dick was responsible for the decision to register the yacht in the Cayman Islands. The yacht Seaquest is a 164-foot long (50-meter) yacht built by Westport and registered in George Town, the capital of the Cayman Islands. It is owned and managed by R.D.V. International Marine, according to the web site VesselTracker.com. The country's Shipping Registry confirmed to us that Seaquest's official Cayman Island's vessel number is 740641. VesselTracker.com R.D.V. International Marine is an entity of R.D.V. Corporation, the Michigan-registered management company which oversees the substantial financial investments and business interests of the DeVos family, headed by 92-year-old Richard DeVos, a multi-billionaire businessman and one of the co-founders of the "multi-level marketing" giant Amway. registered Dick DeVos (Richard DeVos Jr.), the husband of Betsy DeVos, is a director of R.D.V. Corporation, as is the couple's daughter Elisabeth ("Elissa") Lowery, Dick's sister Suzanne ("Cheri") DeVos, and his brothers Doug and Dan and their wives Maria and Pamella. Betsy DeVos was herself a company director until November 2016, according to her financial disclosure. director disclosure However, Chief Operating Officer of the Windquest Group, Greg McNeilly, told us that Dick and Betsy DeVos are not the owners of Seaquest. (The Windquest Group is a private investment firm founded by Dick DeVos, who is its president. Betsy DeVos was a director at Windquest until November 2016.) This was corroborated by Nick Wasmiller, a spokesperson for R.D.V. Corporation, who told us by email that Seaquest is owned (through R.D.V. International Marine) by Richard DeVos, who previously owned it in conjunction with his wife Helen prior to her death in October 2017: "Dick and Betsy DeVos do not own Seaquest and have never held ownership in the watercraft ... Dick and Betsy DeVos had no role in the registration of Seaquest nor the management of any subsequent efforts to maintain that registration." So the three memes referenced above (from Occupy Democrats, the Other 98% and Americans for Tax Fairness) are factually inaccurate in alleging that Betsy DeVos both owns Seaquest and registered it in the Cayman Islands, or that she registered "her family's fleet of 10 yachts" in the Cayman Islands. The yacht Seaquest is, and has always been, owned by Betsy DeVos' father-in-law, according to spokespersons for two DeVos family companies, and Betsy herself has never made any management or registration decisions about it, according to a spokesperson for R.D.V. Corporation. A 2017 investigation by the Wall Street Journal outlined how the extended DeVos family structures and manages their investments, business interests, and assets, which include nine vessels other than Seaquest: Blue Sky, Quantum Racing, Delta Victor, Reflection, Attitude, Sterling, Windquest, Zorro, and De Lus. investigation In response to our question, Wasmiller confirmed that these other nine vessels are "owned by various DeVos family entities" but said they are "registered in the United States." We checked the U.S. Coast Guard's Vessel Documentation Center database, and found that the nine DeVos family-related vessels listed by the Wall Street Journal are indeed all registered to ports in the United States, specifically in Michigan, Delaware, and Florida. database So the Americans for Tax Fairness meme is also false on the grounds that it claims Betsy DeVos registered "her family's fleet of 10 yachts in the Cayman Islands," but in reality nine of those vessels are registered in the United States, and the one that is registered in the Cayman Islands is not managed or owned by Betsy DeVos. Use tax While Betsy DeVos does not personally own or manage Seaquest, it is possible that its registration in the Cayman Islands, as opposed to the United States, might have allowed its owner, Richard DeVos (via RDV International Marine) to avoid incurring certain taxes (though this is not certain), as Capital & Main reported: reported If the vessel were registered in, say, Grand Rapids, Michigan the state where RDV is located and that has in the past made an effort to compel yacht owners to pay use taxes the SeaQuest would likely be subject to Michigans six percent use tax. That would require the DeVos empire to cough up about $2.4 million ... The figure of $2.4 million represents six percent of $40 million, which is the estimated value given to Seaquest in several news reports, including Capital & Main's investigation. The source of that evaluation is not clear, with many articles describing the yacht as being "reportedly valued at $40 million," without providing any attribution for that number. We found one online broker selling a brand-new 164-foot Westport yacht (like Seaquest) for $42.5 million, and another 2013 listing for a similar vessel which presented a sale price of $34 million. Seaquest was built in 2008, so it's possible its purchase price was lower than $40 million. yacht listing Furthermore, it's unclear whether Seaquest would actually incur a tax liability even if it were registered in Michigan. What's in question here is a type of taxation called "use tax," which applies to tangible products and entities that are brought into and used or consumed in a particular jurisdiction (in this case the state of Michigan), in circumstances where sales tax does not apply. Section 205.93 of Michigan's Compiled Laws states that: states There is levied upon and there shall be collected from every person in this state a specific tax, including both the local community stabilization share and the state share, for the privilege of using, storing, or consuming tangible personal property in this state at a total combined rate equal to 6% of the price of the property or services ... So, in principle at least, if you own a yacht that is habitually docked or sailed in Michigan, that is likely to be regarded as storage or usage, and you would owe the state of Michigan use tax of six percent of the price of the yacht. However, certain exemptions from this use tax exist when the property is purchased outside Michigan, is "used solely for personal, nonbusiness purposes," and "the property is purchased by a person who is not a resident of this state at the time of purchase and is brought into this state more than 90 days after the date of purchase" or "the property is purchased by a person who is a resident of this state at the time of purchase and is brought into this state more than 360 days after the date of purchase." We don't know whether Richard DeVos was a resident of Michigan at the time he bought Seaquest in 2008, and we don't know how much time elapsed between his purchase of the yacht and its arrival in the state. Therefore, even if Seaquest were registered in Michigan and not the Cayman Islands, it's not certain that vessel would be subject to use tax, although this is certainly a possibility. Wasmiller, on behalf of R.D.V. Corporation, provided an alternative explanation for the decision to register Seaquest in the Cayman Islands: Non-commercial watercraft exceeding 100 feet, such as Seaquest, are commonly registered in the Cayman Islands. The countrys strict safety, manning and operation standards for non-commercial watercraft are widely recognized in international waters and closely align with requirements commonly encountered during global travel. As a result, registration in the Cayman Islands provides for the most efficient entrance and exit of various jurisdictions. In boating terms, its a widely recognized flag -- a significant benefit when traveling internationally, thus the registration of Seaquest there. Also of note, it is the policy of RDV International Marine that all employees aboard Seaquest are eligible to work in the United States, as the boat does periodically enter U.S. waterways. Conclusion The claims contained in the viral memes we listed are based on several assumptions, made without sufficient evidence, and contradicted by spokespersons for Dick and Betsy DeVos and Richard DeVos. First, RDV International Marine owns Seaquest, and RDV International Marine is an entity of RDV Corporation, the DeVos "family office" which oversees the family's substantial business interests, assets and investments. However, even though Betsy DeVos is a former director of RDV Corporation, and her family members are closely intertwined with the company, this does not mean that every asset owned by every entity of RDV Corporation is also owned (even in part) by every member of the DeVos family. It is a family company, but it is not a co-op. This logical and evidentiary leap is also directly contradicted by spokespersons for two DeVos-related companies, who stated on the record that Richard DeVos owns Seaquest, and that neither Betsy nor Dick DeVos have ever owned even part of it nor have ever made decisions about its management and registration. Second, there is a significant evidentiary leap from the fact that one DeVos-related yacht is registered in the Cayman Islands to the claim that 10 DeVos-related vessels are registered there. This is factually inaccurate. Nine of the vessels listed as DeVos assets in a Wall Street Journal article are registered in the United States. And finally, there is an assumption (albeit a more reasonable one) involved in the claim that registering Seaquest in the Cayman Islands allows its owner(s) to avoid paying taxes in the United States. Michigan state law allows for certain exemptions from the obligation to pay "use tax," and it cannot be said with certainty that Richard DeVos, the owner of Seaquest, did not meet the criteria for those exemptions. The claim that the tax obligation allegedly being avoided amounts to $2.4 million is also based on an assumption about the price of the yacht itself, which is not known for certain. Emery, David. "Meet Betsy DeVos, Trump's Secretary of Education Nominee." Snopes.com. 26 November 2016. Kasprak, Alex. "Dubious Conspiracy Theory Links Putin's Daughter to Russia-Trump Collusion." Snopes.com. 24 July 2018. MacGuill, Dan. "Christian Non-Profit Faces Scrutiny Over Government Foster Care Contract for Separated Children." Snopes.com. 11 July 2018. Sirota, David. "Forget Old Glory -- Why Betsy DeVos's Family Yacht and Others Fly Foreign Flags." Capital & Main. 7 August 2018. DeVos, Elisabeth P. "Executive Branch Personnel, Public Financial Disclosure Report." U.S. Office of Government Ethics. 19 January 2017. Das, Anupreeta, and Jean Eaglesham. "Look Inside the DeVos Family Office." The Wall Street Journal. 8 November 2017. Michigan Compiled Laws. "Section 205.93 -- Use Tax Act." Michigan Legislature. Accessed 17 August 2018.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/21/kamala-harris/kamala-harris-gets-it-mostly-right-americas-rapid-/

Student loan debt has risen by 170 percent since 2006 and currently surpasses $1.5 trillion, positioning it as the second highest debt category after mortgages and exceeding credit card debt.

Chris Nichols

03/21/2019

In her book, The Truths We Hold, California Sen. Kamala Harris asks How can you dream when you are drowning in student loan debt? in a section on the rising cost of living in America. On thecampaign trail, the Democratic presidential hopeful has called student loan debt one of the biggest challenges facing our country and our students. In the Senate, she helped re-introduce theDebt-Free College Act, a bill she says will help reverse the growing student debt crisis. Specifically, it would provide states incentives through matching grants to increase investments in public higher education. The senator then made this eye-popping claim about how fast student loan debt has grown in anews releaseon March 6 announcing her support for the bill: College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion dollars, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt. Shetweeteda similar claim a few days later. But is student loan debt really growing that fast? And is it really second only to mortgage debt? We decided to crunch Harris numbers in this fact check. Our research To support the statement, a spokesman for Harris cited a Federal Reservetableshowing the nations cumulative student loan debt for each year from 2006 through 2018. He also cited articles fromThe Washington PostandMarketWatch. The Federal Reserve table shows student loan debt at the end of 2006 was $521 billion. By the end of 2018, the most recent period available, it had grown to $1.57 trillion which matches with Harris claim that it now exceeds $1.5 trillion. But after calculating the numbers, we found an increase of 201 percent, an even faster rate than the 170 percent Harris referenced. Id say that her statement is mostly correct, said Mark Kantrowitz, a national financial aid expert. The one slight error: She actually underestimates the growth of student loan debt outstanding. Kantrowitz is publisher and vice president of research for SavingforCollege.com, a guide to college savings plans. The only way I get to 170 percent, he added, is if I compare the current debt outstanding to 2007 instead of 2006. That works out to be 170 percent. Hans Johnson, director of the Public Policy Institute of Californias Higher Education Center, also reviewed the data and found a 200 percent increase based on the most current Federal Reserve figures. SOURCE: Federal Reserve student loandata. Why is college debt growing so fast? More students going to college accounts for some of the growth of student loan debt, but only a small portion, Kantrowitz said. In 2006, there were 15.2 million college students. A decade later, that number had increased 11 percent to 16.9 million, he said, citing figures from the National Center for Education Statistics. Kantrowitz added that another factor is that federal grants have slowed as tuition has gone up. States often cut tuition assistance at the first signs of a financial crisis. The average student loan debt was nearly $30,000 for students graduating with a bachelors degree in 2018, Kantrowitz said. That is up from nearly $21,000 in 2006. College debt second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt We found this part of Harris statement is accurate. In 2014, PolitiFact Virginiareportedthat student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, citingdatafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. At the end of 2018, the nations overall credit card debt was $870 billion and mortgage balances stood at $9.1 trillion, according to thedata. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris said College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion dollars, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt. She actually understated how fast student loan debt is growing. The most recent Federal Reserve figures show its increased 201 percent since 2006. Harris was right about college debt topping $1.5 trillion, and being second only to mortgage debt. We rate her overall statement 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.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-baghdadi-wapo-headline/

Did WaPo Headline Call IS Leader al-Baghdadi an 'Austere Religious Scholar'?

Dan Evon

10/28/2019

On Oct. 27, 2019, U.S. President Trump announced the death of Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As news outlets quickly fielded reports about the terrorist leader's death, the Washington Post published an obituary that labeled al-Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar." Screenshots of this obituary headline were widely shared on social media along with criticism of the news outlet. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, for instance, posted the following message on Twitter: Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country & is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by US military & @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z @washingtonpost #Albagdadi pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019 This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here. here The headline appeared on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine. archived links Kristine Coratti Kelly, the vice president and communications general manager of Washington Post Live, posted a message on Twitter saying that the headline "should never have read that way." Regarding our al-Baghdadi obituary, the headline should never have read that way and we changed it quickly. Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019 The qualms over the Washington Post's headline likely served as the inspiration of a meme targeting another "mainstream media" outlet, CNN. Some social media users started to share an image that supposedly showed a screenshot from a CNN broadcast about al-Baghdadi's death featuring the chyron "Trump Kills Unarmed Father of Three": For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chryon is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN. years-old image of Don Lemon Warrick, Joby. "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48." The Washington Post. 27 October 2019. Warrick, Joby. "Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48." The Washington Post. 27 October 2019.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gop-debt-ceiling-trump-presidency/

Did GOP Vote To Raise Debt Ceiling 3 Times with No Preconditions During Trump Era?

