Datasets:

1-800-SHARED-TASKS

/

COLING-2025-FINNLP-FMD

like 2

Follow

1-800-Shared-Tasks 33

Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.

[]

On hisfirst visitto Wisconsin since taking office, PresidentDonald Trumpcame to Kenosha, a city once synonymous with manufacturing, to sign an executive order as part of his Buy American, Hire American agenda. Its aimed at boosting jobs in the United States. SpeakingApril 18, 2017 at Snap-on Inc., a tool manufacturer, Trump made a claim about China. He implied it had a hand in the loss of American jobs, saying: For too long, weve watched as our factories have been closed and our jobs have been sent to other faraway lands. Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization. And youve seen that, youve heard about it -- 70,000. The World Trade Organization -- another one of our disasters. Congress cleared the path for Chinas2001 entryinto the World Trade Organization, which deals with the rules of trade between nations and works for open trade.The entryspurred investment in China and produced a lot more movement of goods -- leading tobroad agreementthat the change cost America millions of jobs. But how many factories? And were there other factors? Previous claim Trumps claim is nearly the same one he made a month earlier at a rally in Kentucky, when he said: Since China joined thats another beauty the WTO in 2001, the U.S. has lost many more than 60,000 factories. PolitiFact Nationals rating wasMostly True. Heres what our colleagues found: The latest-available U.S. Census counts, for 2014, show the number of American factory establishments has dropped to below 300,000. The decrease since China joined the World Trade Organization was nearly 61,000, according to one Census tally, and more than 73,000 according to another. Some of that decline is due to Chinas becoming a bigger player in the world economy by joining the WTO, as our colleagues reported: Around the same time China joined the WTO, the United States gave China permanent normal trade relations status. Both of these actions removed significant barriers to trade and investment with China, basically putting them on an even playing field with the United States other trading partners. In the 16 years since, United States imports from China have quadrupled, in large part because production is so cheap there, making U.S.-based manufacturers less competitive. We found three significant economic studies from the past few years that all conclude increased free trade with China has had a negative impact on American manufacturing and jobs. At the same time, experts said the loss of factories was also brought on by other factors, including U.S. trade deficits with other parts of Asia and Europe; a slow recovery after the Great Recession; and increased manufacturing productivity in the United States. TheTrump-O-Meter, which tracks Trumps campaign promises, showsTrump has pledgedto reverse Chinas entry into the WTO. For its part,China maintainsthat its entry has led to global economic growth. Our rating Trump said: Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.The latest U.S. Census figures, for 2014, produced two counts: 73,000, which supports Trumps claim, and 61,000. And at least some of the losses can be attributed to increased trade with China. We rate the statement Mostly True. More Trump As he prepared to visit Wisconsin, Trumps record on the Truth-O-Meter -- on statements fact checkedsince hes been president-- shows roughly two-thirds of his statements have been rated near the bottom of the meter.

['China', 'Jobs', 'Trade', 'Workers', 'Wisconsin']

True

On hisfirst visitto Wisconsin since taking office, PresidentDonald Trumpcame to Kenosha, a city once synonymous with manufacturing, to sign an executive order as part of his Buy American, Hire American agenda. Its aimed at boosting jobs in the United States.SpeakingApril 18, 2017 at Snap-on Inc., a tool manufacturer, Trump made a claim about China. He implied it had a hand in the loss of American jobs, saying:Congress cleared the path for Chinas2001 entryinto the World Trade Organization, which deals with the rules of trade between nations and works for open trade.The entryspurred investment in China and produced a lot more movement of goods -- leading tobroad agreementthat the change cost America millions of jobs.PolitiFact Nationals rating wasMostly True.TheTrump-O-Meter, which tracks Trumps campaign promises, showsTrump has pledgedto reverse Chinas entry into the WTO.For its part,China maintainsthat its entry has led to global economic growth.As he prepared to visit Wisconsin, Trumps record on the Truth-O-Meter -- on statements fact checkedsince hes been president-- shows roughly two-thirds of his statements have been rated near the bottom of the meter.

Book Bind

['Is the New Orleans Public Library seeking book donations?']

The New Orleans Public Library is asking for any and all hardcover and paperback books for people of all ages in an effort to restock the shelves after Katrina. The staff will assess which titles will be designated for its collections. The rest will be distributed to destitute families or sold for library fundraising. Please send your books to: Rica A. Trigs, Public Relations, New Orleans Public Library, 219 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112. If you inform the post office that the books are for the library in New Orleans, they will give you the library rate, which is slightly less than the book rate. The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf area included serious harm to the New Orleans Public Library (NOPL) system. Katrina damaged the main library and all 12 branches in the system, and as of March 2006, only the main library and four branches are open, and even those for only five hours a day. Until just recently, only 19 of the former 216 NOPL employees remained on the job, the rest having been laid off partly because of city budget cuts. While another 21 workers have since been rehired, bringing the total up to 40, the libraries are not only physically damaged but are also badly understaffed. This brings us to the March 2006 appeal for used books to restock the New Orleans Public Library system. While the NOPL will accept donated books, potential contributors should take into account the enormous staffing problem the NOPL is attempting to cope with. While it might seem a brilliant plan to ship off all one's unwanted volumes to address the need for books to replace those lost or hopelessly damaged by the flooding, the public libraries in that beleaguered city do not have the staff to adequately receive, sort through, catalogue, and place on the shelves all of the public's kindhearted offerings. With many of the area's libraries still physically unfit to be opened to the public, it is fair to say they currently lack even the shelves to put the books on. In response to this widely e-mailed appeal, the New Orleans Public Library has created a FAQ to aid those desirous of lending a helping hand to that institution. In a nutshell, they ask the public to donate money instead of books. FAQ: Does the library accept book donations? Yes. However, due to storage and staff limitations, we ask that donors consider a few suggestions: If you are a publisher, please contact us in advance at wmascari@gno.lib.la.us before shipping large quantities of books. If you are an individual sending your own used books, please consider making a cash donation instead. As the NOPL states: What is the best way to help the New Orleans Public Library? Monetary donations are the best way to help the library rebuild. If you would rather mail your donation, please make your check payable to NOPL Foundation and send it to New Orleans Public Library Foundation, 219 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112. While packaging up your old books and mailing them off might seem like the perfect solution to the NOPL's problems, trust that the library knows its own needs best. Keep in mind that many books donated to libraries everywhere prove to be non-useful to those institutions; so, if you are moved to help, send money instead. If you want to support the New Orleans libraries with your old books, you can best do so by selling them yourself and giving the proceeds to the NOPL. Barbara "send cash, not cache" Mikkelson Last updated: 18 March 2006 Sources: Associated Press. "Library Journal, American Library Assn Fixing Two N.O. Libraries." 11 March 2006.

['budget']

False

In response to this widely e-mailed appeal, the New Orleans Public Library has created a FAQ to aid those persons desirous of lending a helping hand to that institution. In a nutshell, they ask the public to donate money over books:Monetary donations are the best way to help the library rebuild (link here to donate online). If you would rather mail your donation, please make your check payable to NOPL Foundation and send it to New Orleans Public Library Foundation, 219 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112.

Was Creator of 'Bernie Mittens' Taxed Out of Business?

["That would be ironic considering the progressive senator's unabashed proposals to impose new taxes."]

As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose the hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and her reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: "The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders' mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much." To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: "Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president?" Ellis responded, "Oh my gosh, I cried. I'm 42 and I've waited four decades of my life to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. I'm not really on Twitter—I have an account, but I don't really participate—but a lot of my younger colleagues do, and they were like, 'You've gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and they're not knitted, they're sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale, and being a little naïve about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they can't. I don't have any more, and I don't have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasn't worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasn't really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts." In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors—no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products—to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll tax on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them altogether, as The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising, and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughter's college fund. After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc., helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." "I'm not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second-grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear—I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products, and people were spending money on them as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information.

['taxes']

NEI

As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes.Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care.Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment.Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading:The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much.To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton:So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts.On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's.All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits.Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.)Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund.After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported.On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens.As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL.""Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic."

Says President Franklin Delano Roosevelt felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people.

[]

Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon. Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum. The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools. We think it has a dynamic impact going forward on how we perform, and that is putting power in the hands of the people duly elected at the state and at the local level, Walker said. Its why -- some people are surprised to know this -- the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining, Walker added. He felt that there wasn't a need -- and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others -- felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people. Did Roosevelt -- the patron of the post-Depression boost in organizing by industrial unions in the private sector -- really take the position that when it came to federal government employees, there wasnt a need to have collective bargaining? Before we check Walkers claim, lets stipulate the obvious: There are dramatic differences between Walker and the architect of the New Deal, from their approaches to governing in times of economic distress to their views on the proper size and role of the state. In the labor realm, when it came to private-sector unions whose cause he championed, FDR called collective bargaining a fundamental individual right. Walker, meanwhile, has not ruled out signing right to work limits on private-sector unions, though hes not pushing it now. Thats one reason the comparison so riled Democrats and union leaders. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with strong investment in workers and jobs programs that worked, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO leader Phil Neuenfeldt said. Scott Walker is drowning in a jobs deficit and to compare himself to FDR is laughably delusional. But Walker in his speech made a claim on a very specific historical point: FDRs views on collective bargaining for public employees. And that is the claim we are examining. Where Roosevelt stood Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDRs sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high. Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelts views on this issue. And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organizations 20th jubilee convention. In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers. Organizations of government employees have a logical place in Government affairs, he wrote. But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walkers comment: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, he wrote. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. Roosevelt didnt stop there. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations, he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said the government is the people, he had Roosevelts next line in mind. The employer, Roosevelts letter added, is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFEs bylaws rejected strikes. The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees. Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference. His statements there add more weight to Walkers claim. A reporter directly asked Roosevelt whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government. Roosevelts response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join any union they want, he said. But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law. The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay, Roosevelt said. His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937. At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents? Roosevelt: Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isnt any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise. Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system. When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it impossible for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didnt leave a lot of ambiguity. Same with the phrase insurmountable limitations. What the scholars say Perhaps because of the strong wording of his views, the 1937 letter remains -- nearly 75 years later -- the best piece of evidence on this topic. Even scholars and union officials who chafe at Walker linking himself to FDR have acknowledged the letters significance. Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011. And the current head of the National Federation of Federal Employees says Roosevelts words meant he believed that there should be no right to federal bargaining over wages and benefits. The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities. To be sure, Roosevelts views were in part a product of his time. At the time, government unions had no collective bargaining rights, and it was not uncommon for elected officials to stand against union bargaining rights for government employees. Even in the private-sector, labor rights were still developing, their constitutionality still under debate in the courts. The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits. Still, there are prominent scholarly voices who think Roosevelts 1937 letter has been misinterpreted, at least in part. One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike. When we asked McCartin about that interview, he said he had spoken prematurely. He and other historians note that Roosevelt wrote that collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. Historians and union officials have parsed the phrase for decades, debating its meaning, and sometimes disagreeing with each other. The phrase, some say, leaves open the possibility that Roosevelt supported a modified form of collective bargaining, different from what private workers had created. They note that in the letter, Roosevelt directed his opposition most specifically at the right to strike. Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions. Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining. TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions. Hart felt that the apparent contradiction between FDRs TVA comments and his 1937 letter strongly suggested that Roosevelt was not denouncing all elements of collective bargaining in the letter. How Walkers action compares Scholars, including McCartin, believe FDRs views might have evolved in favor of public sector bargaining -- and against what Walker did. We wont judge that for this item, but well end with a few observations regarding the two situations, separated by nearly three-quarters of a century. In substance, Walkers move dramatically limited, but did not completely end, collective bargaining by most public employees. His Act 10 allowed the state to cut benefits and try to limit pay increases. He argued that unions had become too powerful and that elected representatives of the people should have more control over taxpayer-funded compensation. Roosevelt said in the 1937 press conference that compensation levels for federal employees should be set by Congress and the president, not through bargaining with unions. So both men -- decades apart -- envisioned a limited role for unions in the public sector. But the differences in context make the two mens views hard to compare. Walker acted after 50 years of collective bargaining between the state and its employees -- in the birthplace of public collective bargaining -- while FDR expressed his views before labor won that toehold into that arena. Our rating Walker said FDR felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelts 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDRs deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining. While Roosevelt was open to discussion with represented and unrepresented employees over working conditions, he seemingly had major concerns about a formal, contractual bargaining process. Scholars cite Roosevelts positive comments on the Tennessee Valley Authority labor contracts, and debate certain phraseology in FDR's writings, but its limited evidence compared to the clear impression left by the letter and press conference remarks. Roosevelt saw a logical place for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them. We rate Walkers narrow statement True.

['Federal Budget', 'Labor', 'State Budget', 'States', 'Unions', 'Wisconsin']

True

Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum.The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools.And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least.The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees.Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference.Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011.The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities.The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits.One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike.Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions.Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining.TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions.

Was Fauci portrayed as the antagonist in 'Dallas Buyers Club'?

['A periodic reminder that movies are not real life.']

In December 2021, a meme circulated on social media claiming that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the U.S. COVID-19 response and has become a figure of disdain for pandemic conspiracy theorists, was the real-life model for the villain in the 2013 movie "Dallas Buyers Club." The meme features images from the movie's promotional materials, including stars Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, and Jared Leto, alongside a black-and-white photograph of a young Fauci. It also includes text that reads: "Remember the movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' about a group of AIDS patients fighting for the right to use cheap, effective drugs against government bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Pharma? The bad guy was Dr. Anthony Fauci." First of all, we note that movies are not real life. Even if it were true that the villain in the movie was based on Fauci, that doesn't mean the story is completely factual rather than dramatized for the purpose of making a good movie. Producer Rachel Winter commented on this in a statement published by Slate in 2013: "[Screenwriters] Craig [Borten] and Melisa [Wallack] found the right blend of accuracy, not only for the medical details but for the legal and government issues that Ron faced. There was only so far we could go into 'procedural' mode; the movie had to be entertaining." And entertaining it was, racking up six Academy Award nominations and winning Oscars for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Makeup and Hairstyling. Various aspects of the movie's script do not align with the claim that the villain in the film was modeled after Fauci, and we could not find any public statements made by anyone involved with the film indicating that the antagonist was based on him. The film is a classic tale of the heroic man who uses his ingenuity and grit to confront the uncaring and callous bureaucrats of Big Government. Although the protagonist in the story is a real person, the antagonists appear to be fictional characters. We do not know whether they are based on real people or amalgamations of individuals the protagonist encountered during his life. McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a hard-living Dallas electrician and rodeo rider who is diagnosed with HIV in 1985. At that time, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was considered a death sentence because there was no treatment for the new epidemic. Woodroof is placed in a clinical trial for azidothymidine (AZT). The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and the medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and obtaining an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, initially for profit and later to save lives, only to be pursued by an FDA agent. The antagonist (or "bad guy") in the film is an FDA investigator, which is not an equivalent position to the one Fauci held at the time the events portrayed in the film took place. Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he was not an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film. The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT nor Woodroof's legal troubles were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. While it is true that the doses prescribed early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug. The Post noted that AZT became an important part of lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment for about a decade and, as such, saved "millions" of lives. The film included a title card at the end admitting as much. Its portrayal of the FDA's actions regarding such buyers clubs was also factually problematic, as in reality, the FDA did cooperate with them. Peter Staley, an HIV/AIDS activist who informally consulted on the film, told the Post: "The true story was that we made the system bend, and we used the system and needed the system. I wouldn't be alive today without the companies this film paints as evil, and I wouldn't be alive today without civil servants at the FDA who worked incredibly hard in the 1990s to get these drugs out there quickly." Furthermore, Woodroof's issues with the FDA largely stemmed from "his reluctance to stop using harmful treatments." In sum, there is no evidence that the antagonist in the movie was based on Fauci, and even if that were the case, it does not mean one should draw any real-world conclusions about Fauci based on a movie made for entertainment purposes.

['profit']

NEI

In December 2021, a meme circulated on social media that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the U.S. COVID-19 response and has become a bogeyman for pandemic conspiracy theorists, was the real-life model for the villain in the 2013 movie "Dallas Buyers Club."Producer Rachel Winter said as much in a comment published by Slate in 2013:The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and getting an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S.. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, at first for profit and later to save lives, only to be hounded an FDA agent.Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he wasn't an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film.The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT or Woodroof's legal trouble were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. It's true that the doses it was prescribed at early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, but those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug.

FDIC insurance provides coverage for more than 99 years.

['After a bank failure, does the FDIC have 99 years to pay back insured deposits?']

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. This 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 heard a story about a man who enters a bank week after week, making a deposit of a government check for a seemingly insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why he is depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the FDIC. 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 FDIC-insured CD with another bank. Origins: Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has prompted many Americans to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even seemingly secure investments, such as ordinary savings accounts, are not completely risk-free. Although most bank customers are aware that 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, creating additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that followed the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that ensued, 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, leading to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above. Widely believed rumors suggest 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), resulting in the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't much of a guarantee at all. In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were 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 as follows: 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 reported hearing 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. If arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC pays failed-bank depositors 100 percent of their insured funds, including principal and interest, up to the federal limit. 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 toward investments or accounts that are not insured. 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. Last updated: 8 April 2014.

['loan']

False

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.* In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category.

Obama mandated that banks provide loans to individuals in need.

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

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

['income']

False

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

Rambo Tackles Osama bin Laden

["Will Sylvester Stallone return to tackle Osama bin Laden in the next 'Rambo' film?"]

Claim: Sylvester Stallone will tackle the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in an upcoming Rambo film. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2001] There is a rumor that Sylvester Stalone is curenty in seclusion writing Rambo IV (ok technically First Blood IV). It is supposed to be about Rambo (to be played by a younger acter (also part of rumor)) going after Osama Bin Laden or another terrorist. Origins: A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, a rumor began to float that Sylvester Stallone would once again assume the guise of the quintessential American action hero John Rambo to battle terrorists in a film set in Afghanistan (just as the previous Rambo film was). This rumor seems to have originated with a single-sentence mention in the London Times: Stallone, 55, is at his Miami home working on the script of a fourth Rambo film in which the former Green Beret parachutes into Afghanistan to take on the Taliban. People magazine then picked up on therumor, adding a plot point about Osama bin Laden not mentioned in the Times article: rumor The "Rocky" star, whose box-office performances have been rocky of late, is currently at work in his Miami home on the script for a fourth "Rambo" adventure with an eye to a summer 2002 release, says the Times. In the new story, Rambo parachutes into Afghanistan to battle leaders of the Taliban. A possible storyline would involve the pumped-up hero with the oiled chest capturing terror chief Osama bin Laden alive. (True rumor or not, a summer 2002 release for an action film that wasn't even out of the scripting stage in late 2001 yet sounded a little too ambitious to be feasible.) At the time, talk of a Rambo IV film's being in the offing had occurred on and off for at least ten years, with rumors floating in the summer of 2001 that involved Stallone teaming with Hong Kong action star Jackie Chan: Jackie Chan gets equals billing with Sylvester Stallone in upcoming movie, Rambo IV, where Chan does not get killed off as scripted for originally. Action guy Jackie Chan wants to shed blood, not tears, in the upcoming movie, Rambo IV, with macho man Sylvester Stallone. When you do get to see the Sylvester Stallone-Jackie Chan movie, Rambo: First Blood IV, An ending that is, where only the bad guys get gutted. After countless talks of getting together to make a movie, Chan and Stallone are finally putting words into action and will collaborate on the movie, Rambo IV. The hitch was the original script had only Rambo, the bare-bodied, inaudible role made famous by Stallone, left standing. Chan's character was to be killed off. In line with all his movies where no good guy dies, the 45-year-old Chan, who is now Tinseltown's IT man with such hits as Shanghai Noon and Rush Hour, has requested that the script be changed. Then he gets to stand tall with Stallone in the end. Back in March 2001, Miramax chairman Bob Weinstein had mentioned the possibility of a Rambo IV, but with a different plot and not necessarily starring Stallone: Miramax chairman Bob Weinstein says Rambo IV is in the stages for a e-script this summer with at least a $50 million budget. Weinstein says, "We'd love nothing more than for Stallone to be involved. We think it's a billion-dollar property." The new script involves Rambo tackling drug dealers in an American government building. And earlier in 2001, Stallone himself had said that he didn't think he'd be playing the Rambo character ever again: I don't know if I'd look good in a thong anymore. In my fantasies, I'd love to do one more [Rambo film], but I don't think it would be in good taste at this age. Whatever conceptions may have been mooted for a fourth Rambo film over the years, it ultimately didn't come out until early 2008, it wasn't set in Afghanistan, and the title character battled neither the Taliban nor Osama bin Laden: instead, the fourth entry in the series (entitled simply Rambo, once again starring Sylvester Stallone) was set in Thailand and featured John Rambo leading a group of mercenaries to rescue Christian aid workers held captive in the war-torn Thailand-Myanmar border region. In August 2009, Variety reported that a fifth Rambo installment was in the works, with Sylvester Stallone starring and directing in a production slated to begin in Spring 2010. That putative film also has no connection to Afghanistan, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden; Variety describes the plotline as "revolving around Rambo fighting his way through human traffickers and drug lords to rescue a young girl abducted near the U.S.-Mexico border." Last updated: 8 September 2009 Hoffman, Bill. "Rambo vs. Osama: Stallone Script in Works." New York Post. 12 November 2001. McNary, Dave. "Stallone Readies for Fifth 'Rambo.'" Variety. 30 August 2009. Silverman, Stephen M. "Sly Stallone: Rambo to the Rescue." People. 12 November 2001. The [Singapore] Straits Times. "Jackie vs. Rambo." 24 August 2000.

['budget']

False

People magazine then picked up on therumor, adding a plot point about Osama bin Laden not mentioned in the Times article:

Marathon Station Refuses GIs Service

['Were U.S. soldiers refused service by the owner of a Pontiac gas station?']