Damakant Jayshi

05/03/2023

On April 26, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Republicans, narrowly passed budget legislation raising the federal government's legal debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion on the condition that deep spending cuts would also be undertaken. Democrats balked at the spending-cuts requirement, demanding instead the passage of what they called a "clean bill" without preconditions to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline of June 1, when the government would default on its debts. passed budget legislation debt ceiling Some Democrats, notably U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., claimed that by demanding budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were "creating an economic crisis" and "threatening default" for partisan gain. No such demands were made during the administration of former President Donald Trump, Omar argued in a May tweet: "Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling 3 times when Donald Trump was President, with no preconditions." argued in a May tweet (Image Via @IlhanMN/Twitter) What exactly is the debt ceiling? This is how the U.S. Department of the Treasury defines it (emphasis added): U.S. Department of the Treasury The debt ceiling, or debt limit, is a restriction imposed by Congress on the amount of outstanding national debt that the federal government can have. The debt ceiling is the amount that the Treasury can borrow to pay the bills that have become due and pay for future investments. Once the debt ceiling is reached, the federal government cannot increase the amount of outstanding debt, losing the ability to pay bills and fund programs and services. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit It is true that during the Trump administration, legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default was passed three times with varying degrees of bipartisan support, according to Bipartisan Policy Center: Bipartisan Policy Center (Image Via Bipartisan Policy Center) In 2017, 2018, and 2019, the debt limit was reset at $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion, respectively. None of these bills, when signed into law, contained a precondition to cut spending, despite the wishes of some Republicans. $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion wishes It should be noted, though, that the 2019 legislation, which included hefty spending increases for defense and domestic programs, did mandate $77 billion in "offsets" for those spending increases. According to Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., the $77 billion in offsets would be achieved in two ways: 1) "$15.5 billion from extending the expiration date of customs user fees" from May 26, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029, and 2) $61.7 billion from "extending mandatory spending sequester" (described by the Congressional Budget Office as "automatic spending cuts that occur through the withdrawal of funding for certain but not all government programs") from Sept. 30, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029. These administrative offsets were described by some as "cosmetic." $77 billion in "offsets" Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa. mandatory spending sequester By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion, according to CBS News. As of this writing, Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden had said he would refuse to sign the act into law, and it was said to be "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Limit, Save, Grow Act spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion Davis, Susan. "Trump, Congress Reach Agreement On 2-Year Budget Deal." NPR, 22 July 2019. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744104213/hill-and-trump-administration-close-in-on-2-year-budget-deal. "Debt Limit." U.S. Department of the Treasury, 17 Apr. 2023, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/debt-limit. Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, February 2023 | Congressional Budget Office. 19 Jan. 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58945. Fiscal Data Explains the National Debt. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/. Accessed 3 May 2023. "House Republicans Pass US Debt Bill, Push Biden on Spending." AP NEWS, 26 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/speaker-mccarthy-debt-biden-republicans-d4995f10a26d6c8bfa89a2bbfd1de93c. Interactive: Recent History of the Debt Limit | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-history/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Sequestration | Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget/sequestration#:~:text=Sequestration%20refers%20to%20automatic%20spending,but%20not%20all)%20government%20programs. Accessed 3 May 2023. Tausche, Kayla. "GOP Group Assembles Debt Ceiling Wish List for 2018." CNBC, 30 Nov. 2017, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/gop-group-assembles-debt-ceiling-wish-list----for-2018.html. The Debt Limit Through the Years | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-through-the-years/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Torry, Harriet, and Anthony DeBarros. "WSJ News Exclusive | Economists in WSJ Survey Still See Recession This Year Despite Easing Inflation." Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2023. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-easing-price-pressures-economists-in-wsj-survey-still-see-recession-this-year-11673723571. Trump Signs Budget Deal and Suspends Debt Ceiling until 2021. 2 Aug. 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-the-budget-deal-negotiated-by-congress-and-the-white-house/. "What's behind the Looming 'x-Date' on the US Debt Limit?" AP NEWS, 24 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/biden-mccarthy-debt-limit-ceiling-cap-2b76f685cff4a284021f9b5c2c95cd4c.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unicef-kids-porn-report/

No, UNICEF Didn't Say Blocking Kids From Porn Violates Their Rights

Bethania Palma

06/08/2021

On June 3, 2021, Nigerian website Pulse.ng published the headline, "UNICEF report says blocking children from watching pornography violates their human rights." Citing a May 13, 2021, story from right-leaning, U.S.-based, non-profit Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), the Pulse story opened with a blurb in bold text that read: headline story The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has come under criticism after it has released a report which says exposure to pornography may not always be harmful to children because it prepares some of them for adulthood. The story was picked up by by right-leaning Canadian site Post Millennial, which ran the headline, "New UN-backed study claims there's 'inconsistent evidence' that children are damaged by accessing porn." right-leaning headline None of those headlines was accurate. Rather, the stories distorted portions of a April 2021 discussion paper published by UNICEF titled, "Digital Age Assurance Tools and Childrens Rights Online across the Globe." The paper didn't claim that blocking children from accessing porn violates their human rights, nor did it say that exposure to it may not always be harmful. published The paper instead noted that some countries render access to porn illegal for all age groups, while various countries have differing standards for what they define as porn. As a result, some educational materials dealing with sensitive topics like sexuality might be defined as "porn" by some governments. In one section titled "Parental controls and supervision," the paper's authors state the following about parental-monitoring systems: This approach is likely most suitable for younger children, because it may infringe on childrens rights to access information and to freedom of expression where their Internet access is censored at an older age. Practically speaking, it is also likely that older children will be able to circumvent parental controls. This section makes no mention of pornography. The paper also noted that, "the evidence is inconsistent, and there is currently no universal agreement on the nature and extent of the harm caused to children by viewing content classified as pornography." This statement followed a discussion about how many children are known to access pornography online, and how often, and a discussion about the degrees of harm inflicted, as well as various types of content they may be exposed to: There is conflicting evidence regarding how many children worldwide are accessing pornography online, and how often. Some studies have found that boys are more likely to experience greater exposure to pornography at an earlier age, and they are more likely to be exposed to violent or abusive images such as rape, whereas girls are more likely to be subject to involuntary or problematic exposure. In other words, UNICEF's report didn't state that viewing porn doesn't harm children. It pointed out that research into the extent of harm is complex and incomplete. Some on social media falsely interpreted the C-Fam headline to mean that UNICEF tested out pornography viewing on children: interpreted survey A UNICEF spokesperson told Snopes in an email that it took the discussion paper down because it was being misrepresented in a way that didn't reflect UNICEF's position. Updated to note that UNICEF took the discussion paper down because a portion of it was being misrepresented.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/expired-food/

Gwyneth Paltrow Tried to Survive a Week on Food Stamps and She Died

David Mikkelson

06/08/2015

Claim: Actress Gwyneth Paltrow starved to death trying to live off of food stamps for a week. Example: [Collected via Twitter, June 2015] Origins: On 8 June 2015, the satirical web site Clickhole published an article reporting that actress Gwyneth Paltrow had starved to death after trying to live off of food stamps for one week: article Yep, the Shakespeare In Love and Iron Man star tried to feed herself on just $29 for an entire week in order to demonstrate just how desperate things are for the nations working poor, and after spending her entire budget on barely enough food to create two healthy, well-balanced meals and a couple of snacks, Paltrow slowly starved to death over the next four days. Clickhole published their satirical article a few months after Paltrow announced that she wanted to "raise awareness and money for the Food Bank for New York City by trying to live on $29 dollars for the week." While it's true that the actress had a difficult time living on the same grocery budget as low-income families utilizing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) commonly known as "food stamps," Paltrow did not "starve to death" as a result: difficult Clickhole, an offshoot of The Onion, is a satirical web site that parodies "clickbait" sites such as Upworthy and BuzzFeed. Last updated: 8 June 2015

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/nov/03/citizens-sanity/ad-comparing-spending-ukraine-us-children-ridiculo/

President Joe Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children.

Louis Jacobson

11/03/2022

An ad in the Georgia U.S. Senate race doesnt mention either incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock or his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker. But the ad, by the conservative nonprofitCitizens for Sanity, pulls no punches, and levels a charge that Democratic policies are abandoning children. In an election that features two Black candidates, the ad says that President Joe Biden and his liberal friends treat Black Americans like second-class citizens, following up with images of violent street crime and buildings in ruins. The ad also asserts that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. (Screenshots) This is ridiculously wrong. Spending on U.S. children in fiscal year 2021 was seven times larger than federal outlays so far for the war in Ukraine. The ad comes amid plummeting Republican support for supporting Ukraine financially. The percentage of Republicans telling pollsters that the U.S. is doing too much in Ukraine hasskyrocketedfrom 6% in March to 48% today. First, lets set the baseline for how much the United States has spent aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Since the war started in February 2022, Congress has spent $66 billion to help Ukraine,according to calculationsby Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That is what has been appropriated by Congress, though some wont be spent immediately, he said, such as money for orders of weapons that havent been fabricated yet. Most of the votes to approve the funding were significantly bipartisan. By comparison, federal spending on U.S. children during Bidens administration has been far larger. Federal outlays on behalf of children were already significant before the pandemic and grew under Biden, according to statisticscollectedby the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. Under President Donald Trump, existing federal spending on childrens behalf a combination of tax credits, health care, nutrition, education, child care and housing amounted to about $7,000 per child. In 2021, during Bidens administration, that number increased by more than 50%, to $10,710. Federal spending on U.S. children in 2021 totaled $482 billion, the Urban Institute found far more than the $66 billion thats been appropriated to support Ukraine. The increase was largely traceable to Bidens American Rescue Plan, which passed with only Democratic support in Congress just weeks after Bidens 2021 inauguration. One of the bills centerpieces, an effort to aid children and families, came from an expansion of the child tax credit that taxpayers could receive as a monthly cash payment, rather than waiting for a reduction in what they owed at tax time. The change was for one year only; efforts to extend it permanently have stalled. The bill also provided additional funding to states for education and child care, increased nutritional assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and added federal funding for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for low-income Americans. Dozens of other childrens programs and tax credits received smaller increases, the Urban Institute said. The child tax credit expansion alone was larger than the total U.S. outlays in Ukraine. More than 36 million families who have more than 61 million children received more than $92 billion in relief through the child tax credit expansion, according to theTreasury Department. Citizens for Sanity did not respond to an inquiry for this article. A Citizens for Sanity ad said that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. On a largely bipartisan basis, Congress has approved roughly $66 billion in assistance to Ukraine. By comparison, proposals supported by Biden and that won support of only Democrats in Congress spent $482 billion on behalf of U.S. children in 2021. The child tax credit expansion alone paid out $92 billion to U.S. families with children, or 1.5 times the amount the U.S. has spent so far on the war in Ukraine. We rate the statement Pants on Fire!

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-antifa-planning-a-civil-war/

Is 'Antifa' Planning a Civil War?

Kim LaCapria

10/10/2017

In August 2017, rumors began to spread on social media that anti-fascists (a name often shortened to "antifa", which has become shorthand for a subset of protestors, usually clad in black and accessorized with bandannas and who are evidently unnerving bloggers and vloggers enough to be the pet topic of many an angry online rant) were planning extended unrest, riots, killing random citizens, or outright civil war beginning on 4 November 2017: August 2017 rumors began civil war Depending on the source, "antifa" (always treated as though it is one homogenous, unified group) is purportedly planning extended riots, joint violence alongside Black Lives Matter and the Black Panthers, or a coup of the American government. The rumors seem to have originated from a video originally published on 30 August 2017 by an individual named Jordan Peltz. Peltz was widely (and incorrectly) identified as a "U.S. Marshal" in the video, which shows him wearing what looked like an official badge that is actually simply printed on his shirt. However, he is not actually law enforcement or military Peltz instead evidently works as some combination of bail bondsman and bounty hunter. published (Claiming to be a United States marshal is very popular among the sovereign citizen set; those involved claim to answer only to their interpretation of common law and maintain they are not subject to other legal conventions, including getting driver's licenses and paying taxes. Local, state, and federal governments tend to disagree.) popular involved driver's licenses taxes On Instagram, Peltz describes his work as "#fugitiverecovery" and "#warrantservice": Instagram Peltz published a video to "clear the air" on 27 September 2017 after reporter JJ MacNab, whose beat includes anti-government and sovereign citizen groups, wrote a thread on Twitter about how militia groups are being goaded into taking up arms against anti-fascists: JJ MacNab thread Peltz responded by stating that his video, which gave an impression he was either predicting or calling for a November 2017 civil war, had been edited although he didn't specify when, by whom, or why, despite millions of views and thousands of comments, he had remained unaware it had been altered until he saw reports: stating Finding out my video meant for me and few friends had been taken and edited. Only site I thought had it. @jjmacnab should have just msg me pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf @jjmacnab pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 24, 2017 September 24, 2017 https://t.co/JNR3co0QwhFollow-up from my Viral Video and clearing the air. Please, view my IG to see what else was falsely claimed https://t.co/JNR3co0Qwh Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 28, 2017 September 28, 2017 On 29 September 2017, InfoWars published an article using Peltz's "civil war" wording: published Antifa is planning a new round of nationwide riots on November 4 as part of a plot to start a civil war that will lead to the overthrow of the Trump administration. Far-left militants plan to gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country in the hope of building momentum for civil unrest that leads to nothing less than domestic regime change. Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power, states a call to action on the RefuseFascism website. A longer screed posted on the Revolutionary Communist website makes it clear that Antifa is not prepared to wait for electoral change from Democrats, and will engage in a ferocious struggle, based on plans outlined in a book written by Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which is called The Coming Civil War. The page also cited "antifa" web sites, neither of which threatened violence. One provided a list of Facebook events, and the other read in its entirety: provided list read entirety ON NOVEMBER 4, 2017: We will gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country, at first many thousands declaring that this whole regime is illegitimate and that we will not stop until our single demand is met: This Nightmare Must End: the Trump/Pence Regime Must Go! Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power. Our actions will reflect the values of respect for all of humanity and the world we wantin stark contrast to the hate and bigotry of the Trump/Pence fascist regime. Our determination to persist and not back down will compel the whole world to take note. Every force and faction in the power structure would be forced to respond to our demand. The cracks and divisions among the powers already evident today will sharpen and widen. As we draw more and more people forward to stand up, all of this could lead to a situation where this illegitimate regime is removed from power. Spread the word and organize now. Be a part of making history. Dont let it be said that you stood aside when there was still a chance to stop a regime that imperils humanity and the Earth itself. Join in taking to the streets and the public squares day after day and night after night demonstrating that In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America. On November 4, 2017, we will stand together with conviction and courage, overcoming fear and uncertainty, to insist that: This Nightmare Must End: The Trump/Pence Regime Must GO! @AntifaChecker, a Twitter feed devoted to sniffing out phony "antifa" accounts, said it was not even aware of the call to action: yeah, we haven't heard anything about november 4 Antifa Checker (@AntifaChecker) October 1, 2017 October 1, 2017 An article in L.A. Weekly reported on both the freeway protest and upcoming events: article Their placards bore letters that spelled out "NOV 4 IT BEGINS." But they couldn't get enough volunteers to hold all 12 letters, so the tallest among them, the ones with the broadest wingspans, held up two letters each. The eight people weren't enough to block the on-ramp, so some motorists were able to swerve around. [Organizer and USC film professor Perry] Hoberman says the protest was conceived in part to get the word out about a Nov. 4 demonstration the group is planning. He says it's being modeled on the Women's March held in January at Pershing Square and that organizers hope the action will include an encampment in a public place, la Occupy Wall Street, or at least a prolonged series of protests over several days. At one point on Tuesday they knelt on the freeway, which organizer Michelle Xai says was to acknowledge "black and Latino people who have been and continue to be murdered by police." A video of the protest uploaded to the group's Facebook page has more than 700,000 views. Many of the 24,000-plus commenters ask for more information about Nov. 4. Plenty of others object to the group's inconveniencing motorists, and some appear to endorse running them over. It is true that some groups linked to the antifa movement planned co-ordinated protests on 4 November 2017, but that had nothing to do with Peltz's video expressing disdain for the group in August 2017, nor did he appear to have any insider law enforcement knowledge, as he does not work as law enforcement himself. When a wave of rumors about 4 November anti-fascist protests began, his clip became part of the claim as "evidence" that a "federal officer" warned of coming violence. In reality, a list of apparently peaceful protests were paired with an older, unrelated video to create the impression of a looming threat. Peltz himself walked the claims far back after his video brought him unwanted attention and scrutiny. There was an uptick in the rumor's spread on 1 November 2017, when the groups advertised the 4 November 2017 demonstrations in the New York Times. advertised Smith IV, Jack. "The Far-Right Thinks A Violent Antifa Overthrow Is Coming Nov. 4, But The Truth Is Far Stranger." Mic. 2 November 2017. [Updated] 3 November 2017: Added information about advertisements for the planned protests which appeared on 1 November 2017 in the New York Times.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/aug/27/joseph-kyrillos/us-senate-hopeful-joe-kyrillos-claims-united-state/

We've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Bill Wichert

08/27/2012

When it comes to taxing businesses, the United States is leading the world, according to Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos.As he looks to unseat Democratic incumbent Robert Menendez this November, Kyrillos has refused to sign an anti-tax pledge, but maintained in an Aug. 20 interview on WOR-AM that hes looking to lower tax rates.We've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world, in the world, said Kyrillos, a state senator representing Monmouth County. So, Im about reducing tax rates.As far as the corporate tax rates on the books, Kyrillos claim is on the money. However, when you factor in various tax breaks, the rate actually paid by U.S. businesses has been among the highest in the world, but not in first place, studies show.For this fact-check, were focusing on two different types of corporate tax rates: statutory and effective rates.To back up Kyrillos claim, a spokeswoman pointed to the top statutory corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent in the United States. That figure represents a combination of federal, state and local tax rates imposed by law before any tax breaks.Once Japan reduced its combined corporate tax rate in April, the U.S. rate became the highest among industrialized nations, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group.So, Kyrillos claim about a first-place finish is on target in terms of statutory rates.But the United States does not necessarily lead the world when you consider the effective tax rates paid by U.S. businesses. Due to various tax breaks, those rates are typically lower than the top statutory rate.In a September 2011 report, the Tax Foundation summarized the findings of the latest 13 studies of effective corporate tax rates across the world. Due to different methodologies, those studies determined U.S. effective tax rates ranging from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, according to the report.The United States did not rank first in any of those studies, but in 10 of them, U.S. effective rates ranked among the top five highest for the countries analyzed, the report states. However, the effective rate in Japan will likely drop, possibly moving the United States to the top spot in future studies.Apart from that Tax Foundation report, its worth noting that a separate analysis found thirty Fortune 500 companies, including General Electric, didnt pay any federal corporate income taxes over the 2008-2010 period. That study was done by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice along with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.So, whats the better measure -- statutory or effective rates?According to Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge, statutory rates make for better comparisons. Effective rates are unpredictable and vary across different industries, but the statutory rates are fixed, Hodge told us. (The effective tax rate) will differ from industry to industry and business to business, whereas the list price is what it is and everyone starts at that point, Hodge said.But Joseph Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, argued that effective tax rates provide the best measure of comparison for overall tax burdens. Aparna Mathur, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, added in an e-mail that both are equally valid measures of looking at the burden of the corporate income tax.Our rulingIn a radio interview, Kyrillos claimed, We've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world.Its accurate that, at 39.2 percent, the United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. But with various tax breaks, U.S. effective corporate tax rates range anywhere from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, studies show.Those effective tax rates may not land in first place, but theyre still among the highest in the world.We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/costco-closing-stores/

Are Costco shutting down stores throughout the country?