Claim: A Marathon service station owner in Pontiac, Illinois, refused to do business with U.S. soldiers. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2006] THIS HAPPENED IN PONTIAC, IL I have a good friend who used to ride the van with me to work. Her brother is a friend and is in the military over in Bagdad. I've always told her she's my hero and I wish I had a tiny bit of her nerve. Read what she did last night (below)...and I can honestly see her doing this. She doesn't take cr@p off anyone. Feel free to pass this on...maybe this guy's business will go under! As some of you may know the Marathon gas station in front of what use to be Underdogs and across from the Pawn shop (in Pontiac) is owned by a Pakistani. I've heard some rumors the last 6 months or so that a couple of our soldiers have stopped in, dressed in fatigues, after drill and he would not allow them to purchase anything in the store. They were asked to leave and told their business is not wanted or needed. Apparently this happened again on Sunday. You don't know how much of what you hear is actually true so I stopped in last night on the way to the B & G club. I don't really know why, I'm not sure what I thought I was going to say or do but I had to check this guy out. Luckily he was working. I took my water up to the counter and waited while he played with the tape roll on the machine. I had my wallet out so I could pay him when he was done.. Right there in my wallet was my standard military picture of my brother in front of the flag (most of you know he is serving outside Baghdad right now). He finished what he was working on and was extremely friendly to me as he rang up the water. I placed my wallet on the table and pointed to my brother and asked what he would do if he came in for a water (I couldn't help myself). As uncomfortable as it was with only the two of us in that small store he told me in what was a poor attempt of English that "I give no water, no nothing to him, he may leave", his attitude completely changed. I was taken back, I couldn't believe what just happened. I closed my wallet and left my water on the counter and told him that if he must leave then I must leave too. I could not believe it. I sat in my car and didn't know whether to laugh at him or cry. I guess the reason I'm telling you this is so you can make a decision on whether or not to give him your business. I guess that is why it's America, he is able to come to this country, own a small business taxfree, and refuse business to anyone he wants. It is also our right to stop every person we know from EVER going there again and running his sorry a** out of town. Origins: The years since the September 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 and the U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003 have brought us a panoply of (false) rumors about business owners and employees in the U.S. who have supposedly openly celebrated terrorist attacks on America and/or refused to do business with U.S. servicemen. Most often the businesses targeted by such rumors are gas stations, convenience stores, or other small shops, since those types of businesses are frequently owned, operated, or staffed by immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, or by persons mistakenly assumed by Americans to be Mid-East immigrants). (See, for example, "The Hole in the Middle," "This Bud's Not for You," "Leatherneck Cold Shouldered," "The Shunned Serviceman" and "Shell Game.") The Hole in the Middle This Bud's Not for You Leatherneck Cold Shouldered The Shunned Serviceman Shell Game The item quoted at the head of this page began circulating in February 2006 and fits into this same genre of rumor type (i.e., the shunning of U.S. servicemen by Arab/Muslim business owners) by claiming that the "Pakistani" owner of a service station and convenience mart in Pontiac, Illinois, recently refused to sell goods to U.S. servicemen, brusquely sending the soldiers away empty-handed, as well as openly proclaiming to a civilian customer (one whose money he would readily accept) that he would similarly decline to do business with her serviceman brother. The account specifically identifies a Marathon gas station at 922 W. Custer Avenue in Pontiac, and as is typical of such accounts, it errs in its details and has proved to be unverifiable. The Marathon service station referred to has been owned since November 2003 by Satvinder Singh, who wasn't present on the day of the alleged incident, and who is neither a native of Pakistan nor a citizen of that country. (He's a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in India and has been a resident of the U.S. since 1989.) Mr. Singh himself denies that any such incident took place: Nothing in that e-mail is true. I respect everybody. I wouldn't refuse service to anyone. I am so mad because this is my business. I don't want to lose any of my business. All people are welcome at my store. I don't know why this happened. Mr. Singh's wife, Rupinder Kaur (also a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in India), elaborated for the Pontiac Daily Leader: Kaur pointed out that neither she nor her husband is Muslim, and said they appreciate the service of members of the Armed Forces. "They go there, they don't know if they're going to come back," she said of members of the military serving in places like Iraq. "My blessings will go always for them. We are depending upon them. They're fighting for us. They're saving us, and why would we want to do such a thing like don't serve them." She said neither she nor her husband was involved in politics. "All customers are welcome. We will never discriminate against anybody," Kaur said. "All the customers, to me, are angels ... We respect all of our customers." The only persons they won't sell to, she added, are minors trying to illegally buy cigarettes or alcohol. "We card them, and we card them hard, because we don't want them to get into trouble." Kaur said that she and her husband are just "normal people" who are trying to make a success of their business, Super Petroleum. "We invested in Pontiac knowing that Pontiac is a good community," she said, noting that the business employs two local persons, generates property and other taxes, and contributes to the city's economy. The station was one of two Pontiac businesses robbed on the same day in December, and one of the two American flags Singh put up was stolen. Moreover, attempts by the Central Illinois Pantagraph to verify any element of the account have proved fruitless: The Pantagraph has been unable to find anyone with a firsthand account of the incidents described in the e-mail, several versions of which have circulated widely throughout Central Illinois. The woman whose name appears as the sender of the e-mail learned of the e-mail on Wednesday. When The Pantagraph contacted her Thursday evening, she declined to comment. Members of the Pontiac National Guard have been unable to find any soldiers within their unit who have experienced such discrimination. "To my knowledge, there hasn't been anyone in the store," National Guard public information officer Capt. Bud Roberts said. "It is not an issue. We don't dwell on rumors." The Livingston County Veterans Assistance Commission also has been unable to confirm information in the e-mail. Other evidence attests to the falsity of the claim: Singh said he spends very little time in the store and didn't work Sunday, when the incident is said to have occurred. "He is one of the nicest people you will ever meet," said Alec Durousseau, who works evenings at the station. "Everything in that e-mail is untrue. It's a complete lie." Tory Zarwell, another employee, and Durousseau said they have never seen Singh express anti-American feelings. They both pointed out an American flag flies in front of the station. Unfortunately, the result of the opprobrious e-mail whether motivated by racism or some other form of spite has been to cause undeserved harm to the reputation of the couple's business: The matter of the e-mails was brought to the owners' attention Wednesday evening by the employee who had been getting phone calls, including a caller who asked if he would be welcome if he came to the station because he had "heard" that someone had been refused service. Someone brought a printout of the e-mail to the station to find out if it were true. On Thursday, every customer was asking about the Internet allegations about refusal to sell to soldiers in uniform. [Kaur] and her husband told their two employees to tell everyone who asked that the allegations were not true. Last updated: 27 February 2006 Sources: Faddoul, John. "Internet E-Mail Charges False, Business Owners Say." The [Pontiac] Daily Leader. 24 February 2006. Walters, Karen. "Station Owner Taken Aback by Rumor Spread in E-Mail." The [Bloomington-Normal] Pantagraph. 25 February 2006.

['economy']

False

Origins: The years since the September 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 and the U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003 have brought us a panoply of (false) rumors about business owners and employees in the U.S. who have supposedly openly celebrated terrorist attacks on America and/or refused to do business with U.S. servicemen. Most often the businesses targeted by such rumors are gas stations, convenience stores, or other small shops, since those types of businesses are frequently owned, operated, or staffed by immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, or by persons mistakenly assumed by Americans to be Mid-East immigrants). (See, for example, "The Hole in the Middle," "This Bud's Not for You," "Leatherneck Cold Shouldered," "The Shunned Serviceman" and "Shell Game.")

Did a Banned Federal Study Show That Refugees Bring in More in Government Revenues Than They Cost?

['A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study compared the tax revenues generated by refugees to the overall cost of resettlement.']

One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on! A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government: The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan. "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees." The New Yorker. 13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld. "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low." The New York Times. 17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees." The New York Times. 18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber. "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees." The Washington Post. 20 November 2015. The New York Times. "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees." 19 September 2017.

['economy']

True

One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits.Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)

Wal-Mart Milk and rBST

['Does milk sold at Wal-Mart contains rBST, a dangerous growth hormone?']

Claim: Milk sold at Wal-Mart contains rBST, a dangerous growth hormone. Status: Multiple: Some milk vended by retailers comes from rBST-treated cows: True. As of March 2008, Wal-Mart's "Great Value" milk no longer contains rBST: True. Milk produced by rBST-treated cows has been proved dangerous for ordinary human consumption: False. Example: [Collected via e-mail, March 2007] Health Warning - rBST in Great Value [Walmart] Milk I just received this from my sister-in-law in Gainesville, and I wanted to let you all know, especially if you have daughters or granddaughters. Please read this and pass it along to as many people as possible. Mitzi Lyons, whose husband is Kyle, lives here in Gainesville, TX. Their daughter has incurred menstrual problems (bleeding every day) for three years, and within the last year, she started producing milk. They have performed every test, every surgery, and put her on birth control, and the last straw was going to be a hysterectomy in January. However, Mitzi's dad started researching his granddaughter's problem on the internet and found out about rBST in milk (injecting cows with hormones so they will produce more milk). Wal-Mart's Great Value milk is the kind that the Lyons family has always consumed. Three months ago, they stopped giving Marissa Great Value Milk, and she quit bleeding and lactating. Borden milk does not have rBST in it. Her doctors in Houston are going to write a medical journal discovery about her case because the FDA says that rBST is safe. Mitzi asked me to please share this with everyone I could think of to hopefully save someone the pain and suffering that Marissa has endured. Mitzi knows this was an answered prayer. I have removed my family from Wal-Mart's Great Value Milk and bought Borden, which has a label on their milk stating that rBST is not used on their cows. Please pass this on. Origins: rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, is an artificial growth hormone injected into dairy cows approximately every two weeks to boost milk production. It is the synthetic version of BST (bovine somatotropin), a naturally occurring hormone in cattle. Cows treated with rBST go from producing over 70 pounds of milk per day to somewhat less than 90, a significant increase in output. The use of rBST is controversial. On the plus side, it elevates milk production and boosts farm income. On the downside, it can increase udder infections in cows (thereby necessitating greater use of antibiotics), and some say it may increase cancer risk in milk drinkers. The cancer claims have not been proved. Those who say there is a risk point to a connection between rBST injections and elevation of another hormone in cows, IGF-1. In humans, too much IGF-1 is linked with increased rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancer. The use of rBST is banned in Canada, but not because of any potential ill effect it might have on humans; its use was proscribed because of its harmful effects on cows (udder irritation). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says rBST is safe for consumers and that milk from rBST-treated cows is no different from milk from non-treated cows: FDA Before the 1993 approval of rBST, the FDA determined that the recombinant, or genetically engineered form of bST is virtually identical to a cow's natural somatotropin, a hormone produced in the pituitary gland that stimulates the production of milk. During that rBST approval process, the FDA concluded that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. For that reason, the FDA also concluded it does not have the authority to require special labeling for milk and dairy products from rBST-treated cows, and that producers have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rBST is safer than milk from rBST-treated cows. Assurances notwithstanding, recent years have seen a grassroots consumer movement away from products reliant upon antibiotics or growth hormones. Shoppers are increasingly seeking out "rBST- (or rBGH-) free" milk instead of the hormone-assisted variety. However, this type of milk is far more expensive. While a half-gallon of 2% milk (Lucerne) goes for $1.99, its non-rBST equivalent (Sunmilk) goes for $3.89, and organic 2% milk (Horizon and Stremicks Heritage) for $4.19. We encountered this e-mail purporting to detail a teen's reaction to the rBST in the milk she drank in March 2007. While there is reason to believe the young woman depicted in the tale exists and that the description of her travails is at least somewhat accurate, that's a far cry from saying her consumption of rBST-enhanced milk caused her medical woes. There have been rumors that rBST causes premature puberty in children, but as yet there's nothing credible to support them. Indeed, arguing against such an outcome is the type of hormone itself: Somatotropins (growth hormones) are not the same as gonadotropins (sexual development hormones), and they don't cross functions, especially when applied to different species. The e-mailed alert includes an exhortation to swear off milk from Wal-Mart in favor of that from Borden. That advice is a bit simplistic because just about any large retailer that sells milk will generally offer both rBST and non-rBST varieties for sale. Those concerned about avoiding rBST should read labels, looking for words like "organic," "hormone-free," and "rBST-free." (Consumers should also assume that if they don't see one of those phrases, the product they're considering buying does contain rBST.) On 21 March 2008, Wal-Mart announced that its "Great Value" milk would no longer be sourced from rBST-enhanced cows. Barbara "milk dud" Mikkelson Additional information: bST Fact Sheet (Cornell University) Last updated: 23 March 2008 Sources: Pollack, Andrew. "Which Cows Do You Trust?" The New York Times. 7 October 2006 (p. C1). Raine, George. "Got rbST in Your Milk?" The San Francisco Chronicle. 25 March 2007 (p. D1). Reuters. "Hormone-Free Milk Sales Stir Heated Debate." Los Angeles Times. 19 January 2007 (p. C6).

['income']

False

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says rBST is safe for consumers and that milk from rBST-treated cows is no different from milk from non-treated cows: bST Fact Sheet (Cornell University)

Did a Survey Reveal That People Want a 'Gender Neutral' Santa Claus?

['A survey by a graphic-design company may not accurately represent the views of the public at large.']

In mid-December 2018, a graphic design company conducted a survey asking respondents in the U.S. and U.K. how they might change the conceptualization of Santa Claus to "modernize" his image. Among the various responses were such suggestions as dressing Santa in skinny jeans and giving him an Amazon Prime membership. survey Among the survey questions, the GraphicSprings design company included one about whether Saint Nick should be a man, a woman, or "gender neutral." Many headlines reporting on the survey focused on respondents' expressing their preference for a gender-neutral or female Santa Claus, a scrutiny perhaps not surprising in the age of social media flame wars. What wasn't discussed, however, was an aspect of the story that was key, albeit boring: the survey's methodology. GraphicSprings described their survey methodology as follows: Respondents ranged from 18 to 65+ and were based in both the UK and US. We used Google surveys and gathered responses during October and November 2018. Suggestions on how to change Santa were gathered from an open survey of 400 respondents from both the UK and US. A selection of these suggestions were then voted on by over 4000 people across the UK and US, with the most popular visualised in our graphic. GraphicSprings didn't explain who made the "selection" of suggestions that were included in the larger survey, or why they were chosen. Furthermore, many of the news stories about the survey didn't review the survey or note that the questions presented to participants were leading ones. survey For example, survey-takers were asked "If you could 'rebrand' Santa for modern society, what gender would he be?" Participants were provided three answers from which they could choose -- male, female or gender-neutral: Writing for the Australian popular culture and news site Junkee, journalist Joseph Earp described the survey as a savvy but cruel tour de force in marketing that succeeded in raising GraphicSprings' media profile: Junkee The study was designed to generate a controversial result. Participants didnt come up with the idea to make Santa gender neutral: it was offered to them. The question wasnt: What would you do to modernise Santa?, or even What gender should Santa be? The question fed participants gender neutral as an answer. Thats a kind of bias that real studies, conducted by companies that arent just trying to mine some outrage, would have worked on eliminating. And its a kind of bias that GraphicSpring had a vested interest in not eliminating. They wanted an attention-grabbing result that would piss off boomers already convinced of the evils of PC culture, and they got it. In other words, the results of a viral survey designed by a company that specializes in making business cards and flyers probably was not intended to accurately measure public opinion.

['interest']

NEI

In mid-December 2018, a graphic design company conducted a survey asking respondents in the U.S. and U.K. how they might change the conceptualization of Santa Claus to "modernize" his image. Among the various responses were such suggestions as dressing Santa in skinny jeans and giving him an Amazon Prime membership.GraphicSprings didn't explain who made the "selection" of suggestions that were included in the larger survey, or why they were chosen. Furthermore, many of the news stories about the survey didn't review the survey or note that the questions presented to participants were leading ones.Writing for the Australian popular culture and news site Junkee, journalist Joseph Earp described the survey as a savvy but cruel tour de force in marketing that succeeded in raising GraphicSprings' media profile:

We aren't the only state cutting back on public television.

[]

The prospect of clipping the wings of Big Bird arose on February 5 when Richard Licht, Governor Chafee's director of administration, appeared on ABC6's "On the Record" with Buddy Cianci. The host, former Providence Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, was grilling Licht about Chafee's proposal to eliminate funding for Channel 36, now known as Rhode Island PBS, the state's only public television station. Chafee's proposed budget, crafted to close a projected shortfall of $120 million to $125 million, would cut off funding to the station after December 31, 2012. "CIANCI: What have you got against 'Sesame Street'?" "LICHT: I love Sesame Street. I have grandchildren, and I always watched it with all four of my children. Tough times make for tough choices." "CIANCI: But 'Sesame Street'? My God." "LICHT: Hopefully, Channel 36 will be aggressive and find some good charitable sponsors to help support this." "CIANCI (facetiously): Especially in this economy, they're going to just fork over $800,000." "LICHT: We aren't the only state cutting back on public television. It's not anything we're happy about, and again, that's something that might be reversed if better revenue estimates come in, but the facts are, tough times mean tough choices." We were interested in whether Licht was correct that other states are cutting back on public television and, if so, how many. We called the governor's office to ask for Licht's source. Meanwhile, we spoke to David Piccerelli, president of Rhode Island PBS. "The proposal is to fund us through December 31, 2012, and then shut off funding altogether," he said. In the current fiscal year, the state contributes $922,000 to RIPBS's total budget of $2.9 million, which is 31 percent. Another 27 percent comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund stations throughout the United States. (The CPB itself has been repeatedly threatened with the cutoff of federal funds by conservatives.) The remaining 42 percent comes from fundraising. Piccerelli noted that about 85 cents out of every dollar raised is from individual donors, while corporate support accounts for no more than 15 cents, down from close to 30 cents on the dollar around 2004-2005, before the Rhode Island economy took a downturn. Piccerelli mentioned that some states have been cutting back their support; Chafee's office sent us information confirming that. Last June, New Hampshire Public Television eliminated 20 full-time positions and cut staff salaries by as much as 10 percent after losing $2.7 million in state funding, or about 30 percent of its budget. At the same time, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, backed by the state legislature, eliminated funding for New Jersey public television, which resulted in the 40-year-old New Jersey Network being taken over by WNET in New York, and NJN's nine radio licenses being sold to stations in New York and Philadelphia. Stacey Karp, director of communications for the Association of Public Television Stations, stated that four other states—Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina—have also eliminated funding. For details, she referred us to Skip Hinton, president of the National Educational Telecommunications Association, a professional association that represents stations in every state. He informed us that 38 states were providing direct support to public broadcasting in 2007, but that number has now decreased to 32. "Of the 32, most have seen pretty significant reductions in state funding over the last four years," he said. At least one state—Illinois—has increased its contribution to public television, boosting funding by 16 percent last year after cuts in previous years. Our ruling: Richard Licht, Chafee's director of administration, stated, "We aren't the only state cutting back on public television." It turns out he is correct. Five states have eliminated funding, and others have cut their contributions. We rate his statement as true. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)

['Rhode Island', 'Education', 'State Budget']

True

The prospect of clipping the wings of Big Bird came up Feb. 5 when Richard Licht, Governor Chafees director of administration, made an appearance on ABC6s On the Record with Buddy Cianci.The host, former Providence Mayor Vincent Buddy Cianci was grilling Licht on Chafees proposal to eliminate funding for Channel 36, now known as Rhode Island PBS, the states only public television station.Chafee's proposed budget, crafted to close a projected shortfall of $120 million to $125 million, would cut off funding to the station after Dec. 31, 2012.CIANCI: What have you got against 'Sesame Street'?LICHT: I love Sesame Street. I have grandchildren and I always watched it with all four of my children. Tough times make for tough choices.CIANCI: But 'Sesame Street'? My God.LICHT: Hopefully, Channel 36 will be aggressive, go out and find some good charitable sponsors to help support this.CIANCI (facetiously): Especially in this economy, they're going to just fork over $800,000.LICHT: We aren't the only state cutting back on public television. It's not anything that we're happy about and, again, that's something that might be reversed [if better higher revenue estimates come in], but the facts are, tough times, tough choices.We were interested in whether Licht was correct that other states are cutting back on public television and, if so, how many.We called the governor's office to ask for Licht's source.Meanwhile, we talked to David Piccerelli, president of Rhode Island PBS.The proposal is to fund us through December 31 of 2012 and then shut off funding altogether, he said. In the current fiscal year, the state contributes $922,000 to RIPBS's total budget of $2.9 million. That's 31 percent.Another 27 percent comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund stations throughout the United States. (The CPB itself has been repeatedly threatened with the cutoff of federal funds by conservatives.)The remaining 42 percent comes from fundraising. Piccerelli said about 85 cents out of every dollar raised is from individual donors. Corporate support accounts for no more than 15 cents, down from close to 30 cents on the dollar around 2004-2005, before the Rhode Island economy took a faceplant.Piccerelli said some states HAVE been cutting back their support; Chafee's office sent us information confirming that.Last June,New Hampshire Public Television eliminated20 full-time workers and cut staff salaries by as much as 10 percent after it lost $2.7 million in state funding, or about 30 percent of its budget.At the same time, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, backed by the state legislature,eliminated funding for New Jersey public television, which resulted in the 40-year-old New Jersey Network being taken over by WNET in New York and NJN's nine radio licenses being sold to stations in New York and Philadelphia.Stacey Karp, director of communications for the Association of Public Television Stations, said four other states -- Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania and South Carolina -- have also eliminated funding. For details, she sent us to Skip Hinton, president of theNational Educational Telecommunications Association, a professional association that represents stations in every state.He told us that 38 states were providing direct support to public broadcasting in 2007. It's now down to 32.Of the 32, most have seen pretty significant reductions in state funding over the last four years, he said.At least one state -- Illinois -- increased its contribution to public television, boosting funding by 16 percent last year, following cuts in previous years.Our rulingRichard Licht, Chafee's director of administration, said, We aren't the only state cutting back on public television.Turns out, hes right. Five states have eliminated funding and others have cut their contributions.We rate his statementTrue.(Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)

Marine Corps' Pearl Harbor Memorial Flags Removed at President Obama's Request

['A story about a flagpole that was removed from a Pearl Harbor memorial was blamed on President Obama nearly ten years later.']

On 30 April 2016, the web siteDeparted.copublished a clickbait article claiming that American flags were removed from a Pearl Harbor memorial at President Obama's request. The piece had no context beyonda series of photographs of what they said was the flag being taken down. While Departed.copublished several photographs of the memorial some of which included a flagpole, whileothers were taken after the flagpole wasremoved they provided little information about the memorial or the flag's removal. No photographs showed any proof, even by inference, that President Obama was either present or responsible for the order: published As it turns out, there's also a good reason that President Obama was not shown in any photographs: this didn't eventake placeduring Barack Obama's presidential term.The images were first posted in 2007 by the web siteCapVeterans.com. CapVeterans.com A couple of years previously, the Honolulu Advertiserhad reported that Pearl Harbor was undergoing major renovations and that some veterans were worried about potential changes: changes The memorial's visitor center is overburdened the lines to bathrooms there are the stuff of legend and the National Park Service would like to expand its facilities. (Hawai'i entrepreneur Patrick) Brent said he transformed "a filthy parking lot with broken glass and a high crime rate" into a respite for visitors. "Every time we put out a chair, someone sits down," Brent said. But aging survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor have frequently complained to Brent about his for-profit organization. One veteran told him that the sailors entombed in the USS Arizona are crying because he is selling cola, Brent said. "They attack us because of the respect thing.There is no one in this neighborhood more respectful than myself and my people." We have reached out to the National Park Service for details about this incident, but it's clear that the flagpole's removal had more to do with renovations than politics. Regardless of why it was removed, the flagpole was not taken down on the orders of President Barack Obama. CapVeterans.com. "The National Park Service Wants To Remove The Marine Corps PEARL HARBOR Remembrance Memorial." 2007. Gordon, Mike. "Navy's $84M development deal is changing the face of Pearl Harbor." Honolulu Advertiser. 21 February 2005.

['profit']

False

While Departed.copublished several photographs of the memorial some of which included a flagpole, whileothers were taken after the flagpole wasremoved they provided little information about the memorial or the flag's removal. No photographs showed any proof, even by inference, that President Obama was either present or responsible for the order:As it turns out, there's also a good reason that President Obama was not shown in any photographs: this didn't eventake placeduring Barack Obama's presidential term.The images were first posted in 2007 by the web siteCapVeterans.com. A couple of years previously, the Honolulu Advertiserhad reported that Pearl Harbor was undergoing major renovations and that some veterans were worried about potential changes:

Will banks be required to disclose all transactions exceeding $600 to the IRS as outlined in President Biden's proposal?

['The American Families Plan has a reporting requirement for banks that has infuriated some.']

Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden's American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan intends to fund all of this through higher taxes on income earners and increased reporting requirements for banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have drawn the ire of several banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: "The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600, regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers." Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns: "The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal: 'Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy.' The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions to report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to oppose this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately." We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after December 31, 2022, states: "This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner." This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the IRS would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. The latter is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions exceeding $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions. The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cash flows above $600, that doesn't mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year—gross inflow and gross outflow—and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo but wouldn't require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can obtain other information through audits. According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility in raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. The Tax Notes report also states that the Treasury Department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third-largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income, amounting to $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: "Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance." Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, "Only the prior year's total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January." Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBA's consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may impose on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already provide a lot of data to the IRS and that this would impose additional costs on their systems. The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burdens on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, necessitating system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to realize: "Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges." Former IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAP's analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers. Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS's data security is already much better than that of the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially larger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for. The Biden administration's bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers' privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. By deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On October 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600; Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?" "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600—that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes." Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the banks are portraying it.