Jordan Liles

02/10/2021

On Feb. 10, 2021, an online advertisement appeared to announce big news about Costco Wholesale. The ad was displayed on various websites via the Outbrain advertising network. It featured a picture of a Costco store and read: "[Pics] Say Goodbye: Stores Closing In 2020 Across The Nation." Costco Wholesale The outdated ad mentioned the year 2020. This likely meant that it had been displayed prior to the new year and had not yet been disabled. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on the Housecoast website. It spanned more than 50 pages and appeared to have been originally published on Feb. 10, 2020. article Companies such as Lowe's, Kohl's, JCPenney, and Macy's made the list. While several of the stores in the article had experienced financial troubles, many of them had not yet closed. Costco never appeared in the story. The clickbait ad led readers to believe that Costco would be closing its stores. This was false. The story itself was poorly written and contained a number of grammatical errors. These Power Stores Will Be Closing In 2020 When e-commerce started expanding in the last few years, "brick and mortar" stores started to face the brunt of the economic crisis. In the last couple of years leading up to 2020, a lot of major stores have been closing their physical doors to businesses to include international outlets. It is a real blow to the business of commerce as the closing rate has been growing rapidly and projected for 2020; it may get worst. We have compiled a few stores who have noted they will be closing their doors in 2020 for some stores, they will be closing all their outlets. On Dec. 10, 2020, Costco Wholesale released its fiscal year 2020 financial results. The numbers were strong. There was no indication that Costco would be closing stores: released Net sales for fiscal 2020 totaled $163 billion, an increase of 9%, with a comparable sales increase of 8%. Net income was $4 billion, or $9.02 per diluted share, an increase of 9%. In addition, the Company surpassed 100 million members worldwide, contributing to membership revenue of $3.54 billion. Costco.com played a vital role in meeting members' needs, especially those choosing or required to stay at home. Our ecommerce business saw a 50% increase in sales. Increases were particularly evident in same day and 2-day grocery deliveries, prescription medications, electronics, and office supplies. Additional strong sales were seen in apparel, appliances, health and beauty products, and home furnishings. Our depots responded to unprecedented volume by shifting certain operations to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As circumstances allowed, expansion in fiscal 2020 continued, with the opening of 13 new warehouses. In fiscal 2021, we expect to open 20 new buildings. In sum, a misleading ad appeared to claim that Costco was closing its stores. The resulting story never mentioned Costco even once. In the past, the Housecoast website published a similar misleading ad about CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. a similar misleading ad 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

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shapiro-redpill-tweet/

Did Ben Shapiro Say His 'Red Pill Moment' Was Sharing Cupcakes With Poor Kids?

Snopes Staff

03/30/2021

On March 29, 2021, a screenshot of a tweet purporting to have been sent by conservative media personality Ben Shapiro was shared widely on Twitter: on Twitter "My #redpill moment came about when I turned 7 years old. My mom sent me to school with cupcakes for my birthday and the teacher made me share them with my classmates, even the poor ones whose mothers never sent cupcakes for THEIR birthdays. The rage of that day has never left me." Shapiro did not write this tweet. The screenshot shared in that tweet was first posted to subreddit named ToiletPaperUSA that is "dedicated to the mockery of Turning Point USA and conservative pseudo-intellectuals in general." The subreddit allows for both fake and real screenshots, but requires fake ones to be labeled as such. The Ben Shapiro screenshot is identified as "fake news, which means "the post is fake and is most likely satire." first posted that is Because Shapiro never wrote the tweet in question, and because it first appeared on a satirical subreddit, we rank his purported tweet as "Labeled Satire."

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/feb/13/maggie-hassan/maggie-hassan-says-nh-had-highest-median-income-us/

Our median household income in 2013 was the highest in the nation.

Casey McDermott

02/13/2015

For all its troubles, New Hampshire is actually pretty lucky or so report, after report, after report, would say. Just ask Gov. Maggie Hassan. In her second inaugural speech in January and in herbudget addressThursday, Feb. 12, Hassan, a Democrat, made a point of drawing attention to New Hampshires rosy reputation. Our countrys economy continues to strengthen and in many respects, New Hampshire remains ahead of the curve, Hassan said, ticking off a number of economic statistics. One was that our median household income in 2013 was the highest in the nation,. In both speeches, Hassan pointed out that statistics dont always tell the whole story, saying that some working class families in the state continue to struggle. Still, was New Hampshire really at the top of the nation in 2013 in terms of household income? PolitiFact New Hampshire decided to check it out. The statistic Hassan cited came from data collected and compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. Specifically, her staff pointed to a set of data released in September 2014 that summed up the latest findings from the Current Population Surveys Annual Social and Economic Supplement. While the census conducts apopulation count every 10 years, it also compiles other types of data on income, for example through other surveys that occur more frequently. In this case, the data was collected over a period of three months in 2013 February, March and April. According to the census data, New Hampshires median household income was $71,322 in 2013 which was not only higher than the national median, but also higher than any other state. As with any survey, there are some limitations to consider. One factor concerns how the data was calculated. To determine income, the censusasks people to report the money they received during the previous year from multiple sources, including: earnings, unemployment compensation, workers compensation, public assistance and more. The census also notes that money income does not reflect the fact that some families receive part of their income in the form of noncash benefits, such as food stamps. As noted by Drew Desilver forPew Research Center, some economists say that income data have too many flaws to be the primary measure of inequality. For one thing, Desilver said, most income-inequality measures use income before taxes and transfer payments (such as Social Security, food stamps and unemployment benefits), which act to reduce inequality. Some researchers, Desilver notes, have instead suggested that other measures someones consumption, for example would be a better way to measure someones economic well-being. Another factor to consider is the timing of the data. Using other census datathat looks beyond just 2013, the year Hassan cited, shows that New Hampshire loses its top spot to Virginia when 2012 and 2014 information is considered. Our ruling Gov. Maggie Hassan said New Hampshires median household income in 2013 was the highest in the nation. Looking at U.S. Census data only for that year, Hassan is correct. For other recent periods, however, New Hampshire ranks just below the top. In the meantime, census data is widely trusted, but other calculation methods may have produced different results. However, Hassan was correct in qualifying that statement by suggesting that the survey might not tell the whole story. The claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate the claim Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fukushima-radiation-causes-100-infant-mortality-among-orca-whales/

Fukushima Radiation Causes 100% Infant Mortality Among Orca Whales

Dan Evon

09/26/2016

Fear-mongering articles reporting that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (triggered by the tsunami that followed the Thoku earthquake of 11 March 2011) had caused a 100% infant mortality among orca whales born since then have been circulated online for several years. The web site Humans Are Free renewed interest in that rumor in September 2016 when they published an article with the clickbait title "Radiation from Fukushima Now Causes 100% Infant Mortality Rate in West Coast Orcas": published The Humans Are Free piece was sourced from an article by the disreputable Natural News web site that employed a similarly misleading title ("West Coast Orcas Experiencing 100% Infant Mortality Rate as Radiation from Fukushima Drifts Across Ocean") even though the text of that article plainly admitted that there was no proven connection between the Fukushima disaster and the mortality of infant orcas: No one has yet proven that there is a direct link between the 100 percent mortality rate seen among orca infants and the effects of the radiation contamination of the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima reactor leak in Japan, but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. Natural News listed several sources about whale deaths at the bottom of their article, but none of those sources mentioned radiation from Fukushima as likely or definitive cause. listed several sources bottom article Quotes from Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, were also misleadingly reproduced out of context by Natural News to bolster a claim that Balcomb's statement didn't support: The recent discovery of a carcass off the coast of British Columbia that of a 19-year-old orca female, which was believed to be in the late stages of pregnancy, is just one example of the recent orca deaths that have scientists and conservationists worried. Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center For Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, said: Her death doesn't bode well for the southern resident population and certainly not for that matriline. Her mother died young. Her aunt had two sons and she's probably post-reproductive. She hasn't had any babies in the last 12 years. So there's no future. Balcomb also remarked: We haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years. We have had stillborns and newborns die and a number of whales that appear to be pregnant but didn't ultimately produce any calves. It's like zero survival in birth rate here. While Balcom did say that "we haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years," he was talking about the local Puget Sound orca whale population only, and he didn't in any way connect a 100% infant orca mortality rate to radiation from Fukushima. His quotes originated with a story published by the Seattle Times in December 2014 about a baby orca whale that had died in the Pugent Sound, and while the exact cause of that whale's death was unclear, Balcolm suggested that the whale likely died due to a diminished food supply (and not radiation): suggested But two of the whales three biggest problems the buildup of pollutants such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls in their blubber, and disturbance by marine traffic appear to be worsened by a third, a reduction in available prey. These whales can eat sockeye and halibut, but overwhelmingly prefer fatty chinook from Puget Sound and Canadas Fraser River, distinguishing them from other fish by using sonar to sense differences in the animals swim bladders. And Puget Sound chinook numbers have dropped to about 10 percent of their historic high. They, too, are listed for protection under the ESA. For Balcomb, the loss of J32 suggests its time to consider drastic measures, such as a ban or steep curtailment in chinook fishing, even though fishing is likely the least of the threats chinook face. Its a wake-up call we know what the problem is, whether its dams or fishing or habitat destruction, he said. Its just what happens when millions of people move into the watershed. (But) stopping fishing, at least for a while, is something we can do immediately. [...] The reality is, the basic problem is food, Balcomb said. Although apparently no baby orcas survived long after birth in Puget Sound in 2013 or 2014, that wasn't the case in the immediately following years, as 2015 saw nine successful orca births in Puget Sound: births In just over a year, Puget Sound has welcomed nine baby Southern-resident orcas to the fold, as the pod continues to rebound from 30-year-low numbers reported at the end of 2014. While radiation from the Fukushima disaster did have a major impact on marine life, the leak of radiactive material from the plant leak did not cause a proven "100% infant mortality" rate among orca whales. Moreover, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not list nuclear radiation (from any source) among the threats currently facing the world's whale population. impact Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Welch, Craig. "Puget Sound Orca Numbers Rise Fast After 30-Year Low in 2014." The Seattle Times. 20 January 2016. Welch, Craig. "Ten Years After ESA Listing, Killer Whale Numbers Falling." The Seattle Times. 20 December 2014.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fukushima-radiation-causes-100-infant-mortality-among-orca-whales/

Radiation from Fukushima leads to a 100% death rate of infant Orca whales.

Dan Evon

09/26/2016

Fear-mongering articles reporting that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (triggered by the tsunami that followed the Thoku earthquake of 11 March 2011) had caused a 100% infant mortality among orca whales born since then have been circulated online for several years. The web site Humans Are Free renewed interest in that rumor in September 2016 when they published an article with the clickbait title "Radiation from Fukushima Now Causes 100% Infant Mortality Rate in West Coast Orcas": published The Humans Are Free piece was sourced from an article by the disreputable Natural News web site that employed a similarly misleading title ("West Coast Orcas Experiencing 100% Infant Mortality Rate as Radiation from Fukushima Drifts Across Ocean") even though the text of that article plainly admitted that there was no proven connection between the Fukushima disaster and the mortality of infant orcas: No one has yet proven that there is a direct link between the 100 percent mortality rate seen among orca infants and the effects of the radiation contamination of the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima reactor leak in Japan, but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. Natural News listed several sources about whale deaths at the bottom of their article, but none of those sources mentioned radiation from Fukushima as likely or definitive cause. listed several sources bottom article Quotes from Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, were also misleadingly reproduced out of context by Natural News to bolster a claim that Balcomb's statement didn't support: The recent discovery of a carcass off the coast of British Columbia that of a 19-year-old orca female, which was believed to be in the late stages of pregnancy, is just one example of the recent orca deaths that have scientists and conservationists worried. Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center For Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, said: Her death doesn't bode well for the southern resident population and certainly not for that matriline. Her mother died young. Her aunt had two sons and she's probably post-reproductive. She hasn't had any babies in the last 12 years. So there's no future. Balcomb also remarked: We haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years. We have had stillborns and newborns die and a number of whales that appear to be pregnant but didn't ultimately produce any calves. It's like zero survival in birth rate here. While Balcom did say that "we haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years," he was talking about the local Puget Sound orca whale population only, and he didn't in any way connect a 100% infant orca mortality rate to radiation from Fukushima. His quotes originated with a story published by the Seattle Times in December 2014 about a baby orca whale that had died in the Pugent Sound, and while the exact cause of that whale's death was unclear, Balcolm suggested that the whale likely died due to a diminished food supply (and not radiation): suggested But two of the whales three biggest problems the buildup of pollutants such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls in their blubber, and disturbance by marine traffic appear to be worsened by a third, a reduction in available prey. These whales can eat sockeye and halibut, but overwhelmingly prefer fatty chinook from Puget Sound and Canadas Fraser River, distinguishing them from other fish by using sonar to sense differences in the animals swim bladders. And Puget Sound chinook numbers have dropped to about 10 percent of their historic high. They, too, are listed for protection under the ESA. For Balcomb, the loss of J32 suggests its time to consider drastic measures, such as a ban or steep curtailment in chinook fishing, even though fishing is likely the least of the threats chinook face. Its a wake-up call we know what the problem is, whether its dams or fishing or habitat destruction, he said. Its just what happens when millions of people move into the watershed. (But) stopping fishing, at least for a while, is something we can do immediately. [...] The reality is, the basic problem is food, Balcomb said. Although apparently no baby orcas survived long after birth in Puget Sound in 2013 or 2014, that wasn't the case in the immediately following years, as 2015 saw nine successful orca births in Puget Sound: births In just over a year, Puget Sound has welcomed nine baby Southern-resident orcas to the fold, as the pod continues to rebound from 30-year-low numbers reported at the end of 2014. While radiation from the Fukushima disaster did have a major impact on marine life, the leak of radiactive material from the plant leak did not cause a proven "100% infant mortality" rate among orca whales. Moreover, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not list nuclear radiation (from any source) among the threats currently facing the world's whale population. impact Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Welch, Craig. "Puget Sound Orca Numbers Rise Fast After 30-Year Low in 2014." The Seattle Times. 20 January 2016. Welch, Craig. "Ten Years After ESA Listing, Killer Whale Numbers Falling." The Seattle Times. 20 December 2014.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fukushima-radiation-causes-100-infant-mortality-among-orca-whales/

Fukushima radiation results in the death of all Orca whale offspring.