['finance']

NEI

Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan.A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers.The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal":We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states:We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions. The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year gross inflow and gross outflow and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits.According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600.The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance.Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January.Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems:On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by:But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers:On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"

Be cautious of fraudulent schemes promising a '$3,600 Stimulus for Homeowners'.

['It might not be a good sign when the bottom of a brand new website displays a list of "disclaimers" in small print addressed to "Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers."']

We advise all readers, as well as their friends and family, to beware of Facebook ads that promise a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners in amounts such as $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or other similar figures. The posts featured pictures of U.S. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and members of Congress, among others. Some ads also mentioned the term "mortgage refinance stimulus." The ads gave the impression that Biden and the U.S. government had approved a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or similar amounts as "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text resembled the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. However, there is no federal plan to distribute $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" checks to homeowners. Facebook users who clicked on the ads were directed to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also requested a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address. We filled out the forms and were then led to one or more lenders that could assist future homeowners in buying a house or current homeowners in refinancing a mortgage. There was no evidence that the Facebook ads led to a way for homeowners to obtain a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" payment from the government. According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation. One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com. As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. In other words, millions of Facebook users had been served the ads from these pages on Facebook or Instagram. The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly displayed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600. The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations. After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE." We also found a list of "disclaimers" in small print spaced far below the end of most of the body of the page that was meant "for Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers." One of the lines attempted to clarify why words like "government" and "Biden" were used in the copy: "Government," "Biden," "New Administration," "Relief" - assume multiple citations below from the following article: "Biden's $10 billion in financial assistance is expected to be available in 2022." It's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being distributed by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to suggest. One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" A seemingly endless number of Facebook users then submitted their ZIP codes in the comments under the ads instead of on the resulting website, perhaps believing this would lead to them being contacted to receive a $3,600 check. Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress. Aside from the ZIP code comments, the remarks with the most likes caught our eye. For example, a user named Jackie said: "This was featured in CNN yesterday so I guess I could try it since my neighbors already got theirs." Other ads mentioned C-SPAN. We found no record of CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN recently broadcasting news of a specific $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Also, no one's "neighbors already got" a $3,600 stimulus check payment, because they don't exist. These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information. Ben commented: "Wow! I've never seen anything like this before! Thank god that I saw it today so I can signup." Matt remarked: "Heard about this program form [sic] my neighbor. They got the check yesterday so I tried it and received a notification that my check will be here this week!" We also saw the same names making the same comments in multiple ads. It's unclear if these people worked for the websites or companies that were affiliated with the posts. We reached out to the Better Business Bureau and AARP for comment on these ads and websites. The BBB responded and told us that this is what they would refer to as a classic "government imposter scam." A BBB spokesperson told us: "Without further research, it's hard to tell if this is just a way to get homeowners to apply for refinancing, or if the motive is fraud. Consumers are being asked to share personally identifiable information (PII), and that's a huge red flag because it is everything needed for identity theft. The fact that the domains are new is another red flag. BBB advises consumers never to share personal information with someone who has solicited them, whether through email, social media ad, text, etc., but to carefully vet any new company that needs PII." In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks. We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes you'll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friend's Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." In sum, the Facebook ads that promised a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners simply appeared to be a way to route future homeowners to lenders or to show current homeowners where they could refinance their mortgages. With guidance from the BBB and AARP on identifying this as a "government imposter scam" or "government grant scam," we have rated this story accordingly with the "Scam" rating. The rating for this fact check was changed from "False" to "Scam" after we received guidance in a response from the Better Business Bureau and AARP. We also added several more Facebook pages and updated the advertising dollar figure to be around $200,000.

['credit']

False

Examples of some of the Facebook ads.The ads gave the appearance that Biden and the U.S. government voted through a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar amount of money as a "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text perhaps looked and felt similar to the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.Facebook users who clicked on the ads were led to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also asked for a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address.According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation.One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com.As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly showed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600.The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners.Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations.After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE."https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.htmlIt's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund that's meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being given out by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to hint at.One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress. These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information.In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks.We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes youll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friends Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it."

About 230,000 people that were on unemployment when I took office are not on unemployment now.

[]

A radio host recently asked Gov. Rick Scott for an update on his trademark 7-7-7 plan -- creating 700,000 jobs in seven years in seven steps. (We're trackingthat promise on the Scott-O-Meter. )Scott said Floridas economy is getting better in a lot of ways.Were doing well. Were at a three-year low on our unemployment in this state... We generated around 100,000 net jobs so far, if you look at the federal numbers, he said in the April 18, 2012,interviewwith Orlando-based station WDBO. But if you look at the state numbers, about 230,000 people that were on unemployment when I took office are not on unemployment now.When you look around the state, tourism is up, the home markets up, home sales are up, home prices are up. So good things are happening, but we still have 900,000 people out of work, he said.What stuck out to us is his claim that 230,000 fewer people receive unemployment benefits than when he took office 15 months ago. That sounds like a drastic decrease, which Scott is taking credit for and in turn using as evidence that the states economy is improving.A spokeswoman with the states Department of Economic Opportunity, the agency that manages the unemployment compensation program, responded to our request about Scotts claim. Spokeswoman Nancy Blum said the number of people receiving unemployment compensation dropped from 561,736 on Jan. 31, 2011, to 345,052 on March 31, 2012. Thats a total decline of 216,684.Thats pretty close to about 230,000, which is the number Scott offered.Whether Scott is right to take credit for the decline -- and whether that is translating to a better Florida economy -- is more complicated.In 2011 and 2012, Scott and Florida lawmakers made a series of changes to the states unemployment compensation program that generally make it harder for people to receive benefits.Among them: Meanwhile, businesses got tax breaks. A 2012 bill reduces unemployment compensation taxes for businesses by at least $50 per employee, with savings of $276 million the first year.The Miami Workers Center asked the U.S. Department of Labors civil rights division to investigate Floridas unemployment compensation system over allegations that these changes act as barriers to people who deserve checks but cant get them for lack of computer access or reading skills. A Labor department spokesman told us the investigation is ongoing.The governors number in and of itself does not demonstrate any kind of economic recovery in Florida, said Valory Greenfield, staff attorney for Florida Legal Services, which represents the workers center. What it tells me based on our experience working with claimants is that fewer people who are potentially eligible are getting into the program.In fact, since August 2011 the department has denied 131,115 applicants for failing to comply with the new law, mostly for failing to fulfill the work search or the initial skills assessment.Those denials resulted in a $30.3 million savings. Economists said Scott's number, while accurate, isn't necessarily a great economic measure on its own. They also said it's too soon to tell if Florida's more stringent eligibility requirements play a big role in the declining number of recipients. Part of the drop-off could be attributed to people whose benefits have expired. Since December 2011, 30,600 people have exhausted all state and federal unemployment benefits, according to the department.So far I havent been able to see any hard data or evidence to quantify (either) effect, said Mekael Teshome, PNC Financial Services Group economist.Whats more relevant, Teshome said, is that jobless claims have been coming down since their peak in mid 2009, well before Scott took office. That somewhat undermines the idea that the drop is thanks to Scott. In fact, if you started counting in 2010 instead of 2011 when Scott took office, even fewer people -- 300,770 -- are receiving unemployment benefits. Some experts also pointed to the contracting size of the labor force, which helps to lower the unemployment rate but also indicates some people are no longer looking for work. About 15,000 people left the labor force from February, according to the statesMarch 2012 labor report. The 15,000-person drop in the labor force was part of the reason why the unemployment rate fall from 9.4 percent in February to 9 percent in March.Some of those are people whose benefits ran out and are now not looking for work, said Chris McCarty, director of the University of Floridas Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Some of those are retirees who have left the labor force permanently.Our rulingScotts claim that 230,000 fewer people are receiving unemployment benefits than when he entered office is pretty close to the actual drop (216,684). A couple of caveats here. The figure is not completely an indicator that the economy is improving, as Scott suggests, and is somewhat the result of a strict new state law. Also, the trend of jobless claims started falling in mid 2009, more than a year before Scott took office. That undercuts, to a point, the suggestion Scott should get the credit. Scotts statement is accurate but can use some additional information. Thats our definition of Mostly True.

['Economy', 'Workers', 'Florida']

True

A radio host recently asked Gov. Rick Scott for an update on his trademark 7-7-7 plan -- creating 700,000 jobs in seven years in seven steps. (We're trackingthat promise on the Scott-O-Meter.)Scott said Floridas economy is getting better in a lot of ways.Were doing well. Were at a three-year low on our unemployment in this state... We generated around 100,000 net jobs so far, if you look at the federal numbers, he said in the April 18, 2012,interviewwith Orlando-based station WDBO. But if you look at the state numbers, about 230,000 people that were on unemployment when I took office are not on unemployment now.When you look around the state, tourism is up, the home markets up, home sales are up, home prices are up. So good things are happening, but we still have 900,000 people out of work, he said.What stuck out to us is his claim that 230,000 fewer people receive unemployment benefits than when he took office 15 months ago. That sounds like a drastic decrease, which Scott is taking credit for and in turn using as evidence that the states economy is improving.A spokeswoman with the states Department of Economic Opportunity, the agency that manages the unemployment compensation program, responded to our request about Scotts claim. Spokeswoman Nancy Blum said the number of people receiving unemployment compensation dropped from 561,736 on Jan. 31, 2011, to 345,052 on March 31, 2012. Thats a total decline of 216,684.Thats pretty close to about 230,000, which is the number Scott offered.Whether Scott is right to take credit for the decline -- and whether that is translating to a better Florida economy -- is more complicated.In 2011 and 2012, Scott and Florida lawmakers made a series of changes to the states unemployment compensation program that generally make it harder for people to receive benefits.Among them:Some experts also pointed to the contracting size of the labor force, which helps to lower the unemployment rate but also indicates some people are no longer looking for work. About 15,000 people left the labor force from February, according to the statesMarch 2012 labor report.

Can You Exchange Used Candles at Bath & Body Works?

['Such claims have been circulating on the internet since at least 2018.']

For years, the retail company Bath & Body Works has made headlines for its generous return policy. On Sept. 17, 2021, social media user Kristen Peden appeared to take advantage of that policy when she claimed in a series of Facebook posts that she exchanged three used items, including one used candle, at a Tennessee Bath & Body Works for new items. At the time of this writing, the post had garnered 90,000 shares. Questions surrounding the policy have circulated on social media since at least 2018 and have appeared in coverage by publications like The List and on Reddit in 2019. The List posted in 2019, "Is it true that you can return used candles and swap them out for new ones? Or is it a YMMV [your mileage may vary] situation?" Most reports claimed that if a customer keeps the receipt, they can return anything for any reason. Even without the receipt, customers could expect to receive store credit at the very least. At Bath & Body Works, you can return anything you buy, at any time, for any reason. If you have your receipt, you may get a refund. If you don't, you'll likely receive store credit, wrote Good Housekeeping in 2018. But does that apply to used items? Likely not. A look at the Bath & Body Works return policy showed that an empty product cannot be returned solely on the grounds that it has been used. "We just want you to love it! Return anything, anytime for any reason. 100% Guaranteed," wrote the company. "If at any time you're not completely satisfied with the quality of our products, you may return them to any of our Bath & Body Works or White Barn Stores in the US for a full refund, subject to the terms of our Return Policy." In a subsequent post, Peden corrected her earlier statement to note that the warranty extended to ANY EMPTY CONTAINER FROM THIS STORE: PERFUMES, SOAPS, LOTIONS, CANDLES!!!! An update posted the same day said that she had gone to the store in question with her mother and successfully exchanged several items. In the above post, Peden shared a photo of what appears to be her receipt (number 81217003463409172021) that showed three items returned without their original receipt and exchanged for three differently named items, including a candle, of the same value. The location listed on the receipt was for a store located at 373 W. Jackson Street in Cookeville, Tennessee. Snopes sent the receipt to Bath & Body Works, and a company spokesperson confirmed that the customer returned a body cream, a fine fragrance mist, and a candle and received the same items in return. They were not able to determine whether any of the products had been used but did refer our team to a return policy that noted Bath & Body Works only accepts products that do not perform properly. "Our return policy is intended to help customers who have issues related to poor product performance or unsatisfactory customer experience and is not intended to be taken advantage of when a product performs as expected. If a product has been fully used, it would seem that it has met its performance expectations," read the policy. While it is true that Peden returned three items to a Bath & Body Works location in Tennessee in exchange for three items of equal value, we were unable to confirm whether the candle exchanged was actually completely used. Snopes followed up with the company to further confirm the condition of the exchanged items, but until we hear back, we have rated this claim Unproven.