Dan Evon

09/26/2016

Fear-mongering articles reporting that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (triggered by the tsunami that followed the Thoku earthquake of 11 March 2011) had caused a 100% infant mortality among orca whales born since then have been circulated online for several years. The web site Humans Are Free renewed interest in that rumor in September 2016 when they published an article with the clickbait title "Radiation from Fukushima Now Causes 100% Infant Mortality Rate in West Coast Orcas": published The Humans Are Free piece was sourced from an article by the disreputable Natural News web site that employed a similarly misleading title ("West Coast Orcas Experiencing 100% Infant Mortality Rate as Radiation from Fukushima Drifts Across Ocean") even though the text of that article plainly admitted that there was no proven connection between the Fukushima disaster and the mortality of infant orcas: No one has yet proven that there is a direct link between the 100 percent mortality rate seen among orca infants and the effects of the radiation contamination of the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima reactor leak in Japan, but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. Natural News listed several sources about whale deaths at the bottom of their article, but none of those sources mentioned radiation from Fukushima as likely or definitive cause. listed several sources bottom article Quotes from Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, were also misleadingly reproduced out of context by Natural News to bolster a claim that Balcomb's statement didn't support: The recent discovery of a carcass off the coast of British Columbia that of a 19-year-old orca female, which was believed to be in the late stages of pregnancy, is just one example of the recent orca deaths that have scientists and conservationists worried. Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center For Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, said: Her death doesn't bode well for the southern resident population and certainly not for that matriline. Her mother died young. Her aunt had two sons and she's probably post-reproductive. She hasn't had any babies in the last 12 years. So there's no future. Balcomb also remarked: We haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years. We have had stillborns and newborns die and a number of whales that appear to be pregnant but didn't ultimately produce any calves. It's like zero survival in birth rate here. While Balcom did say that "we haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years," he was talking about the local Puget Sound orca whale population only, and he didn't in any way connect a 100% infant orca mortality rate to radiation from Fukushima. His quotes originated with a story published by the Seattle Times in December 2014 about a baby orca whale that had died in the Pugent Sound, and while the exact cause of that whale's death was unclear, Balcolm suggested that the whale likely died due to a diminished food supply (and not radiation): suggested But two of the whales three biggest problems the buildup of pollutants such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls in their blubber, and disturbance by marine traffic appear to be worsened by a third, a reduction in available prey. These whales can eat sockeye and halibut, but overwhelmingly prefer fatty chinook from Puget Sound and Canadas Fraser River, distinguishing them from other fish by using sonar to sense differences in the animals swim bladders. And Puget Sound chinook numbers have dropped to about 10 percent of their historic high. They, too, are listed for protection under the ESA. For Balcomb, the loss of J32 suggests its time to consider drastic measures, such as a ban or steep curtailment in chinook fishing, even though fishing is likely the least of the threats chinook face. Its a wake-up call we know what the problem is, whether its dams or fishing or habitat destruction, he said. Its just what happens when millions of people move into the watershed. (But) stopping fishing, at least for a while, is something we can do immediately. [...] The reality is, the basic problem is food, Balcomb said. Although apparently no baby orcas survived long after birth in Puget Sound in 2013 or 2014, that wasn't the case in the immediately following years, as 2015 saw nine successful orca births in Puget Sound: births In just over a year, Puget Sound has welcomed nine baby Southern-resident orcas to the fold, as the pod continues to rebound from 30-year-low numbers reported at the end of 2014. While radiation from the Fukushima disaster did have a major impact on marine life, the leak of radiactive material from the plant leak did not cause a proven "100% infant mortality" rate among orca whales. Moreover, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not list nuclear radiation (from any source) among the threats currently facing the world's whale population. impact Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Welch, Craig. "Puget Sound Orca Numbers Rise Fast After 30-Year Low in 2014." The Seattle Times. 20 January 2016. Welch, Craig. "Ten Years After ESA Listing, Killer Whale Numbers Falling." The Seattle Times. 20 December 2014.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trumps-robert-kraft/

Were the Trumps Pictured With the Owner of a Massage Parlor Where Robert Kraft Was Arrested?

Bethania Palma

03/12/2019

In early-to-mid-March 2019, photographs of President Donald Trump and members of his family posing with Li Yang, a political donor and spa entrepreneur, circulated on social media. The images were used to link the Trumps with a sting operation in Florida. link Yang, who posted a widely seen selfie taken at Trump's 2019 Super Bowl party to her Facebook account, once owned what is now the Orchids of Asia massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was one of 25 men arrested in February 2019, accused of soliciting sex there in a sweeping, human-trafficking sting that targeted that site and others. selfie sting Kraft, a self-described friend of Trump, faces two counts of misdemeanor solicitation, to which he has pleaded not guilty. friend not guilty Yang no longer owns the establishment in which police say Kraft was caught on camera paying for sex. She has not been charged with a crime. camera Nevertheless, the images of Yang, Trump and members of his family were picked up and used to create an inaccurate meme claiming she is the spa's owner, which was shared with the nearly 8 million followers on the Facebook page belonging to Occupy Democrats on 8 March 2019.Although the Occupy Democrats Facebook page sarcastically discourages followers to share the meme, its administrators also added a "correction" in the post above the image: Occupy Democrats Yang was swept into the lurid story after images of her with Trump and his family members surfaced on her Facebook page, which, as the Miami Herald reported, "raised questions about who can gain access to the president at his resorts and other private businesses, as well at official venues like fundraisers." reported Some news stories linked Yang to the day spa raided by police by describing her as the "founder," although when the site changed ownership in 2012, its name also changed. Yang sold the business, which at the time was called the Tokyo Day Spa, to Hua Zhang, who changed the name of the establishment to Orchids of Asia upon incorporation in 2012, according to Florida state business records. Zhang, 58, has been charged with prostitution-related counts and has pleaded not guilty. As the Associated Press reported: incorporation not guilty Yang, who goes by Cindy, wasnt charged in the multiagency anti-human trafficking operation that resulted in 25 arrests and shut down 10 Asian day spas in south Florida. None of the spas are registered to Yang or her family. She sold the Jupiter spa around 2013 to Hua Zhang, who has pleaded not guilty to racketeering and running a house of prostitution. Yangs family still owns several south Florida spas. The familys Tokyo Day Spa branches have attracted the attention of at least two police agencies, the Herald reported. Yang told the Herald, which published the photo of her with Trump on Friday (March 8), that she and her family havent broken the law. She said she is out of the business, would soon be relocating to Washington and didnt want any negative news media attention. published the photo of her with Trump Occupy Democrats (OD) Co-Founder Omar Rivero told us in an email he felt he had no choice but to leave the meme live with the correction added to the post. Once an image is posted on Facebook, it can't be replaced or edited. If the image were to continue to circulate with the error even after after OD had deleted it from their page, and if Facebook were to flag the image as false, the deletion would result in a penalty for the page. "Its a really weird thing that doesn't make sense to me either," he explained. "Normally I would just delete it but I can't risk another hit to our reach [due to a Facebook penalty] over a minor mistake." Blaskey, Sarah, etal."Trump Cheered Patriots to Super Bowl Victory With Founder of Spa Where Kraft Was Busted." Miami Herald.8 March 2019. Greenlee, Will."Details in Spa Sex, Human Trafficking Released; Neighbor Says Case 'Like a Movie.'" Treasury Coast Newspapers.20 February 2019. Winter, Tom, and Kesslen, Ben."Patriots Owner Robert Kraft Charged With Soliciting Prostitution." NBC News.22 February 2019. Nehamas, Nicole, etal."Massage Parlor Magnate Helped Steer Chinese to Trump NYC Fundraiser, Attendee Says." Miami Herald.9 March 2019. Associated Press."Report: Spa Founder Attended Trumps Super Bowl Party." 8 March 2019.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cheryl-mills-leaked-email/

Cheryl Mills Called Benghazi Dead 'Idiot Soldiers' in Leaked E-Mail

Kim LaCapria

10/24/2016

In October 2016, the above-reproduced e-mail screenshot began circulating on social media, purportedly capturing a message from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills to Hillary Clinton in which Mills expressed a need to "hide" that requests for help made by the four U.S. personnel who died in the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi had been denied, and in which Mills referred to those dead personnel as "idiot US soldiers [who] deserved to die": circulating From: Mills, Cheryl D. <millscd@state.gov>Sent: July 26, 2012 2:11 PMTo: HSubject: Re: Benghazi We need to hide all traces of the denied requests for help. Those idiot US soldiers deserved to die and I'm glad they were tortured. But if anyone finds out we are toast. Black Power! Cdm The header of that screenshot matched some communications found in WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," published on 16 March 2016: communications However, a search of the term "idiot US soldiers" in the entirety of WikiLeaks' releases (including the July 2016 DNC Leaks, the October 2016 Podesta e-mails, and the March 2016 Clinton archive) returns zero results. July 2016 DNC Leaks Podesta March 2016 zero results Moreover, the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi occurred on 11 September 2012, but the clearly fabricated e-mail that referenced it was dated 26 July 2012, over two months before that attack occurred. Benghazi The "idiot soldiers" e-mail was not the first time falsified documents were passed off as authentic leaked e-mails. A Newsweek misinterpretation of WikiLeaks' releases led to claims the leaks were fabricated, faked e-mail screenshots suggested Clinton called supporters of Bernie Sanders a "bucket of losers" and swing state voters "white trash," and legitimate e-mails mocking a conspiracy theory about Clinton being involved in a plane crash were reframed as a "shocking leak." Newsweek bucket of losers white trash plane crash

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/oct/05/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/

Says Mitt Romney wants to add $2 trillion to defense budget that the military hasnt asked for.

Jon Greenberg

10/24/2012

Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said he plans to increase defense spending by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years if hes elected president. In the final debate of the campaign, moderator Bob Scheiffer asked Romney, Where are you going to get the money?Romney said he would take it from other parts of the budget -- by abolishing Obamacare and by changing Medicaid to a block grant and turning it over to the states.President Barack Obama said Romneys plan for more defense spending is a bad idea, because it isnt necessary. Romney wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military is not asking for, Obama said.In this fact-check, we examine the claim that Romney is promoting something the top brass dont want.Romney has outlined out hisnational security policyon his website. There, he warned that restoring the military will not be a cost-free process, and said he will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts ... with the goal of setting core defense spending meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.Whats 4 percent worth?The Pentagons budget is expected to run in the range of 3.2 to 3.5 percent of GDP in the next fiscal year. According to theCenter for a New American Security, a group with ties to both Republican and Democratic administrations, even a gradual ramp up to 4 percent would increase defense spending by $2.1 trillion over the next ten years, asreported by CNN.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group focused on deficit reduction, uses that number too, as do other budget think tanks. Romney seems to accept it, so as far as the $2 trillion figure goes, it seems reasonably accurate.In the past, when asked about increasing defense spending in tough economic times, the Romney campaign has emphasized that the 4-percent goal will take some time to achieve.While the campaign website describes the goal as a floor, campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul called it a target in an email to aBoston Globereporter. The first priority, Saul wrote, is to reverse Obama-era defense cuts.In the same article, one Romney adviser, Mackenzie Eaglen with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, Thats not a hard number and anybody would be crazy to suggest it is. It would have to be a very slow ramp-up and they would be hard-pressed to even achieve a 4 percent base budget by the end of the first term.This suggests there is some flexibility on Romneys part, although the candidate himself has not expressed that.What the Pentagon is asking forIn the debate, Romney said, Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285.In fact, the 313-ship plan reflects a 2005 strategic review. In April, theSecretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, presented a new program that sets a goal of 300 ships. Mabuss remarks came at a moment when Romney had been vocal in his opposition to the new approach.A lot of this criticism is based on either incomplete and/or inaccurate or outdated information, or a failure to see beyond the short term or a willingness to protect the status quo in spite of the changing world and in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he said.The presidents budget calls for $487 billion in defense savings between now and 2021. His defense secretary, Leon Panetta, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, have both spoken up for the plan, as have the heads of all five branches of the military.We are developing today the Joint Force the nation will need in 2020,Dempsey told the Senatebudget committee. We will be a military that is able to do more than one thing at a timeto win any conflict, anywhere.Panetta acknowledged that the budget comes with risks but he said the departments plan was based on looking first at the threats the nation might face.The department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation.,Panetta told the budget committee. We are at that point in history. That's the reality of the world we live in.Administration critics say the reality was just the reverse. A report from the conservative Heritage Foundation said, the administration set a goal of slashing the defense budget, and then crafted a strategy justifying such draconian cuts.The president is the commander-in-chief. Panetta works for Obama and the military answers to him. To the analysts at the Heritage Foundation, the chain of command says it all. But in the past, when military commanders have disagreed with presidents, they have found ways to get their complaints to the public.This is not to say that all commanders are pleased with the trade-offs they face. But Nora Bensahel, deputy director of studies at the Center for New American Security, said she believes the president put a great deal of time into discussions with the military, and by and large, the commanders support the plan.Its hard to see daylight between the military and the White House on this, Bensahel said.Broadly speaking, it is always possible that the service chiefs would disagree over funding of individual programs but that is within the overall budget limits.Our rulingThe president said Romney planned to increase defense spending by $2 trillion and that was money the military hadnt asked for.Military leaders have testified in support of the presidents spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes.We rate the statement True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/may/28/bob-gibbs/rep-bob-gibbs-touts-water-transportation-efficienc/

Water transportation is the most fuel efficient, least polluting, safest, and least expensive means of moving cargo.