['credit']

NEI

For years, retail company Bath & Body Works has made headlines for its generous return policy. On Sept. 17, 2021, social media user Kristen Peden appeared to take advantage of that policy when she claimed in a series of Facebook posts that she exchanged three used items, including one used candle, at a Tennessee Bath & Body Works for new items. At the time of this writing, the post had garnered 90,000 shares.Questions surrounding the policy have made social media rounds since at least 2018, and appeared in coverage by publications like The List and was posted to Reddit in 2019:We just want you to love it! Return anything, anytime for any reason. 100% Guaranteed, wrote the company. If at any time you're not completely satisfied with the quality of our products, you may return them to any of our Bath & Body Works or White Barn Stores in the US for a full refund, subject to the terms of our Return Policy.In a subsequent post, Peden corrected the post to note that the warranty extended to ANY EMPTY CONTAINER FROM THIS STORE. PERFUMES SOAPS LOTION CANDLES!!!! An update posted the same day said that she had gone to the store in question with her mother and successfully exchanged several items.In the above post, Peden shared a photo of what appears to be Pedens receipt (number 81217003463409172021) that showed three items returned without their original receipt and exchanged for three differently named items, including a candle, of the same value. The location listed on the receipt was for a store located at 373 W. Jackson Street in Cookeville, Tennessee. Screengrab/FacebookSnopes sent the receipt to Bath & Body Works, and a company spokesperson confirmed that the customer returned a body cream, a fine fragrance mist, and a candle and received the same items in return. They were not able to determine whether any of the products had been used, but did refer our team to a return policy that noted Bath & Body Works only accepts products that do not perform properly.

Did Jimmy Carter participate in the building of low-cost housing despite encountering difficulties from an eye injury?

['For more than two years, fans of the president have circulated images and memes of the alleged incident.']

For years, liberal social media users have shared photographs or videos supposedly depicting former U.S. President Jimmy Carter doing woodworking with what appears to be an eye injury, apparently to emphasize that his age and medical history hadn't stopped him from volunteering. One Twitter user, for example, posted a meme about the 39th president in April 2022. A reverse-image search of the meme revealed numerous instances in which internet users promoted the underlying claim: that Carter, at age 95, fell, received stitches, and then the following day helped build houses for Habitat for Humanity, a Christian nonprofit that assists low-income families in building homes and paying their mortgages. The claim was true, though the incident had occurred more than two years prior, as of this writing. On Oct. 7, 2019, The Associated Press published the photographs featured in the meme, writing: "NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — With a bandage above his left eye and a large, red welt below it, former President Jimmy Carter was greeted by a cheering crowd Monday morning as he prepared to help build a home with Habitat for Humanity in Nashville. Carter fell at home on Sunday, requiring 14 stitches, but he did not let his injuries keep him from participating in his 36th building project with the nonprofit Christian housing organization. He turned 95 last Tuesday, becoming the first U.S. president to reach that milestone." The newspaper reported that he and his wife, former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, worked that day on building corbels, a type of support bracket, for a home. CNN also reported on the public appearance, including the following quote from the former president in its Oct. 8, 2019, story: "I fell down and hit my forehead on a sharp edge and had to go to the hospital. They took 14 stitches in my forehead, and my eye is black, as you've noticed," he said. "But I had a No. 1 priority, and that was to come to Nashville and build houses." According to the nonprofit's website, the couple formed a partnership with Habitat for Humanity in the 1980s and have rallied "thousands of volunteers and even celebrities" to join the organization's cause since then. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, Habitat for Humanity paused its so-called "Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Work Project," a recurring event during which the couple fundraises to build a grouping of homes. Interested in presidential trivia? We recently combed our archives to compile exclusive stories regarding presidents' pets, drinking, alleged extramarital affairs, purported after-death hauntings of the White House, and more. They are listed in order of presidential term and include the following nuggets of information about Carter: Yes, Carter once helped contain a potentially dangerous accident at a nuclear reactor in Canada. He and his wife, Rosalynn, are the longest-married couple in presidential history. Carter indeed published an open letter entitled "Losing My Religion for Equality."

['mortgage']

True

For years, liberal social media users have shared photographs or videos supposedly depicting former U.S. President Jimmy Carter doing woodworking with what appears to be an eye injury, apparently to emphasize that his alleged age and medical history hadn't stopped him from volunteering. One Twitter user, for example, posted the below-displayed meme about the 39th president in April 2022:A reverse-image search of the meme revealed numerous instances in which internet users promoted this underlying claim: that Carter, at age 95, fell, received stitches and then the following day helped build houses for Habitat for Humanity a Christian nonprofit that helps low-income families build homes and pay their mortgages.[See also: Why Do the Bidens Look Giant in Photo With Carters?]The claim was true though the incident had occurred more than two years ago, as of this writing. On Oct. 7, 2019, The Associated Press published the photographs featured in the meme, writing:NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) With a bandage above his left eye and a large, red welt below it, former President Jimmy Carter was greeted by a cheering crowd Monday morning as he prepared to help build a home with Habitat for Humanity in Nashville.CNN also reported on the public appearance, including the following quote from the former president in its Oct. 8, 2019, story: I fell down and hit my forehead on a sharp edge and had to go to the hospital. And they took 14 stitches in my forehead and my eye is black, as youve noticed, he said. But I had a No. 1 priority and that was to come to Nashville and build houses.According to the nonprofit's website, the couple formed a partnership with Habitat for Humanity in the 1980s, and they have rallied "thousands of volunteers and even celebrities" to join the organization's cause since then. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, Habitat for Humanity paused its so-called "Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Work Project," a reoccurring event during which the couple fundraises to build a grouping of homes somewhere.Interested in presidential trivia? We recently combed our archives to compile exclusive stories regarding presidents pets, drinking, alleged extramarital affairs, purported after-death hauntings of the White House and more. They are listed in order of presidential term here, and include the following nuggets of information about Carter:

Will Aaron Hernandez's Family Receive $15 Million from the NFL?

["Aaron Hernandez's conviction could be vacated under the obscure legal doctrine of abatement ab initio, but that won't necessarily entitle his family to millions of dollars."]

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health, suicide or substance use crisis or emotional distress, reach out 24/7 to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (formerly known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline) by dialing or texting 988 or using chat services atsuicidepreventionlifeline.orgto connect to a trained crisis counselor. suicidepreventionlifeline.org The death of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, who was found hanged in his prison cell on 19 April 2017, was followed by rumors and questions that including speculation he intended his suicide to benefit his young daughter: Aaron Hernandez This speculation was followed from news reports suggesting that because Hernandez was appealing his conviction for the murder of Odin Lloyd at the time he died, under Massachusetts law that conviction could be vacated as if it had never happened: reports Odin Lloyd Former NFL player Aaron Hernandez's suicide early [on 19 April 2017] ended his life and his legal saga, but according to Massachusetts law, Hernandez goes to his grave as an innocent man. Under a legal doctrine in use in Massachusetts called abatement ab initio, if someone dies after a conviction but before the completion of their appeal, the person's legal records in that matter are wiped clean. "It will be as if it never occurred," said Martin W. Healy, chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Bar Association. "The indictment, the complaint, the trial, all of that, in the eyes of the law it is considered null and void." The legal concept of abatement ab initio is both seldom invoked and not without controversy due to its potential effect on victims' families: abatement ab initio seldom invoked controversy Healy said the idea of abatement ab initio is always controversial in those instances when it comes to light. Usually, those cases involved highly prominent trials that generate great interest in the press, he said. Abatement ab initio is a common law dating back to English law when Massachusetts was a British colony, Healy said. Massachusetts is one of six or seven states that recognize abatement ab initio. Several states have modified it or nullified it. In each of those instances, the change was made in recognition of victims' rights, he said. "All of this is not going to give any closure or comfort to the Lloyd family," Healy said. Speculative online posts have stated with certainty that Hernandez's death triggered a windfall for his surviving relatives, presuming the NFL star would once again be entitled to a considerable fortune from his football career, but legal analysts and extant case law paint a muddier picture. They say an argument could be made disputing the severance of a contract based upon an arrest for an overturned or vacated conviction, but not that such a lawsuit would necessarily be successful: extant say For example, [Healy] said, with a "creative lawyer," the family could file litigation against the Patriots and the NFL for voiding Hernandez' contract after his indictment. However, the Boston Globe disputed that achieving such an outcome was feasible: disputed Even without a conviction on the books, Hernandez almost certainly was in breach of his contract. When Hernandez was arrested for Lloyds murder in June 2013, the Patriots released him and refused to pay the remaining guaranteed money a $3.25 million deferred signing bonus payment, and base salaries of $1.323 million and $1.137 million. They also declined to pay a $82,000 workout bonus that he had earned in June 2013. Hernandez lost his grievance, and his contract would likely prevent him from collecting any of the money now, despite the lack of a conviction on his record. Even though Hernandez was found not guilty of the 2012 double murder, the Patriots can reasonably argue that Hernandez didnt represent his reckless behavior during that time, and that when he signed the contract he was headed down the path of incarceration and unavailability. In June 2013, NFL.com reported that Hernandez's contract guarantees had been revoked, a decision the NFL based on his arrest and his conduct subsequent to that arrest, not his later conviction. In other words, had Hernandez not been convicted in the murder of Odin Lloyd, that circumstance would have had no bearing on the NFL's June 2013 decision: NFL.com The New England Patriots have voided all of Aaron Hernandez's contract guarantees ... meaning the former tight end will have to fight to receive even the portion of his signing bonus that he's already earned. Hernandez was to receive $2.5 million in guaranteed base salaries over the next two seasons, and his contract does not have language to void that money if he fails to practice. However, the Patriots believe the Collective Bargaining Agreement covers them because he has engaged in conduct unbecoming after being arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the death of Odin Lloyd. As for his $3.25 million in signing bonus payment that was to be paid this March, that's a deferred payment that Hernandez already earned after signing his five-year, $40 million contract last year. The Patriots appear to have a serious uphill battle to avoid paying this, but they seem set on making Hernandez fight for this portion of his fully guaranteed signing bonus. Speculation holds that if Hernandez's conviction were vacated it would posthumously restore his standing with the NFL, thereby entitling his next of kin to the wealth he would have accumulated if he had never been convicted. But that speculation presumes that since the legal doctrine triggered by Hernandez's suicide could vacate his conviction, the NFL would somehow be bound by that outcome to pay out the contract's promises to his family. However, the NFL is a business entity and not a court of law, and Hernandez's contract was voided 90 minutes after his arrest based on "conduct unbecoming," not on his conviction. 90 minutes Abatement ab initio may possibly clear Hernandez's name in a technical sense, but legal experts say only that a "creative lawyer" could initiate litigation based on that concept, not that the outcome of such litigation is automatic or certain. The legal concept of abatement ab initio is controversial when invoked in high-profile cases like this one because it often serves to protect the existing assets of an appellant's estate, and no provision of the law mandates that the NFL must reinstate Hernandez's contract terms on the basis of his death. UPDATE: Henandez' conviction was erased by a Massachusetts judge in May 2017. It was later reinstated in March 2019 with the Associated Press reporting: erased reinstated "The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously found that the legal rule that erased Hernandezs conviction is 'outdated and no longer consonant with the circumstances of contemporary life.' It ordered that Hernandezs conviction be restored and that the practice be abolished for future cases. The ruling does not affect past cases." Johnson, Patrick. "After Aaron Hernandez Suicide, Murder Conviction in Odin Lloyd Death Legally Considered 'As If It Never Occurred.'" MassLive.com. 19 April 2017. Rapoport, Ian. "Aaron Hernandez's Contract Guarantees Voided by Patriots." NFL.com. 29 June 2013. Rashbaum, William K. "Obscure Legal Doctrine May Erase Guilty Verdict for Ex-Legislator Who Died." The New York Times. 26 August 2016. Sullivan, Jennifer. "Dead Man Appeals His Murder Conviction." The Seattle Times. 28 September 2011. Volin, Ben. "Patriots Quickly Ran Out of Patience with Aaron Hernandez." The Boston Globe. 27 June 2013. National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI). "Abatement Ab Initio and a Crime Victims Right to Restitution." Fall/Winter 2006. The Washington Post. "Abatement Ab Initio." 9 July 2006. Wikipedia. "Murder Of Odin Lloyd." Accessed 20 April 2017. Volin, Ben. "Do the Patriots Owe Aaron Hernandezs Estate Any Money?" The Boston Globe. 20 April 2017. Updated with information on the March 2019 ruling.