Peter Krouse

05/28/2012

Rep. Bob Gibbs is a big proponent of water transportation.As chair of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment (part of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) he recently held a hearing on the soundness of the countrys inland waterway system, which includes the Ohio River.Gibbs, a Republican from Holmes County, finds the system lacking. Deferred maintenance resulting from budget constraints on the U.S. Corps of Engineers increases the likelihood of a calamity befalling the system, he said at the April 18 hearing.If improvements arent made, it could doom the countrys inland water system, he said, and that would be a costly bit of negligence because water transportation is a vital cog in our economy.Water transportation is the most fuel efficient, least polluting, safest, and least expensive means of moving cargo, he said.Thats a pretty definitive statement. PolitiFact Ohio decided to check it out.First of all, Gibbs was referring to inland waterways and their barge traffic that runs north and south along major navigable rivers, such as the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio.River barges usually carry large volumes of low-value commodities, such as grain and coal. They compete to varying degrees with railroads and trucks, but more often than not they work in tandem. Ninety percent of all barge traffic depends on a connection with either rail or truck, said Chris Dager, research economist at the University of Tennessee.Trillions of dollars of freight moves each year over the countrys transportation network, which includes 4 million miles of highways and roads, 140,000 miles of rail and 25,000 of commercially navigable waterways.The problem with a blanket statement that any form of transportation is the cheapest or safest is that it can vary depending on the circumstances.A commodities broker shipping corn from Iowa to New Orleans, for example, would send it by barge down the Mississippi, not by rail or truck. It will take longer to ship the down river speed is about 9 mph but cost far less. But if time is of the essence, or if a river with loading terminals isnt handy, rail or truck may be the only feasible options.Over-the-road delivery has a cost advantage at times because a trucker can drop off a load hundreds of miles away and usually find something to haul back on his return trip. Thats known as back-hauling and while it occurs usually 90 percent of the time with long-haul trucks, the rate is only 45 to 50 percent for barges, said Larry Bray, a research economist at University of Tennessee.Railroads, on the other hand, usually return with empty cars, except for containers and boxcars.And some areas of a river are more efficient than others. On the lower Mississippi River, barges move along unimpeded, but on the upper reaches they move more slowly because of multiple dams and locks.And when it comes to delays, some rail and highway locations are legendary for their congestion.With all that in mind, lets consider some numbers.As of 2010, a river barge could transport an average of 640 tons of cargo per mile on a gallon of diesel, Dager said, thanks to recent improvements that include barges with deeper drafts and computer systems that provide up-to-the-minute profiles of a river bottom.Railroads have made their own improvements, including larger railcars, better engines, and improved business modeling. They can now carry an average of 490 ton-miles of cargo per gallon of diesel, according to Dager.Trucks are the least fuel efficient, with an average of 75-to-150 ton-miles per gallon of diesel, depending on how far they travel.In addition, some social costs arent passed along to the consumer that need to be acknowledged. These include government subsidies for infrastructure (something trucks benefit from greatly, waterborne vessels to a much less extent, and railroads the least), congestion, and the effects on health and safety.Those costs in the aggregate are highest for trucks, followed by rail and then water transportation, according to a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office called Surface Freight Transportation: A Comparison of the costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers.And then theres this statement from Mitchell Moss, director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York Universitys Wagner Graduate School of Public Service: Water transportation is one of the most economical ways to move cargo, especially bulk cargo.While there are comparative advantages to each mode of transportation, Moss said, on average water is the least expensive and most fuel efficient.So, it appears that Gibbs was correct when he said water transportation is the most fuel efficient way to move cargo, as well as the least expensive. He also said water transportation was the cleanest and safest way to move cargo. Those specific factors also are addressed in the GAO report.The report states that trucks generate 238 pounds of particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less per million ton-miles of freight delivered. That compares to 36 pounds for rail locomotives and 23 pounds for waterborne vessels.Trucks also generate more than 6,000 pounds tons of nitrogen oxide per million ton-miles, compared with nearly 1,350 pounds for locomotives and about 938 pounds for waterborne vessels.And when it comes to greenhouse gases, barges spew forth the least amount.Finally, water transportation accounts for fewer accidents and injuries per ton-mile of delivered freight than trucks and rail, according to the GAO.Gibbs said that water transportation is the cheapest, safest, cleanest and most fuel efficient way to move cargo. Clearly, its the most fuel efficient on average. Its also safer and cleaner.As for the expense, because barge traffic is so dependent on rail and trucking, those two modes of transportation could have an impact. But that said, the experts we talked to were persuasive that on average, water transportation is least expensive.On the Truth-O-Meter, Gibbs statement rates True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/feb/28/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-says-unemployment-lower-right-work-st/

The right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do.

Louis Jacobson

02/28/2011

On the Feb. 24, 2011, edition of Fox NewsThe OReilly Factor, host Bill OReilly said that the jobs picture is better inright to work states-- that is, states in which workers can refuse to pay dues or fees to the union that represents them in bargaining.The right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do, OReilly said while interviewing Caroline Heldman, a political scientist at Occidental College.We thought wed check to see whether OReilly is correct.First, some background. According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, 22 states have passed some form of right-to-work law (the exact provisions can vary) -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. The other 28 states do not have such laws.To test OReillys claim, we turned to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which is the official source for unemployment statistics in the United States. BLSmost recent state-by state datais for December 2010.We consulted with Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, about the fairest way to look at the data. We agreed that it was best to compare right-to-work and non-right-to-work states through data weighted according to state population. That way, Californias unemployment rate would be given more weight than, say, Wyomings.When we did the math, we found that the unemployment rate in the 22 right-to-work states was 9.17 percent, compared to 9.65 in the 28 non-right-to-work states. (The national unemployment rate that month was 9.4 percent that month -- right in the middle.) So OReilly is basically correct.His only shortcoming was his use of the phrase much lower level of unemployment. The difference for December 2010 was only about half a percentage point, which is fairly modest, given that the range of state unemployment figures stretched from 3.8 in North Dakota to 14.5 in Nevada.As always, theres a question about causation -- that is, whether right-to-work status actually produces low unemployment. Of the 11 states with the lowest unemployment (there was a tie for 10th place) eight were right-to-work states. Of those, seven states -- North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma -- are from the Great Plains and the Mountain West, which have in general been less hard-hit during the recent recession.To see whether today is an unusual situation, we asked the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation whether they had historical data on the unemployment gap. They said they did not. James Sherk, a senior policy analyst in labor economics at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that numbers hes run suggest that in 2008, before the worst of the recession set in, the gap was slightly larger -- about eight-tenths of a percentage point -- but was in the same general ballpark.In any case, none of the economists we spoke to thought the gap was especially surprising, either now or historically.So where does that leave us in terms of OReillys claim? He said that right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do. To say its much lower is a stretch, but he's right that it is lower. On balance, we rate his statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/grants-boon/

Government Grant Scam

Barbara Mikkelson

12/10/2004

Scam: Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number. Origins: A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums. The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected. Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan] Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler] My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.) [Bryan] This is Bryan. [Swindler] Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan] Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler] Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan] Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler] We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan] North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler] Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan] No, I cannot. [Swindler] Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan] Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler] I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan] I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler] A deposit slip? [Bryan] No. [Swindler] Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan] Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler] Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan] Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler] Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan] Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler] CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage. The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants. Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about. Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them. With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.) Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing." Mulkins, Phil. "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc." Tulsa World. 16 August 2004 (p. A2). Roesler, Richard. "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme." [Spokane] Spokesman Review. 23 July 2004 (p. B1). Sabatini, Patricia. "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 22 October 2004 (p. B16). Williams, Fred. "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'" Buffalo News. 20 October 2004 (p. B7). Wyoming Tribune-Eagle "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam." 2 December 2004 (p. A2).

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/grants-boon/

Fraudulent Scheme Involving Government Grants

Barbara Mikkelson

12/10/2004

Scam: Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number. Origins: A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums. The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected. Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan] Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler] My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.) [Bryan] This is Bryan. [Swindler] Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan] Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler] Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan] Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler] We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan] North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler] Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan] No, I cannot. [Swindler] Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan] Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler] I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan] I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler] A deposit slip? [Bryan] No. [Swindler] Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan] Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler] Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan] Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler] Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan] Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler] CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage. The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants. Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about. Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them. With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.) Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing." Mulkins, Phil. "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc." Tulsa World. 16 August 2004 (p. A2). Roesler, Richard. "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme." [Spokane] Spokesman Review. 23 July 2004 (p. B1). Sabatini, Patricia. "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 22 October 2004 (p. B16). Williams, Fred. "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'" Buffalo News. 20 October 2004 (p. B7). Wyoming Tribune-Eagle "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam." 2 December 2004 (p. A2).

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irs-refund-notification-2/

IRS Refund Notification

David Mikkelson

03/17/2006

Phishing bait: Notice from the IRS indicating the recipient is eligible for a tax refund. Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2006] IRS Notification - Please Read This . After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $163.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here here Regards,Internal Revenue Service Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved. Origins: Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good phishing bait for a number of reasons: phishing Notices from institutions of the federal government (especially an agency with the ominous reputation of the IRS) grab people's attention. Unlike other phishing schemes that emulate mailings from various private financial institutions (e.g., Bank of America) and are therefore easily recognized as phony by many recipients (because they do no business with those companies), a forged IRS notice has the potential to take in a much larger pool of victims, as most adult U.S. residents have dealings with that agency. Many people find the federal income tax filing process complicated and confusing, so the idea that they might have unclaimed tax refunds waiting for them seems plausible. A March 2006 mass phish e-mailing took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that included the IRS logo, advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of $63.80 or $163.80), and invited them to click on a link which took them to an IRS web site form through which they could claim those refunds. Of course, the links included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; they redirected claimants to imposter IRS sites (hosted on servers in a variety of countries) and instructed them to enter all sorts of sensitive personal information (credit card number, expiration date, CVV code and ATM PIN) into an on-line form so that the putative refunds could be posted directly to their debit/credit card or bank accounts. Any information entered into such forms can be harvested by scammers and used for identity theft and other financial crimes. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers. When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, they send notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation. Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. Last updated: 17 March 2006 Sources: Miller, Anita. "Internet Scammers Using IRS Logo for Bait." San Marcos Daily Record. 17 March 2006. Speier, Drew. "E-Mail Scam Uses Fake IRS Web Site." WFIE-TV. 2 March 2006. KPHO-TV. "Consumers Warned of IRS 'Phishing' Scam." 2 March 2006. KXAN-TV. "New E-Mail Scam Promises Money From the IRS." 17 March 2006. WFSB-TV. "Latest Scam Targets Tax Returns." 2 March 2006. WHEC-TV. "IRS Warning Taxpayers About Fake E-Mail Scam." 2 March 2006. WLNS-TV. "Beware of Tax Scam." 7 March 2006.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fdic-you/

FDIC Insurance Pays Out Over 99 Years?

David Mikkelson

09/24/2008

Claim: After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print." [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins: Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not completely risk-free. And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system. The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.* FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above. Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all. In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated: 8 April 2014

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fdic-you/

FDIC insurance provides coverage for more than 99 years.

David Mikkelson

09/24/2008

Claim: After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print." [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins: Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not completely risk-free. And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system. The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.* FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above. Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all. In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated: 8 April 2014

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fdic-you/

FDIC insurance provides payouts for a span exceeding 99 years.

David Mikkelson

09/24/2008

Claim: After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print." [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins: Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not completely risk-free. And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system. The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.* FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above. Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all. In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated: 8 April 2014

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-donations-clinton-foundation/

Hillary Clinton Cut Her Tax Bill by 'Donating' $1 Million to Herself via the Clinton Foundation?

David Emery

10/01/2016

An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation 3. Declaring an amount say $1 million as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices. Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving. 2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012. So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000. Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?" Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy." Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-donations-clinton-foundation/

Hillary Clinton reduced her tax payment by giving $1 million to herself through the Clinton Foundation.

David Emery

10/01/2016

An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation 3. Declaring an amount say $1 million as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices. Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving. 2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012. So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000. Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?" Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy." Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-donations-clinton-foundation/

Hillary Clinton reduced her tax expenses by "contributing" $1 million to herself through the Clinton Foundation.

David Emery

10/01/2016

An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation 3. Declaring an amount say $1 million as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices. Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving. 2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012. So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000. Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?" Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy." Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-donations-clinton-foundation/

Hillary Clinton reduced her tax bill by giving $1 million to herself through the Clinton Foundation.

David Emery

10/01/2016

An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation 3. Declaring an amount say $1 million as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices. Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving. 2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012. So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000. Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?" Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy." Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/may/29/tim-sheehy/would-paying-half-cost-new-milwaukee-bucks-arena-b/

A 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country.

Tom Kertscher

05/29/2015

Newsbrokeon May 27, 2015 that an agreement was close on how to pay for a new $500 million arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the basketball team that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once led to glory. Some details of the proposed arrangement between the Bucks and state and local government officials were new. But the overallcost sharing was, more or less, what hadlong beenexpected: The Bucks owners would pay half and taxpayers would pay half. According to Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, such a split would be good for taxpayers. Here is whathe saidApril 10, 2015 on Here and Now, a Wisconsin Public Television show: If this comes out close to a 50-50 partnership, it will be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country. In other words, Sheehy, who supports the new arena, is saying that taxpayers picking up half the tab for a new Milwaukee arena is relatively low, compared to how much taxpayers have contributed toward arenas for other National Basketball Association teams. The parties set a self-imposeddeadlineof May 29, 2015 to try and finalize the financing deal, which would have to be approved, likely within the next few weeks, as part of the 2015-17 state budget. So, lets take a look. The Bucks and their arenas The Bucksjoined the NBA in the 1968-69 season. Led byAbdul-Jabbarand another future Hall of Famer, Oscar Robertson, they won their only league championship in the 1970-71 season. That,according tothe team, meant the Bucks went further, faster, than any expansion team in the history of major professional sports. In recent years, however, the Bucks have struggled, and that is one reason there has been a drive to build a new arena. The teams current home -- the $90 millionBMO Harris Bradley Center, which was built through a donation by the late Milwaukee philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit -- opened in 1988. The 18,600-seat arena is thethird-oldestand the third-smallest in the 30-team NBA. Momentum for a new arena picked up in April 2014, when the Bucks longtime owner, former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Milwaukee,announcedhe was selling the team to New York hedge-fund investors Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens. Kohl and the new owners pledged to contribute $250 million toward a new arena. Coming up with the other $250 million has been the sticking point,leading to months of negotiations involvingGov. Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele. There is time pressure in that the NBA has said a new arena must be built by the fall of 2017, or Milwaukee would risk losing the team to another market. Other arena deals To see how other NBA arenas have been financed, we turned to two sources: The 2012 edition of Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century, a textbook that includesa chapteron financing professional sports facilities. And a database,last updatedin August 2014, that is maintained by Marquette University Law Schools National Sports Law Institute. Weve listed the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the arenas in the league -- that have been built since 1999. We went back to 1999 because a wave of NBA arenas -- seven of them -- went up that year. As well see, there is some disagreement between the figures provided by the textbook and by Marquette. Holy Cross College sports economistVictor Matheson, who wrote the sports facilities chapter in the textbook, told us thats not surprising because there are different ways to define a public contribution and because stadium financing deals arent always transparent. Based on the two sources we checked, at least eight of the 15 NBA arenas built since 1999 were financed with more than 50 percent taxpayer support. Indeed, although there is some variation in the figures in the two sources, seven of the eight arenas were built with at least 82 percent public money (the total cost figures are according to the textbook). Arenas built with more than 50% public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Orlando 2010 $480 million 90% 87.5% Charlotte 2005 $265 million 100% 100% Memphis 2004 $250 million 100% 83% Houston 2003 $235 million 82% 100% San Antonio 2002 $186 million 85% 84% Oklahoma City 2002 $89 million 100% 100% Miami 1999 $213 million 100% 59% New Orleans 1999 $114 million 100% 100% Conversely, the textbook and Marquette agree that only four of the arenas were built with taxpayer contributions of 50 percent or less. Arenas built with 50% or less public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the textbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Dallas 2001 $420 million 50% 30% Toronto 1999 $265 million 0% 0% Denver 1999 $160 million 22% 3% Los Angeles 1999 $375 million 16% 19% There was not agreement between the between the two sources on the public portion paid for arenas in Brooklyn, Indianapolis and Atlanta: NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Indianapolis 1999 $183 million 100% 43% Atlanta 1999 $214 million 29% 91% Brooklyn 2010 $637 million 24% N/A Our rating Sheehy said a 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better in terms of the portion of the public financing than most of the other arena projects done around the country. Of the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the cities in the league -- built since 1999, at least eight were built with more than 50 percent of the money coming from taxpayers. Seven of those eight were built with at least 82 percent public money. We rate his statement True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tampered-conditioner-hair-loss/

Did Tampered-With Conditioner Cause a Wisconsin Woman to Lose Her Hair?