['asset']

NEI

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health, suicide or substance use crisis or emotional distress, reach out 24/7 to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (formerly known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline) by dialing or texting 988 or using chat services atsuicidepreventionlifeline.orgto connect to a trained crisis counselor. The death of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, who was found hanged in his prison cell on 19 April 2017, was followed by rumors and questions that including speculation he intended his suicide to benefit his young daughter:This speculation was followed from news reports suggesting that because Hernandez was appealing his conviction for the murder of Odin Lloyd at the time he died, under Massachusetts law that conviction could be vacated as if it had never happened:The legal concept of abatement ab initio is both seldom invoked and not without controversy due to its potential effect on victims' families:Speculative online posts have stated with certainty that Hernandez's death triggered a windfall for his surviving relatives, presuming the NFL star would once again be entitled to a considerable fortune from his football career, but legal analysts and extant case law paint a muddier picture. They say an argument could be made disputing the severance of a contract based upon an arrest for an overturned or vacated conviction, but not that such a lawsuit would necessarily be successful:However, the Boston Globe disputed that achieving such an outcome was feasible:In June 2013, NFL.com reported that Hernandez's contract guarantees had been revoked, a decision the NFL based on his arrest and his conduct subsequent to that arrest, not his later conviction. In other words, had Hernandez not been convicted in the murder of Odin Lloyd, that circumstance would have had no bearing on the NFL's June 2013 decision:Speculation holds that if Hernandez's conviction were vacated it would posthumously restore his standing with the NFL, thereby entitling his next of kin to the wealth he would have accumulated if he had never been convicted. But that speculation presumes that since the legal doctrine triggered by Hernandez's suicide could vacate his conviction, the NFL would somehow be bound by that outcome to pay out the contract's promises to his family. However, the NFL is a business entity and not a court of law, and Hernandez's contract was voided 90 minutes after his arrest based on "conduct unbecoming," not on his conviction.UPDATE: Henandez' conviction was erased by a Massachusetts judge in May 2017. It was later reinstated in March 2019 with the Associated Press reporting:

Lou Holtz Nails It

["Was an essay about 'Two Americas' penned by former football coach Lou Holtz?"]

Did Lou Holtz really say this, or is it yet another hoax? See the text below. I tried to search for it on your site and cannot find it. The Democrats are right; there are two Americas: the America that works and the America that doesn't, the America that contributes and the America that doesn't. It's not the haves and the have-nots; it's the dos and the don'ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, and contribute to society, while others don't. That's the divide in America. It's not about income inequality; it's about civic irresponsibility. It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed, and victimization in order to win elective office. It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That's not invective; that's truth, and it's about time someone said it. The politics of envy was on proud display a couple of weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He noted that some people make more than others and that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that's not just. That is the rationale of thievery. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but rather betraying them. The Democrats have not empowered their followers; they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president's premise that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. If you choose to drop out of high school or skip college, you are likely to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pursues purposeful education. If you have your children out of wedlock, life is likely to take one course; if you have them within a marriage, life is likely to take another course. Most often in life, our destination is determined by the course we take. My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice; I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes. It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away; it is freedom—the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy, even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing, or made a lifetime's worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions. Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest—"as ye sow, so shall ye reap"—is sometimes applied as, "The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society, and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes; it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man's success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man's victimization. What Obama offered was not a solution but separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitting one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That's what socialists offer: Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas are coming closer each day to proving the truth of Lincoln's maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Origins: Shortly after President Obama gave a speech about income inequality in December 2013, writer Bob Lonsberry published an essay on his website titled "Two Americas" about "The America that works and the America that doesn't." The article didn't initially gain much attention, but that situation changed when the text of Lonsberry's essay started circulating via e-mail with former football coach Lou Holtz's name featured prominently at the top in ways that inaccurately suggested he was the article's author, such as "Lou Holtz Nails It!", "Told As Only a Coach, An Old Coach Can," "Lou Holtz on America Today," and "Lou Holtz's Viewpoint." As Bob Lonsberry has confirmed, however, the "Two Americas" essay was not penned by a famous former football coach. It was written and originally published by Lonsberry on his own website on December 9, 2013. Last updated: December 30, 2014.

['income']

NEI

[Click here to expand text].Origins: Shortly after President Obama gave a speech about income inequality in December 2013, writer Bob Lonsberry published an essay on his web site titled "Two Americas" about the "The America that works, and the America that doesnt."

Is 'Antifa' Planning a Civil War?

['Despite what random people might say in homemade YouTube videos, they offer no proof that any anti-fascist groups are planning even a skirmish.']

In August 2017, rumors began to spread on social media that anti-fascists (often shortened to "antifa," which has become shorthand for a subset of protesters usually clad in black and accessorized with bandanas, and who evidently unnerved bloggers and vloggers enough to be the pet topic of many an angry online rant) were planning extended unrest, riots, the killing of random citizens, or outright civil war beginning on November 4, 2017. Depending on the source, "antifa" (always treated as though it is one homogeneous, unified group) was 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 published on August 30, 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 was actually simply printed on his shirt. However, he is not law enforcement or military; Peltz instead evidently works as some combination of bail bondsman and bounty hunter. 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 obtaining driver's licenses and paying taxes. Local, state, and federal governments tend to disagree. On Instagram, Peltz describes his work as "#fugitiverecovery" and "#warrantservice." Peltz published a video to "clear the air" on September 27, 2017, after reporter JJ MacNab, whose beat includes anti-government and sovereign citizen groups, wrote a thread on Twitter about how militia groups were being goaded into taking up arms against anti-fascists. Peltz responded by stating that his video, which gave the 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, he claimed that despite millions of views and thousands of comments, he had remained unaware it had been altered until he saw reports. On September 29, 2017, InfoWars published an article using Peltz's "civil war" wording, claiming that antifa was planning a new round of nationwide riots on November 4 as part of a plot to start a civil war that would lead to the overthrow of the Trump administration. Far-left militants were said to plan to gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across the country in the hope of building momentum for civil unrest that would lead to nothing less than domestic regime change. A longer screed posted on the Revolutionary Communist website made it clear that antifa was not prepared to wait for electoral change from Democrats and would engage in a ferocious struggle based on plans outlined in a book written by Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, titled The Coming Civil War. The page also cited "antifa" websites, neither of which threatened violence. One provided a list of Facebook events, and the other read in its 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 night—thousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millions—determined 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 want—in 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. Don’t 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, stated it was not even aware of the call to action. An article in L.A. Weekly reported on both the freeway protest and upcoming events. Their placards bore letters that spelled out "NOV 4 IT BEGINS." However, they couldn't get enough volunteers to hold all 12 letters, so the tallest among them, those 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 stated that the protest was conceived in part to get the word out about a November 4 demonstration the group was planning. He mentioned that it was being modeled on the Women's March held in January at Pershing Square and that organizers hoped the action would include an encampment in a public place, like Occupy Wall Street, or at least a prolonged series of protests over several days. At one point, they knelt on the freeway, which organizer Michelle Xai said 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 asked for more information about November 4. Plenty of others objected to the group's inconveniencing motorists, and some appeared to endorse running them over. It is true that some groups linked to the antifa movement planned coordinated protests on November 4, 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 in law enforcement himself. When a wave of rumors about November 4 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 was paired with an older, unrelated video to create the impression of a looming threat. Peltz himself walked back the claims after his video brought him unwanted attention and scrutiny. There was an uptick in the rumor's spread on November 1, 2017, when the groups advertised the November 4 demonstrations in the New York Times.

['taxes']

False

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: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.(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.)On Instagram, Peltz describes his work as "#fugitiverecovery" and "#warrantservice":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: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: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 Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 24, 2017https://t.co/JNR3co0QwhFollow-up from my Viral Video and clearing the air. Please, view my IG to see what else was falsely claimed Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 28, 2017On 29 September 2017, InfoWars published an article using Peltz's "civil war" wording: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: Antifa Checker (@AntifaChecker) October 1, 2017An article in L.A. Weekly reported on both the freeway protest and upcoming events: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.

Did a Reddit User Find Treasure in His Grandparents' Barn?

["Avoid the misleading online ads. Here's the real story from 2013."]

In late 2021, online advertisements appeared on websites, claiming: "He Found Treasure Inside His Grandparents' Barn." Our research led us to a Reddit user named EvilEnglish, who posted in 2013 that he really did find what could be described as a "treasure" left behind in his grandparents' safe in Tennessee. However, the truth of the story had been twisted over the years by the ads and slideshow articles. First, the two pictures in the ad had nothing to do with the Reddit user, his grandparents, or the location of the "treasure" in the safe. The photograph of the supposed Reddit user is of Chris Seiter, a writer for exgirlfriendrecovery.com, and the picture of the old house also appeared to be unrelated. We found multiple photographs in the 60-page slideshow article that resulted from clicking the ad, which had nothing to do with what actually happened, despite being credited to him. Furthermore, the discovery was made in EvilEnglish's grandparents' farmhouse, not a "barn." Despite being credited to the Reddit user, these two pictures seemed to have no connection to the real story about the treasure found in EvilEnglish's grandparents' home or safe. In the original story posted in 2013, EvilEnglish, who did not provide his real name, mentioned that his father died in 2009, which led to his inheriting his grandparents' farmhouse in middle Tennessee, a property they had owned from the late 1970s until 1997. As he wrote on Reddit, it was under a damp and loose carpet in the closet under the staircase that he found and eventually opened a "secret safe": "My dad passed away a few years ago, and he inherited an old farmhouse in middle Tennessee from my grandparents. The house was a home for my grandparents for about 20 years. They bought this house in the late '70s/early '80s to escape the oppressive summer heat of the South. My grandfather was an avid sportsman and enjoyed collecting various firearms. My grandmother was a collector of coins and other antiques and curiosities. My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1998, but I think the last time they traveled to the Tennessee house was around 1997. After my grandfather passed away, neither my grandmother nor father returned to the house. My father passed in 2009, and we've been working to close out his estate and traveled to the farmhouse to prepare it for sale. There was a lot of work to do here, as it is an old house. I was working in a closet below the staircase and saw that the rug was pretty disgusting. I started pulling up the rug and noticed a block of concrete. This was very out of place since all of the downstairs flooring is hardwood. I pushed the carpet back further and saw a round cap with a circular indentation on it. I pulled off the cap and... a secret safe! I gave the handle a tug, but it wouldn't budge. If you twist the handle, it will still spin. I called several locksmiths in TN, but it is impossible to get someone to come out on a Sunday up there. I should also mention that early last year, my brother-in-law and I were moving some of the furniture. He went to move one of the coffee tables, and when he picked it up, the tabletop came off the base. Underneath the tabletop of the coffee table was a hidden, standalone safe. It was pretty heavy, but we were able to load it into the truck. He took it to work and was able to cut it open. Inside were several pistols (.22s, a .357, and a few others), as well as about 300 single one-dollar bills. We found out that they were "Barr Notes" and supposedly rare because that particular Secretary of the Treasury died just 29 days into office. Most of the locksmiths in the area seem to only want to come out during the week. I'm trying to arrange for an off day this upcoming Friday to return to Tennessee! On April 30, 2013, EvilEnglish posted to Reddit that the safe had been unlocked, revealing "treasure" from his grandparents' past. Inside, he found "dozens of rare coins, pocket watches and wristwatches, jewelry, and stacks of soggy money," according to KSL.com. The money may have been wet after a pipe leak that occurred in the years before the safe was found. The original Imgur album of photos, as well as multiple YouTube videos, are no longer available. Readers looking for pictures of the grandparents' "secret safe" can find them within the same news article from KSL.com or from a HuffPost article from May 1, 2013. In the album, the pictures showed the "Major Safe. Co." logo on the floor being examined by the professional who found a way to open it. All of the "treasure" found in the safe was displayed on the kitchen counter. In an old Reddit comment, EvilEnglish wrote: "Funny that as a boy, in that very house, my grandma read me 'Treasure Island,' and I always dreamed of finding something like this!" 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 numerous pages. This practice is known as advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money from the ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it costs to show the initial ad that attracted viewers.