Dan MacGuill

08/02/2019

In late summer 2019, multiple news accounts reported that a Wisconsin woman had endured a frightening encounter with a supermarket product tamperer who, the articles said, had added hair remover to a bottle of conditioner, causing the woman's hair to fall out. On Aug. 1, the website Distractify published an article under the headline "Woman Loses Hair After Buying Tampered-With Conditioner That Was Mixed With Nair," reporting that: article Taffy Jo Trimm [sic] and her daughter Ashley Rose recently bought this bottle of Pantene from a Walmart in New Richmond, Wisconsin. In a now-viral Facebook post, Taffy explains that the bottle must have been tampered with. Someone must have mixed in Nair or some other hair removal product with the conditioner because, when Taffy's daughter Ashley used the conditioner, her hair started falling out. In clumps. How horrifying is that? 'Attention New Richmond Wisconsin Walmart shoppers,' Taffy's Facebook post reads, "be aware of shampoo and conditioner you buy there as my daughter Ashley Rose bought some two days ago and someone mixed Nair in her conditioner bottle!!!! As I speak she is losing hair and crying!! Conditioner below this conditioner [sic] is supposed to be white. It is an ugly pink color." Other reports went beyond the parameters of that single purported incident, claiming without evidence that it was part of a broader trend. The websites Popbuzz and Rare.us both published articles using headlines that stated "People are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo," while one Twitter user posted a viral tweet that claimed "people" were mixing Nair into shampoo and conditioner bottles: Popbuzz Rare.us tweet Please check your hair products before you buy them, people are mixing Nair into shampoo & conditioner in the store smh pic.twitter.com/iCuDpZLpmL pic.twitter.com/iCuDpZLpmL ???? ??????? (@shandiditbetter) July 30, 2019 July 30, 2019 We have been unable to verify the claim that the woman in question lost her hair involuntarily as a result of exposure to a substance deliberately added to a bottle of hair conditioner before she purchased it from Walmart. The details follow. The narrative began on July 28, when Taffy Jo Timm wrote on Facebook that her daughter, 21-year-old Ashley Robinson, was "losing her hair and crying" after using conditioner she had purchased two days earlier from the Walmart in New Richmond. Timm's post was accompanied by a photograph of a bottle of Pantene conditioner and a photograph showing what appeared to be black hair deposited in a shower: Later that night, Robinson herself posted the same photograph of black hair, along with a brief account of what had happened earlier that evening: account "... Got in shower, shampoo [sic] and conditioned my hair, got out, something was different and didnt smell the greatest. I carried on sat down for a bit and then decided to go blow dry my hair, I took my hair out of the towel and it smelt terrible, got back in the shower used my other shampoo and rubbed that in, as I took my hands out of my hair it was covered in hair and just kept on falling out." Robinson said she visited the emergency room due to a burning sensation and was later discharged. The following evening, she wrote on Facebook that she had undergone a "consultation" but had resigned herself to having to shave her head. On July 30, Robinson posted a photograph of herself bald, and on Aug. 1, Minneapolis television station WCCO interviewed her: wrote photograph On Aug. 1, the New Richmond Police Department announced they had opened an investigation into potential product tampering after having received a formal complaint about Robinson's experience. Their news release on the subject stated that: news release Due to the significance of this offense, New Richmond officers and detectives have been working with Wal-Mart staff to identify potential suspects and review video surveillance. The New Richmond Police Department will continue to follow the facts of this case. While this appears to be an isolated case at this time, the New Richmond Police Department is asking anyone in this area that has been a recent victim of this type of activity to please report it immediately to your local police/sheriffs department. The New Richmond Police Department is also reminding people to be diligent in checking products for safety seals and prior to any use to make sure it is consistent with the product you are expecting. We have so far been unable to independently verify that Ashley Robinson's hair loss was involuntary and came about as the result of her using conditioner tainted with Nair (or some other hair-removal product, or any other substance) following an act of product tampering at the Walmart in New Richmond. If or when we receive evidence that would verify that sequence of events, we will update this article accordingly. We do know that Robinson experienced hair loss, and that she did indeed visit the emergency room at Westfields Hospital and Clinic in New Richmond on July 28, 2019. Her mother provided Snopes with a photograph of part of Robinson's after-visit summary. We have redacted certain personal details, but the doctor's summary clearly establishes that Robinson had experienced hair loss and suffered chemical burns on her scalp: "If [she] develops further burning sensation please ... re-rinse her hair. You can follow up in your clinic regarding hair regrowth. Based on the appearance of her scalp, that will likely grow back normally. However, follow-up may be necessary if you're [sic] hair is not coming in as expected." The doctor listed the diagnosis as: "Chemical burn of scalp, unspecified corrosion degree, initial encounter." However, beyond this documentation, we have found no evidence that corroborates the claim that Robinson's conditioner was deliberately contaminated with hair-removal cream by a third party. Furthermore, we have discovered certain details that subtract, rather than add, support to that theory. Dispute over dates First, significant confusion exists over when Robinson actually purchased the conditioner that she believes caused her hair loss. In her original Facebook post, Timm said her daughter had bought it from Walmart around two days earlier, which would be July 26. However, Timm later told Snopes that Robinson bought it on July 23. And in its Aug. 1 news report, WCCO said she Robinson bought it on the same day as her hair began to fall out, July 28. When we asked Timm to clear up those discrepancies, she insisted that her daughter had indeed purchased the conditioner on July 23 and said she had asked WCCO to correct its reporting. However, a spokesperson for Walmart told us that a team of employees had extensively reviewed video surveillance footage from the company's New Richmond location and found evidence that a customer who appeared to be Robinson had, in fact, purchased what appeared to be similar conditioner two weeks before the onset of her hair loss, not five days before it. Walmart found no evidence of Robinson's purchasing conditioner there at any other time in the ensuing two weeks. Walmart also reviewed footage of the same aisle from before Robinson's visit and saw no evidence of an individual's tampering with shampoo or conditioner bottles. We again put this discrepancy to Timm, who told us she could not explain it and said she had been told by her daughter that July 23 was the date on which her daughter bought the conditioner in question. We also asked Robinson about this discrepancy, checking whether it was possible she had misremembered either the date of the purchase or the location of the Walmart. She told us she was certain she made the purchase at the New Richmond Walmart and was "almost positive" she did so on July 23. Robinson also told us that July 28 was the first time she had used the conditioner, meaning it would have been sitting unused in her home for either five days (by her account), or around two weeks (based on Walmart's surveillance footage). We asked Robinson whether any possibility existed that a visitor to her home during that time might have contaminated the conditioner before she first used it, and she told us she had not had any visitors during that time. The smell test Furthermore, Walmart's review of the surveillance footage found evidence that the customer who resembled Robinson had unscrewed the pump-top cap from several bottles of conditioner, smelling each item before settling on one for purchase. This is potentially a significant finding. Robinson, in her July 28 Facebook post, asserted that she quickly realized something had gone awry in washing her hair because she could detect the odor of another substance in her conditioner ("something was different and didnt smell the greatest," "I took my hair out of the towel and it smelt terrible"). asserted If the conditioner did contain a contaminant (whether hair removal cream or some other substance) which smelled strongly enough at the time that it struck Robinson as "terrible," it stands to reason that she would have detected it in the first place if she were "sniff-testing" conditioners in Walmart before she chose the one she purchased. We put this question to Robinson, who claimed that she had opened bottles of shampoo when she visited the store, but not bottles of conditioner. In a statement, Walmart told us they had "inspected all products in our store, reviewed surveillance footage and found no evidence of tampering." The company removed no products from its shelves, despite Robinson and Timm's claims of product-tampering, and according to their statement, Walmart employees have "attempted to reach out to the customer to discuss this further and have received no response." Robinson told us she had not yet contacted Walmart because she was waiting to meet with her attorney. Two different colors Significant difference appears to exist between the look of the hair shown deposited in the shower in Robinson's original July 28 photographs, and that of the hair shown in photographs posted later. The hair in the photograph below appears to be black in color, and some strands look to be relatively long: By contrast, Robinson later posted three photographs of herself on Facebook, which appeared to show her with brown or even blonde hair, apparently shorter than the black hair shown deposited in the shower. Timm told us that these photographs had been taken in the hospital on July 28. This means that, according to Timm and Robinson's version of events, her hair appeared black when she washed it on the evening on July 28, but had significantly lightened in color within a matter of hours: Timm also sent us a fourth photograph, which she said was taken on the day after the event. It even more clearly illustrated the change in apparent hair color that, according to the two women's account, took place: Courtesy of Taffy Jo Timm. We put those discrepancies to Timm, who told us that her daughter had dyed her hair and speculated that whatever substance was purportedly added to the conditioner removed the dye from her hair, as well as removing portions of the hair itself: "I feel whatever was put into [the] conditioner stripped the hair color and removed big clumps of hair." Robinson told us she had dyed her hair dark brown two months earlier, but her roots sometimes appeared "medium brown" and "even a little blonder-looking." The hair shown in the shower appeared darker than it really was, she told us, because it was wet. And the hair shown in the subsequent Facebook photographs appeared lighter than it really was due to the effect of the camera's light. Robinson later posted to Facebook a photograph of herself with dyed hair, which she said was taken the day before her hair loss began, and various photographs on her Facebook account demonstrated that she did indeed periodically dye her hair. posted We haven't been able to verify that any substance was added to Robinson's conditioner in the first place, or that the conditioner was the cause of her hair loss, placing doubt on Timm's hypothesis that a contaminant added to the conditioner removed the dye from her daughter's hair and led to a significant difference in hair color across the photographs. Furthermore, the difference between the apparent color of the hair in the first photograph and its appearance in the other four remains significant enough that, while we are by no means dismissing it, Robinson's explanation remains open to reasonable doubt. Finally, other elements are absent that would add credibility to the "Walmart tampering" account of Robinson's hair loss. For example, New Richmond police Chief Craig Yehlik told us that his department had received no other recent reports of product tampering of any kind in the New Richmond area. This absence of reports of similar incidents does not destroy the credibility of Timm and Robinson's version of events, but neither does it enhance it. Although not definitive, Walmart's internal investigation into many hours of surveillance footage yielded no evidence of product tampering at its New Richmond store, but it did reveal evidence that cast doubt on Timm and Robinson's version of events. It is noteworthy that the company has decided not to withdraw any items from sale at that store, despite widely publicized allegations that product-tampering took place there. Zlotnick, Robin. "Woman Loses Hair After Buying Tampered-With Conditioner That Was Mixed With Nair." Distractify. 1 August 2019. Duribe, Jazmin. "People Are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo Bottles and WTF." PopBuzz. 1 August 2019. Jasso, Silke. "Warning! People Are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo Bottles." Rare.us. 30 July 2019. Yehlik, Craig. "Press Release -- Product Tampering." New Richmond Police/Facebook. 1 August 2019.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jul/28/sherrod-brown/are-koch-backed-groups-spending-most-ohio-senate-r/

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

Nadia Pflaum

07/28/2016

Voters in Ohio are enduring a deluge of fundraising emails from political groups ahead of the November election, like 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, Browns email said. Back in 2012, they spent $40 million trying to buy my seat in the Senate. Right now, the special interests are up to $30 million spent against Ted -- with the Koch network spending 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 haverecoiledfrom the 2016presidentialrace. 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 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. 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. (Were leaving out the primary race spending for the other Democratic candidate, P.G. Sittenfeld, who Strickland beat -- thats 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 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. 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 said 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 theyve dropped in any other race this election season to date. Stricklands campaign, while hardly immune to special interests, is the Koch networks biggest target in an election year that has seen conservative benefactors steer clear of the main ticket. We rate the claim True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marilyn-monroe-quote/

Did Marilyn Monroe Really Say This?

Bethania Palma

09/20/2022

In September 2022, some social media users shared a quote erroneously attributed to actress Marilyn Monroe: "If you cant handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell dont deserve me at my best." The quote has also been attributed to the "Some Like It Hot" star in a longer form: "I'm selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I'm out of control, and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best." longer form As of this writing, we have been unable to locate the original source of the quote but we found no evidence that it was said by Monroe. One source claimed in 2013 it was a line of dialogue from the 1953 noir film "Niagara," though we searched the screenplay at Scripts.com but didn't find any such dialogue there. We also viewed the portion of the movie Monroe is in, but Monroe's character Rose Loomis never makes the remark. screenplay According to Dictionary.com, the quote has been online for many years, since the 2000s, and hasn't always been attributed to Monroe. It has often been used in "before" and "after" or "best" and "worst" memes. Here's one example without attribution, posted by pop superstar Mariah Carey in 2018: Dictionary.com posted by Falsely attributing pieces of faux internet wisdom to famous people is a common occurrence. Recently, we reported actor Morgan Freeman never made a remark widely credited to him. Another popular quote widely misattributed to Monroe read, "Well-behaved women seldom make history." never misattributed Although fascination with Monroe has remained fairly constant since her lifetime, there may be renewed interest in September 2022 because of the release of a controversial Netflix movie titled, "Blonde." The movie is based on a 2000 novel of the same name by Joyce Carol Oates. controversial novel 4 Marilyn Monroe Quotes Youre Taking The Wrong Way. Thought Catalog, 3 Mar. 2013, https://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-shock/2013/03/4-marilyn-monroe-quotes-youre-taking-the-wrong-way/. If You Cant Handle Me at My Worst Meme | Meaning & History. Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/if-you-cant-handle-me-at-my-worst/. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Lemire, Christy. Blonde Movie Review & Film Summary (2022) | Roger Ebert. Https://Www.Rogerebert.Com/, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blonde-movie-review-2022. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Niagara Movie Script. https://www.scripts.com/script.php?id=niagara_14741&p=14. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Showalter, Elaine. Joyce Carol Oatess Blonde Is the Definitive Study of American Celebrity. The New Yorker, 13 Apr. 2020. www.newyorker.com, https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/joyce-carol-oatess-blonde-is-the-definitive-study-of-american-celebrity.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rebel-wilson-acv-keto/

Rebel Wilson Did Not Endorse ACV Keto Weight Loss Gummies

Jordan Liles

07/20/2022

In July 2022, scammers used actor Rebel Wilson's image and likeness without her authorization, adding her to their fraudulent roster of celebrities who supposedly endorsed CBD gummies, apple cider vinegar (ACV) keto gummies, and weight loss diet pills. One specific product that Wilson supposedly gave her blessing to was Simpli Health ACV+Keto Gummies, according to a number of fake "reviews" that showed up in Google News search results. In reality, these "reviews" were paid sponsored content articles. Wilson never endorsed any of these products, nor did a number of other celebrities whose names we found alongside hers. Google News search results sponsored content Sometime during the month of July, Wilson showed up in a fake article on feronia4.top/chensang3365, a website that scammers had designed to look just like People.com. In reality, the scammers simply copied the design of People.com in an effort to fool potential victims into believing it was a legitimate news website. Wilson The fake People.com article showed the headline, "Oprah Winfrey Considers Break from Fame to Focus on New Business Venture that's Helped Her and Millions of Women Melt Body Fat and Get Ripped in Weeks." It falsely claimed that Winfrey and Wilson had endorsed either CBD gummies or apple cider vinegar keto gummies. We previously reported about Winfrey's named being used in these kinds of scams without her authorization. Winfrey previously reported Farther down in the fake article, it showed an Instagram picture comparison that Wilson supposedly posted on Dec. 24, 2020. However, the caption had been doctored. In the post, she supposedly said, "ACV is the REAL DEAL!" Wilson never made this post, nor did she ever say that apple cider vinegar contributed to her weight loss. The same fake People.com article that was created by scammers falsely claimed that Kelly Osbourne, Rachael Ray, Melissa McCarthy, Christina Aguilera, Blake Shelton, and Wendy Williams also endorsed apple cider vinegar keto gummies. Blake Shelton apple cider vinegar Women's Health previously reported about Wilson's real weight loss journey. One reason she decided to lose 80 pounds was to help her chances with fertility. According to the story, she contributed her weight loss to exercise and a high protein diet, not apple cider vinegar or CBD or keto gummies. She also once posted to her Instagram Stories that she "NEVER endorsed any diet pills or magic weight loss pills," saying that she didn't "want anyone to get scammed." reported CBD keto In sum, no, Wilson never endorsed Simpli Health ACV Keto Gummies or any other similar CBD, keto, or apple cider vinegar products. Liles, Jordan. Blake Shelton Allegations and CBD Gummies Page Are Misleading. Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blake-shelton-allegations-cbd-gummies/. ---. Did Oprah Winfrey Endorse Whoopi Goldbergs CBD Line? Snopes.com, 15 Dec. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winfrey-goldberg-cbd/. ---. Did Oprah Winfrey Suffer a Tragedy and Endorse Keto Weight Loss Gummies? Snopes.com, 12 May 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprah-winfrey-tragedy-keto-gummies/. Nied, Jennifer, et al. Rebel Wilson, 42, Says That Her Weight Doesnt Define Her In Vacay IG Post. Womens Health, https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a30811784/rebel-wilson-weight-loss/.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whole-foods-secret-shopper/

'Whole Foods Market Research' Secret Shopper Email Is a Scam

Jordan Liles

10/21/2022

In October 2022, we received reader mail about a "Whole Foods Market Research" scam. The scam arrives in the form of an email, text, or mailed letter, and claims that the recipient has been chosen to be a secret shopper for Whole Foods Market. The goal of the scammer is to get the recipient to deposit a check into the recipient's bank account. However, unbeknownst to the recipient, the check is fake. The scammer is to quickly task the recipient to buy gift cards and then provide the identifying details on the front and back. Alternatively, the scammer might ask the recipient to initiate a wire transfer or money order to send back a partial amount of the funds from the check. The scammer claims that the recipient can keep a portion of the funds for the work. However, again, the check is fake, so recipients are spending their own money to buy gift cards for the scammers. We reviewed one example of this scam that arrived as an email. It came from wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com, which was not an official Whole Foods email address. It claimed to come from a person named Jerry A. Wallace, a purported human resources (HR) representative. A previous version of this scam named Wallace as a "project manager," according to scampulse.com. We found no evidence of a person with this name being a real employee for Whole Foods. according to scampulse.com The original email, which contained several store name misspellings, read as follows: wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com wrote: Attn: (name removed) You submitted your information to one of our recruitment agencies to work as a Whole Foods Market Research representative. Your details have been verified and you have been shortlisted as one of our representatives. Here is your unique I.D. number MS6953, your details have been stored in our database. Our company has recently been contracted to do a quality survey on Target, King Soopers, Walmart Stores, Best Buy, Post Office, CVS, Rite Aid, Ebay, Kmart, Pizza Hut, Kroger, Walgreen, Dillons OR 7Eleven e.t.c. We have shortlisted a few representatives from various states and cities to visit any of the stores listed above randomly, to buy merchandise and share their experience via our feedback Checklist/Assessment form. You will receive an envelope containing a Cashier's Check and the Instructions Letter. The Checklist/Assessment Form will be sent/attached to your mail. Please signify your interest with a Yes, I'm Ready. Thank you. Best Regards,Whole Foods Market ResearchHR Personnel :- Jerry A. WallaceCell :- (216) 239-2582 We called the phone number listed in the email. After several rings, a voice message was played that said, "The TextNow subscriber you are trying to reach is not available. Please leave your message after the tone." The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) previously published a full report on this scam back in 2020: full report People spotted signs of a fake check scam in the bogus Whole Foods secret shopper offer (which was from a scammer, not really Whole Foods). Thats when someone sends you a check and convinces you to deposit it and quickly send them money. In this scam, the recruiter would send shoppers a check for more than $2,000 and they would: fake check scam 1. Cash or deposit the check immediately.2. Buy gift cards with most of the money.3. Keep about $450 as their pay.4. Scratch the coating off the gift cards to show the PIN codes.5. Send pictures of the cards front and back (with the codes) to the recruiter. If anyone ever tells you to deposit a check, withdraw money, and send it to someone, thats a scam. When the check later turns out to be fake, the bank will want the money back. And if anyone tells you to go buy gift cards and share the PIN numbers, thats a scam, too. Once the scammer has the PIN, they also have all the money from the cards. The FTC said this scam can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. They also added, "If you already cashed a fake check and sent money to a scammer, find out how to report to gift card, wire transfer, and money order businesses." ReportFraud.ftc.gov find out how In sum, both we and the FTC advise consumers to not respond to any emails, texts, or mailed letters that invite recipients to work as a secret shopper for "Whole Foods Market Research." How To Spot, Avoid, and Report Fake Check Scams. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 29 Jan. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-report-fake-check-scams. Imposter H-SON LIMITED Reports & Reviews. Scampulse.com, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.scampulse.com/imposter-h-son-limited-reviews. Small, Bridget. Fake Offers for Secret Shopper Jobs. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 3 Mar. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2020/03/fake-offers-secret-shopper-jobs. Tressler, Colleen. Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 5 Sept. 2018, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2018/09/anatomy-fake-check-scam.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whole-foods-secret-shopper/

The email claiming to be a secret shopper opportunity for Whole Foods Market Research is a fraudulent hoax.

Jordan Liles

10/21/2022

In October 2022, we received reader mail about a "Whole Foods Market Research" scam. The scam arrives in the form of an email, text, or mailed letter, and claims that the recipient has been chosen to be a secret shopper for Whole Foods Market. The goal of the scammer is to get the recipient to deposit a check into the recipient's bank account. However, unbeknownst to the recipient, the check is fake. The scammer is to quickly task the recipient to buy gift cards and then provide the identifying details on the front and back. Alternatively, the scammer might ask the recipient to initiate a wire transfer or money order to send back a partial amount of the funds from the check. The scammer claims that the recipient can keep a portion of the funds for the work. However, again, the check is fake, so recipients are spending their own money to buy gift cards for the scammers. We reviewed one example of this scam that arrived as an email. It came from wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com, which was not an official Whole Foods email address. It claimed to come from a person named Jerry A. Wallace, a purported human resources (HR) representative. A previous version of this scam named Wallace as a "project manager," according to scampulse.com. We found no evidence of a person with this name being a real employee for Whole Foods. according to scampulse.com The original email, which contained several store name misspellings, read as follows: wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com wrote: Attn: (name removed) You submitted your information to one of our recruitment agencies to work as a Whole Foods Market Research representative. Your details have been verified and you have been shortlisted as one of our representatives. Here is your unique I.D. number MS6953, your details have been stored in our database. Our company has recently been contracted to do a quality survey on Target, King Soopers, Walmart Stores, Best Buy, Post Office, CVS, Rite Aid, Ebay, Kmart, Pizza Hut, Kroger, Walgreen, Dillons OR 7Eleven e.t.c. We have shortlisted a few representatives from various states and cities to visit any of the stores listed above randomly, to buy merchandise and share their experience via our feedback Checklist/Assessment form. You will receive an envelope containing a Cashier's Check and the Instructions Letter. The Checklist/Assessment Form will be sent/attached to your mail. Please signify your interest with a Yes, I'm Ready. Thank you. Best Regards,Whole Foods Market ResearchHR Personnel :- Jerry A. WallaceCell :- (216) 239-2582 We called the phone number listed in the email. After several rings, a voice message was played that said, "The TextNow subscriber you are trying to reach is not available. Please leave your message after the tone." The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) previously published a full report on this scam back in 2020: full report People spotted signs of a fake check scam in the bogus Whole Foods secret shopper offer (which was from a scammer, not really Whole Foods). Thats when someone sends you a check and convinces you to deposit it and quickly send them money. In this scam, the recruiter would send shoppers a check for more than $2,000 and they would: fake check scam 1. Cash or deposit the check immediately.2. Buy gift cards with most of the money.3. Keep about $450 as their pay.4. Scratch the coating off the gift cards to show the PIN codes.5. Send pictures of the cards front and back (with the codes) to the recruiter. If anyone ever tells you to deposit a check, withdraw money, and send it to someone, thats a scam. When the check later turns out to be fake, the bank will want the money back. And if anyone tells you to go buy gift cards and share the PIN numbers, thats a scam, too. Once the scammer has the PIN, they also have all the money from the cards. The FTC said this scam can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. They also added, "If you already cashed a fake check and sent money to a scammer, find out how to report to gift card, wire transfer, and money order businesses." ReportFraud.ftc.gov find out how In sum, both we and the FTC advise consumers to not respond to any emails, texts, or mailed letters that invite recipients to work as a secret shopper for "Whole Foods Market Research." How To Spot, Avoid, and Report Fake Check Scams. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 29 Jan. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-report-fake-check-scams. Imposter H-SON LIMITED Reports & Reviews. Scampulse.com, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.scampulse.com/imposter-h-son-limited-reviews. Small, Bridget. Fake Offers for Secret Shopper Jobs. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 3 Mar. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2020/03/fake-offers-secret-shopper-jobs. Tressler, Colleen. Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 5 Sept. 2018, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2018/09/anatomy-fake-check-scam.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whole-foods-secret-shopper/

Fraudulent Email Impersonating Whole Foods Market Research Secret Shopper Program

Jordan Liles

10/21/2022

In October 2022, we received reader mail about a "Whole Foods Market Research" scam. The scam arrives in the form of an email, text, or mailed letter, and claims that the recipient has been chosen to be a secret shopper for Whole Foods Market. The goal of the scammer is to get the recipient to deposit a check into the recipient's bank account. However, unbeknownst to the recipient, the check is fake. The scammer is to quickly task the recipient to buy gift cards and then provide the identifying details on the front and back. Alternatively, the scammer might ask the recipient to initiate a wire transfer or money order to send back a partial amount of the funds from the check. The scammer claims that the recipient can keep a portion of the funds for the work. However, again, the check is fake, so recipients are spending their own money to buy gift cards for the scammers. We reviewed one example of this scam that arrived as an email. It came from wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com, which was not an official Whole Foods email address. It claimed to come from a person named Jerry A. Wallace, a purported human resources (HR) representative. A previous version of this scam named Wallace as a "project manager," according to scampulse.com. We found no evidence of a person with this name being a real employee for Whole Foods. according to scampulse.com The original email, which contained several store name misspellings, read as follows: wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com wrote: Attn: (name removed) You submitted your information to one of our recruitment agencies to work as a Whole Foods Market Research representative. Your details have been verified and you have been shortlisted as one of our representatives. Here is your unique I.D. number MS6953, your details have been stored in our database. Our company has recently been contracted to do a quality survey on Target, King Soopers, Walmart Stores, Best Buy, Post Office, CVS, Rite Aid, Ebay, Kmart, Pizza Hut, Kroger, Walgreen, Dillons OR 7Eleven e.t.c. We have shortlisted a few representatives from various states and cities to visit any of the stores listed above randomly, to buy merchandise and share their experience via our feedback Checklist/Assessment form. You will receive an envelope containing a Cashier's Check and the Instructions Letter. The Checklist/Assessment Form will be sent/attached to your mail. Please signify your interest with a Yes, I'm Ready. Thank you. Best Regards,Whole Foods Market ResearchHR Personnel :- Jerry A. WallaceCell :- (216) 239-2582 We called the phone number listed in the email. After several rings, a voice message was played that said, "The TextNow subscriber you are trying to reach is not available. Please leave your message after the tone." The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) previously published a full report on this scam back in 2020: full report People spotted signs of a fake check scam in the bogus Whole Foods secret shopper offer (which was from a scammer, not really Whole Foods). Thats when someone sends you a check and convinces you to deposit it and quickly send them money. In this scam, the recruiter would send shoppers a check for more than $2,000 and they would: fake check scam 1. Cash or deposit the check immediately.2. Buy gift cards with most of the money.3. Keep about $450 as their pay.4. Scratch the coating off the gift cards to show the PIN codes.5. Send pictures of the cards front and back (with the codes) to the recruiter. If anyone ever tells you to deposit a check, withdraw money, and send it to someone, thats a scam. When the check later turns out to be fake, the bank will want the money back. And if anyone tells you to go buy gift cards and share the PIN numbers, thats a scam, too. Once the scammer has the PIN, they also have all the money from the cards. The FTC said this scam can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. They also added, "If you already cashed a fake check and sent money to a scammer, find out how to report to gift card, wire transfer, and money order businesses." ReportFraud.ftc.gov find out how In sum, both we and the FTC advise consumers to not respond to any emails, texts, or mailed letters that invite recipients to work as a secret shopper for "Whole Foods Market Research." How To Spot, Avoid, and Report Fake Check Scams. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 29 Jan. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-report-fake-check-scams. Imposter H-SON LIMITED Reports & Reviews. Scampulse.com, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.scampulse.com/imposter-h-son-limited-reviews. Small, Bridget. Fake Offers for Secret Shopper Jobs. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 3 Mar. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2020/03/fake-offers-secret-shopper-jobs. Tressler, Colleen. Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 5 Sept. 2018, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2018/09/anatomy-fake-check-scam.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/highway-sign-consider-canada/

Highway Sign Urged Drivers to 'Consider Canada' Due to Inauguration Traffic?

Dan Evon

01/20/2017

On 20 January 2017, a photograph purportedly showing a highway sign in Maryland urging drivers to "consider Canada" in avoiding Inauguration Day traffic was widely circulated on social media: This image was just a prank, however, a digitally manipulated version of a more mundane image. The Maryland State Highway Administration published a genuine photograph of the sign on Interstate 270 showing that it actually read "Consider Metro": published State Highway Administration spokesman Charlie Gischlar told the Baltimore Sunthat he sent some workers out to the site after viewing the viral image and confirmed that the words "Consider Canada" did actually appear on the traffic sign: "Whoever did it, though, Ihave to give them credit it looks real." confirmed We also reached out to the Maryland State Highway Administration to confirm that the sign never read "consider Canada": @danieljevon No it did not @danieljevon MD State Highway Adm (@MDSHA) January 20, 2017 January 20, 2017 Dance, Scott. "Viral image of 'Consider Canada' highway sign a hoax, SHA says." Baltimore Sun. 20 January 2017.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/

How Have the Net Worths of Presidents Changed?

David Mikkelson

12/28/2017

An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be: <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips. "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?" Forbes. 12 January 2017. Forbes. "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump." Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan. "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years." Forbes. 8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam. "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?" Town & Country. 12 October 2017. Gore, Leada. "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves." AL.com. 19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer. "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion." Forbes. 28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff. "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton." The New York Times. 5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam. "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?" Town & Country. 23 March 2017.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/

How have the financial assets of Presidents evolved over time?

David Mikkelson

12/28/2017

An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be: <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips. "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?" Forbes. 12 January 2017. Forbes. "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump." Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan. "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years." Forbes. 8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam. "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?" Town & Country. 12 October 2017. Gore, Leada. "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves." AL.com. 19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer. "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion." Forbes. 28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff. "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton." The New York Times. 5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam. "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?" Town & Country. 23 March 2017.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/

What alterations have occurred in the net worths of presidents?

David Mikkelson

12/28/2017

An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be: <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips. "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?" Forbes. 12 January 2017. Forbes. "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump." Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan. "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years." Forbes. 8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam. "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?" Town & Country. 12 October 2017. Gore, Leada. "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves." AL.com. 19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer. "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion." Forbes. 28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff. "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton." The New York Times. 5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam. "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?" Town & Country. 23 March 2017.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/aug/30/david-cicilline/us-rep-david-cicilline-says-united-states-has-been/

When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months.

C. Eugene Emery Jr.

08/30/2012

In the contest for the hearts and minds of voters, Democrats have been claiming that the economy is really improving and the Republicans have been saying they can make the anemic recovery even more robust.During theonline-onlyportion of the Aug. 28 Providence Journal-WPRI debate among Democrats David Cicilline and Anthony Gemma, both running in the 1st Congressional District, incumbent Cicilline was asked how he would tackle the massive national debt.Cicilline said that in addition to cutting spending and closing loopholes in the tax system, the pace of job creation needs to increase.When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months, he said.We've heard a lot of chatter about the job numbers and whether they really indicate a recovery, so we decided to look further.First, a look at what the employment situation was like when Obama took office.Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in January 2009, when the president was sworn in, the country lost 818,000 jobs. (The numbers do not include farm workers and are adjusted for seasonal shifts in employment, but that's the standard way of calculating employment and unemployment rates. )That's 17 percent more than the 700,000 jobs Cicilline cited. (To put the numbers in perspective, the losses for the first three full months that Obama was in office averaged 738,000 per month. The average job loss for the last three full months of the Bush administration was 651,000. )When it comes to thenumber of monthsin which the United States has had job growth, Cicilline's timeframe was also somewhat off.BLS datashow that the last time the United States lost jobs was in September 2010, when 27,000 jobs were lost.That's 22 months ago, not 24.How significant have the increases been?Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institutiontold PolitiFact Nationalin May that the economy needs to create 90,000 to 100,000 jobs each month just to keep pace with the number of people coming into the work force.During 7 of those 22 months, including as recently as April, May and June of this year, job growth was below 100,000. In 8 of the 22 months, it was over 200,000.When we asked his campaign for the source of Cicilline's statement, spokeswoman Nicole Kayner sent usa White House blog itemfrom Aug. 3 reporting: The economy has now added private sector jobs for 29 straight months. We confirmed that with the BLS database, but this is for non-government jobs, and Cicilline didn't make that distinction in his debate comment.Our rulingIn the debate, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline said: When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months.We want to note, as we repeatedly have, that even though there's been improvement in the job numbers during the Obama administration, a president's ability to influence the economy is severely limited.As for Cicillines comment, he understated the job losses occurring when President Obama took office and, by the most commonly used measure, he overstated by two months the timespan of continued job growth. But his main point -- that there has been growth for nearly two years -- is sound.Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elon-musk-billboard/

Is This Elon Musk 'Defend Billionaires' Billboard Real?

Bethania Palma

06/11/2021

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. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines 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. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples. 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. trolled

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elon-musk-billboard/

Is this billboard about Elon Musk defending billionaires genuine?

Bethania Palma

06/11/2021

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. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines 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. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples. 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. trolled

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elon-musk-billboard/

Is this billboard claiming Elon Musk is defending billionaires authentic?

Bethania Palma

06/11/2021

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. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines 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. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples. 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. trolled

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-george-floyd-mlk/

Did Biden Say George Floyd's Death Had Greater 'Worldwide Impact' Than MLK's?

Dan MacGuill

04/07/2021

In April 2021, an old quote attributed to U.S. President Joe Biden saw a resurgence in shares on social media, overwhelmingly from users who disapproved of his purported claim that the death of George Floyd in May 2020 had had a greater "worldwide impact" than the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The remarks attributed to Biden were: "Dr. King's assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd's death did": To demonstrate the popularity of the meme, the following screenshot shows just a selection of posts from Facebook alone: Facebook The quotation was authentic, and originated in remarks Biden made at a campaign event in June 2020. As such, we are issuing a rating of "Correct Attribution." The following is an excerpted transcript of the relevant portion of Biden's remarks, which came at a roundtable event on COVID-19 and the American economy, in Philadelphia, on June 11, 2020. Video of the remarks can be viewed below. Around halfway through the discussion, U.S. Rep. Dwight Evans, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, asked Biden a question that alluded to ongoing social and racial tensions in the United States, and how his campaign pledge to "restore the soul of America" related to those issues. In response, the then-presumptive Democratic nominee criticized then-President Donald Trump for his remarks on white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and his divisive and inflammatory comments about Mexican immigrants. He noted that people of color were being disproportionately struck with the COVID-19 pandemic, and then moved into a discussion about the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in May 2020 after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes. Floyd's death sparked a renewed wave of protests about police brutality and racial injustice throughout the United States and in other parts of the world. Biden said: ...George gets brutally murdered for the whole world to see it. You've never seen and I come out of the, I was a kid when Dr. King, I came back from law school when Dr. King was assassinated. And when I came back, my city [Wilmington, Delaware] is the only city in America occupied by the National Guard since Reconstruction, because a significant portion was burned to the ground. I came back, I had a job with a good law firm, and I quit and became a public defender. But even Dr. King's assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd's death did. Because, just like television changed the civil rights movement for the better when they saw Bull Connor and his dogs ripping the clothes off of elderly black women going to church, and fire hoses ripping the skin off of young kids all those folks around the country that didn't have any black populations heard about this, but they didn't believe it, but they saw it. It was impossible to close their eyes. Bull Connor Well with George Floyd, what happened to George Floyd, now you've got how many people around the country, millions of cellphones. It's changed the way everybody's looking at this. Look at the millions of people marching around the world, the world. So my point is that I think people are really realizing that this is a battle for the soul of America. Who are we? What do we want to be? How do we see ourselves? What do we think we should be? [Emphasis is added]. As the transcript and video show, Biden did indeed say "Dr. King's assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd's death did," and the memes therefore quoted him accurately. In full context, Biden appeared to be making a point less about the relative historic importance of King's life and achievements, but rather the global audience that watched cellphone video footage of Floyd's death. However, Biden also referred to "the millions of people marching around the world" in response to Floyd's death, so his argument did not appear to be limited only to the manner in which modern technology enabled footage of Floyd's death to reach a global audience. Floyd's death did indeed inspire protests and demonstrations of solidarity throughout the world, in the ensuing days and weeks. In Germany and England, high-profile professional soccer players made gestures of support for Floyd, and for the broader Black Lives Matter movement. throughout the world gestures of support In the English Premier League, the most-watched soccer league in the world, players replaced the names on their jerseys with the words "Black Lives Matter," for the final 12 games of the 2019-20 season, and began "taking a knee" before every game, in the aftermath of Floyd's death a ritual that has persisted until time of publication, almost one year after the death of George Floyd. replaced

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-kkk-taliban-endorse-trump/

Did the Taliban Endorse Trump While Scientific Community Endorsed Biden?

Madison Dapcevich

10/14/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here As the 2020 U.S. presidential election inched closer, the internet was flooded with misleading memes about both candidates, including the allegation that extremist organizations like the Taliban and Ku Klux Klan supported U.S. President Donald Trump, while the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and other bipartisan groups openly endorsed Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The claims were first put forth by screenwriter and author Bess Kalb, whose work has been featured on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" and The New Yorker. In a Twitter post shared on Oct. 11, she suggested that extremist groups supported Trump while implying that more even-keeled organizations backed Biden. At the time of publication, the tweet had received more than 370,000 likes. post Although Kalb didn't specify in the tweet which candidate received endorsements from whom, it was perfectly clear to anyone following news about the presidential campaigns at the time which was which: Biden's endorsers included the magazine Scientific American, and the Trump campaign had publicly rejected an alleged endorsement from the Taliban. To verify Kalb's claim, we broke it down into four sections to address each of her assertions. Like much viral content, her statement contained kernels of truth that had been taken out of context or were inaccurately represented. In October 2020, CBS News claimed to have spoken with Zubihullah Mujahid, a spokesperson of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or Taliban, who allegedly told the publication that the extremist group believed that Trump would win the November 2020 election. In an exclusive telephone interview, Mujahid reportedly said that Trump had "proved himself a politician who accomplished all the major promises he had made to American people." claimed Another senior Taliban leader said that the organization hoped Trump will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan." CBS News added that the Talibans enthusiasm for Trump is grounded in the goal they share of getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan after 19 years of war a longtime promise of the president. However, Mujahid denied the claims made by CBS News and wrote in an Oct. 10 tweet that the publication had misinterpreted his remarks. A subsequently translated tweet shared as a comment added that nothing like what they published has happened. wrote Oct. 10 translated tweet Tim Murtaugh, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, told Axios in an emailed statement, We reject their support and the Taliban should know that the President will always protect American interests by any means necessary, unlike Joe Biden who opposed taking out Osama bin Laden and Qasem Soleimani." In an Oct. 10 tweet, Murtaugh added that he had told CBS News that the Trump campaign rejected the endorsement. Axios tweet Snopes attempted to contact Murtaugh on Twitter but did not receive a response in time for publication. Our message to the Trump campaign also went unanswered. At the announcement of Trumps 2016 bid, the KKK published a full-page spread supporting Trump in its official quarterly newspaper, The Crusader. In an interview with MSNBC, Trump said that that he disavowed former KKK leader David Duke and that his campaign rejected the endorsement, issuing the following statement to news outlets in 2016: full-page spread disavowed statement Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form. This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign. The KKK endorsement followed the Trump presidency for years. It resurfaced again in January 2020 when a manipulated photo claimed to show a group of KKK members marching behind a campaign sign for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. A message accompanying the meme at the time claimed, This is all you need to know about why you should vote Blue in 2020. As our previous fact check concluded, the photograph in question was not genuine it was taken during a march in Pulaski, Tennessee, in July 2009. The banner actually read, Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. manipulated photo Spencer Platt / Staff White supremacist and former Grand Wizard David Duke, whose Twitter account was suspended in October 2020, has expressed support for Trump on more than one occasion. In a video shared to Twitter by verified photojournalist Mykal McEldowney of the Indy Star (which has been archived here) from the Aug. 12, 2017, Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the former KKK leader offered support to the president. Twitter account suspended expressed support more than one occasion shared here Were going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. Thats what we believed in. Thats why we voted for Donald Trump because he said hes going to take our country back. And thats what we had to do. Trump expressed disapproval of Duke and disavowed white supremacy on "Good Morning America" in 2016. During a televised debate on Sept. 29, 2020, the president was asked to clearly and explicitly condemn white supremacy, which he failed to do on that occasion, though he did condemn "all white supremacists," mentioning the KKK specifically, during a Fox News interview two days later. expressed "Good Morning America" asked condemn NEJM, an esteemed medical journal that publishes research and reviews articles, took an unprecedented step when it published an Oct. 8 editorial urging voters to render judgment on the current political leaders, adding that they were dangerously incompetent in their ignorance and handling of the pandemic. Oct. 8 editorial The column, titled Dying in a Leadership Vacuum, did not explicitly name Trump, nor did it acknowledge Biden. Rather, it laid blame on a failing leadership and administration that inadequately responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, further polarizing and politicizing Americans while disenfranchising vulnerable communities and leaving behind health care professionals who have put their lives on the line. By making masks political tools rather than effective infection control measures, continuing to push inaccurate guidelines, and deferring to pandemic responses at the state level many of which did not have adequate resources to fight such a public health crisis without the support of the federal government the publication argued that U.S. leaders ignored and even denigrate[d] experts, furthering that the COVID-19 response a was a failure that had taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy. The editorial went on to say the following: The response of our nations leaders has been consistently inadequate. The federal government has largely abandoned disease control to the states. Governors have varied in their responses, not so much by party as by competence. But whatever their competence, governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. Instead of using those tools, the federal government has undermined them. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was the worlds leading disease response organization, has been eviscerated and has suffered dramatic testing and policy failures. The National Institutes of Health have played a key role in vaccine development but have been excluded from much crucial government decision making. And the Food and Drug Administration has been shamefully politicized, appearing to respond to pressure from the administration rather than scientific evidence. Our current leaders have undercut trust in science and in government, causing damage that will certainly outlast them. Instead of relying on expertise, the administration has turned to uninformed opinion leaders and charlatans who obscure the truth and facilitate the promulgation of outright lies. [] Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment. Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs. It is unclear what broad bipartisan coalition Kalb refers to in her tweet; however, both candidates indeed have a long list of endorsements from both sides of the political aisle. Most notably, in mid-September Scientific American backed Biden, marking it the second publication to break stride in endorsing a presidential candidate for the first time in its history. Again, the editorial board cited Trumps rejection of science and pandemic response as a catalyst. Scientific American "The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September," wrote the publication. 190,000 Americans their lives "He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future." A list of endorsements from political leaders and labor unions can be found on Bidens official campaign website, but as with most political candidates, the majority of his endorsers are partisan. Those include activist groups built around the platforms of LGBTQ, environmental, animal, womens reproductive rights, and labor unions representing dozens of industries from across the nation. That being said, a number of established newspapers have also endorsed the former vice president, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Boston Globe. By comparison, Trump is backed by activist groups that include religious organizations, law enforcement, and pro-life organizations. Trump has been endorsed by a handful of publications, including The Boston Herald and The Tulsa Beacon. (You can view a full list of Trump endorsements here.) list The Washington Post The New York Times The Boston Globe The Boston Herald The Tulsa Beacon here In the weeks that led up to the general election in 2020, discord and contention dominated U.S. political discourse. As with many viral and political posts, memes, videos, or content, elements of truth are not fully represented in a short character count. Generally speaking, this claim was based in truth but lacked the context needed to characterize both the Trump and Biden campaigns accurately. Goddard, Emily. "Taliban Denise Endorsing Trump." Independent. 11 Oct. 2020. Yousafzai, Sami. "The Taliban on Trump: We Hope He Will Win the Election and Withdraw U.S. Troops." CBS News. 11 Oct. 2020. Falconer, Rebecca. "Trump Campaign Rejects Talibans Endorsement for U.S. President." Axios. 11 Oct. 2020. Levine, Jon. Osama bin Ladens Niece Says Only Trump Can Prevent Another 9/11." New York Post. 5 Sept. 2020. Furr, Amy. "Osama bin Ladens Niece: Only President Trump Can Stop Second 9/11-Style Attack." Breitbart. 5 Sept. 2020. Begly, Sarah. "The KKKs Newspapers Has Endorsed Donald Trump." Time. 2 Nov. 2020. Evon, Dan. "Did the KKK March With a Trump-Pence Sign?" Snopes. 13 Jan. 2020. Sherman, Amy. "Joe Biden Says President Trump Hasnt Condemned David Duke and Richard Spencer." PolitiFact. Publication date. "Donald Trump Speaks Out on the KKK, Super Tuesday." ABC News. MacGuill, Dan. "Did Trump Refuse to Condemn White Supremacists at Debate?" Snopes. 30 Sept. 2020. Shepherd, Katie. "The New England Journal of Medicine Avoided Politics for 208 Years. Now Its Urging Voters to Oust Trump." The Washington Post. 8 Oct. 2020. "Dying in a Leadership Vacuum." New England Journal of Medicine. 8 Oct. 2020. Scientific American. "Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden." October 2020. Washington Post Editorial Board. "Joe Biden for President." The Washington Post. 28 Sept. 2020. The Boston Globe. "The Globe Endorses Joe Biden for President." 6 Oct. 2020. Nelson, Libby. "'Why We Voted for Donald Trump': David Duke Explains the White Supremacist Charlottesville Protests." Vox. 12 Aug. 2020. Sakuma, Amanda. "KKK Paper The Crusader Backs Trump; Campaign Rejects It." NBC News. 2 Nov. 2020. Naughtie, Andrew. "Former KKK Leader Endorses Trump for President Again and Tucker Carlson for VP." Independent. 9 July 2020. Diaz, Daniella. "Trump Campaign Denounces KKKs Official Newspapers Support." CNN. 2 Nov. 2020. Timm, Jane. "Donald Trumps Oral History of David Duke and White Supremacists." NBC News. 29 Nov. 2016. Detrow, Scott. "KKK Paper Endorses Trump; Campaign Calls Outlet Repulsive. NPR. 2 Nov. 2016.

neutral