['credit']

True

In late 2021, online advertisements were displayed on websites, claiming: "He Found Treasure Inside His Grandparents' Barn." Our research led us to a Reddit user named EvilEnglish who posted in 2013 that he really did find what could be described as a "treasure" that was left behind in his grandparents' safe in Tennessee.First, the two pictures in the ad had nothing to do with the Reddit user, his grandparents, or where the "treasure" was found in the safe. The photograph of the supposed Redditer is of Chris Seiter, a writer for exgirlfriendrecovery.com, and the picture of the old house appeared to also be unrelated.We found multiple photographs in the 60-page slideshow article that resulted from clicking the ad that also had nothing to do with what actually happened, despite the fact that they were credited to him. Further, the discovery was made in EvilEnglish' grandparents' farmhouse, not a "barn." Despite being credited to the Reddit user, these two pictures appeared to have nothing to do with the real story about the treasure found in the EvilEnglish's grandparents' home or safe.In the original story that was posted in 2013, EvilEnglish, who did not provide his real name, said that his father died in 2009. That led to his inheriting his grandparents' farmhouse in middle Tennessee, a property they had owned between around the late 1970s and 1997.On April 30, 2013, EvilEnglish posted to Reddit that the safe had been unlocked, revealing "treasure" from his grandparents' past.Inside, he found "dozens of rare coins, pocket watches and wristwatches, jewelry, and stacks of soggy money," according to KSL.com.The original Imgur album of photos, as well as multiple YouTube videos, are no longer available. Readers looking for pictures of the grandparents' "secret safe" can find them within the same news article from KSL.com, or from this HuffPost article from May 1, 2013.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.

Is it not possible to stop recurring donations to the Trump Campaign?

["A CNN reporter tweeted out a former Donald Trump supporter's claim that it was impossible to cancel recurring donations to the campaign once initiated, but it wasn't clear that was always the case."]

On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign: Jeremy Diamond INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 Diamond's tweet sparked a number of articles and blog posts stating it was "impossible" to cancel recurring Trump campaign donations, based solely or primarily on the anecdotal, secondhand claim made in that tweet. Among the comments prompted by original tweet sent by Diamond were those left by other purported donors asserting that the claim wasn't exactly accurate: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016 August 6, 2016 A large number of commenters expressed skepticism about the report, given that the claim was anonymously sourced from a single individual: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016 We were unable to turn up any reports about the issue that antedated Diamond's tweet. If any Trump donors had previously encountered difficulties canceling their recurring donations, they didn't seem to chatter very much about it on social media prior to 3 August 2016 (and ceasing to support Trump as a candidate is only one reason someone might seek to cancel a recurring payment). Diamond appeared to pass the baton on the story overall, updating followers later with a link to an article published by Mic: The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 @mic https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016 Diamond did not provide any further information about the claim, the claimant, or how he verified it before sharing it to Twitter. But Mic attempted to reproduce the problem on 4 August 2016 and gathered more information on the difficulty level of canceling recurring Trump donations. In a series of screenshots the site illustrated their findings, stating it was not possible to delete a stored credit card without replacing it with a separate valid credit card: After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email. Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card only "update" it. Then, when you click on "update card," you see a page that allows you to alter your payment information but you cannot completely delete your credit card. You are forced to replace it with another valid card: Invalid numbers are rejected. One responder to the original tweet then objected to that claim, stating it was impossible to set up a recurring $1 donation: .@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016 However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation: enter Mic confirmed that if a putative donor set up an account, then it would be possible for that person to cancel a recurring donation made via Trump's web site: It turns out that there is a way to delete your card from the Trump campaign's system, but it seems you must have first registered an account and created a password: If you did not do so, there is no clear way to cancel your payment. Assuming you did create an account and have logged in, to stop your payment you must click the small gray question mark icon in the upper right corner of the donations page. Then you will see [a separate] screen. In order to delete your card, you must click "manage." Then will you be redirected to the website of the Trump campaign's vendor. There you must click "recurring plans," and only then can you cancel your monthly payment; notably, even after you cancel, there is still no obvious way to delete your card number without replacing it with another valid number. Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way. Revv However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments: notes If you have regular, automatic deductions from your checking account (to pay for expenses such as insurance premiums or utility bills), the EFTA allows you to stop those payments. First, notify the vendor. Next, tell your bank about your request at least three business days before the money is scheduled to be transferred. Your notice to the bank may be oral, but the institution may require you to provide a written follow-up within 14 days to ensure that no additional payments are made. If you fail to provide a written follow-up, the bank is no longer responsible for stopping future payments. Stopping an automatic, recurring payment on a credit card is different. Start by putting in your request with the vendor. But if the vendor continues to charge your credit card, contact your card issuer. You'll have 60 days to dispute the charge, starting when the card issuer sends you the statement with the charges. While it appears to be atypically difficult to cancel a recurring donation to the Trump campaign, it is certainly not impossible, as individuals who create an account can do so via the web interface. Overall, it seemed the problem related more to the interface of a third-party vendor (Revv) to whom the Trump campaign had outsourced donations and not to the campaign itself. Dennin, James. "Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations." Mic. 4 August 2016.

['credit']

NEI

On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign:INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016.@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation:Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way. However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments:

Was it stated by Donald Trump that the Earth is flat?

['Rumors that the President-elect believes the world is flat originated from a hoax and satire web site.']

In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church. (785) 273-0325

['budget']

False

In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther:CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories.While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Does Pic Show Stephen Hawking at a Conference in Caribbean Held by Jeffrey Epstein?

['Epstein had hosted numerous scientific luminaries at the island gathering.']

On May 18, 2023, a Twitter user shared a photograph of the late physicist Stephen Hawking sitting with a group of people in what appeared to be a tropical setting. The user claimed that Hawking was on the Caribbean island owned by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In a tweet, @dom_lucre asked, "Serious question, why the hell was Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epstein's Island?" asked (@@dom_lucre/X) This is a real photograph of Hawking that shows him either on one of Epstein's private islands or on nearby St. Thomas Island, at an Epstein-sponsored conference. It was taken in March 2006, a few months before Epstein was charged with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor. March 2006 charged Epstein, a financier who was later charged with sex trafficking, died in his prison cell in 2021 while awaiting trial (he previously had been convicted of other sex offenses). But before his fall, he was known for his parties and his extensive connections with high-profile celebrities, politicians, and intellectuals. He owned two private islands, Great St. James and Little St. James, which were prominent features in the civil and criminal cases against him. Numerous young women said in court papers that they were taken via private jet to Little St. James, where they were ordered to perform sex acts with Epstein and other men. died owned said Hawking was just one of many scientists and intellectuals invited to these islands for less-sinister reasons a scientific conference Epstein paid for. So how was Hawking brought into Epstein's orbit? For years, Epstein financed the Edge Foundation, billed as a salon for elite thinkers, which hosted prominent gatherings of scientists and intellectuals, and gave Epstein access to such circles. According to a Buzzfeed News investigation, Epstein's donations helped Edge carry out most of its activities, including an annual "billionaires dinner" that ceased to take place after his last contribution in 2015. financed billed investigation An archived page from Edge.org describing Epstein's involvement can be seen here, where he was described as "a financier and science philanthropist." The website stated, "He is one of the largest supporters of individual scientists, including theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek." Edge.org here In 2006, Epstein sponsored a conference at the neighboring St. Thomas Island. Per a March 2006 report in the St. Thomas Source, a local newspaper, prominent scientists gathered in a series of private meetings dubbed "Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology." Among those scientists was Hawking. March 2006 Epstein was also described by the local report as the "driving force behind the conference." He reportedly said to the paper that he brought the group to St. Thomas with hopes that the relaxed setting would free the physicists' minds to explore one of the 20th century's last unanswered physics questions: What is gravity? described "There is no agenda except fun and physics, and that's fun with a capital 'F,'" Epstein reportedly said. reportedly The New York Times also reported in 2019 on Hawking's trip to this island (emphasis, ours): reported It was a five-day gathering in the Caribbean of some of the world's top scientists, including Dr. Hawking, to share ideas about gravity and cosmology, with scuba and catamaran excursions on the side. One evening, the participants had dinner on the beach at Mr. Epstein's private island. Some of the scientists noticed that Mr. Epstein "was always followed by a group of something like three or four young women," as Alan Guth, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it in an email to The Times, but they did not probe further. In another 2019 report, The New York Times described how, "Once, the scientists including Mr. Hawking crowded on board a submarine that Mr. Epstein had chartered." 2019 report But where did the photograph come from? In 2006, The Edge Foundation also published a blog post on the conference and interviewed an attendee and organizer, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Per the post (emphasis, ours): The Edge Foundation post The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity." Krauss intended to have "a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology". They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event. We scrolled to the bottom of the page and found photographs of Hawking and more from the gathering. The photograph in question showed Hawking seated alongside Nobel Prize winner David Gross, and physicists Kip Thorne and Lisa Randall. Yet another shows Hawking on what appears to be the interior of a boat, captioned, "Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking on the way to Atlantis Submarine." page (Screenshot via Edge.org) The New York Times described Epstein's allure for these scientists: The New York Times The lure for some of the scientists was Mr. Epstein's money. He dangled financing for their pet projects. Some of the scientists said that the prospect of financing blinded them to the seriousness of his sexual transgressions, and even led them to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings. The photograph of Hawking has been disseminated in the media, and is also publicly available on the website of the foundation once financed by Epstein, along with a description of the conference he attended, with the dates and details of the gathering matching up with reliable media reports. We thus rate this claim "A Timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell Scandal." AP NEWS, 28 June 2022, https://apnews.com/article/epstein-maxwell-timeline-b9f15710fabb72e8581c71e94acf513e. Accessed 19 May 2023. Aldhous, Peter. "How Jeffrey Epstein Bankrolled An Exclusive Intellectual Boys Club And Reaped The Benefits." BuzzFeed News, 26 Sept. 2019, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-john-brockman-edge-foundation.Accessed 19 May 2023. Chappell, Bill. "Financier Buys Jeffrey Epstein's Private Islands, with Plans to Create a Resort." NPR, 4 May 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173956903/jeffrey-epstein-island-sold-st-james.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Jeffrey Epstein." Edge.Org. 5 Apr. 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190405211237/https:/www.edge.org/memberbio/jeffrey_epstein.Accessed 19 May 2023. Kantor, Jodi, et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway." The New York Times, 13 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-elite.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Physicists Debate Gravity at St. Thomas Symposium." St. Thomas Source, 17 Mar. 2006, https://stthomassource.com/content/2006/03/17/physicists-debate-gravity-st-thomas-symposium/.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Pictured: Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epsteins 'Sex-Slave Island.'" The Independent, 13 Jan. 2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-hawking-pictured-on-jeffrey-epstein-s-sex-slave-caribbean-island-9974955.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Stephen Hawking Pictured on Jeffrey Epstein's "Island of Sin."" Telegraph, 12 Jan. 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking/11340494/Stephen-Hawking-pictured-on-Jeffrey-Epsteins-Island-of-Sin.html. Accessed 19 May 2023. Stewart, James B., et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA." The New York Times, 31 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO." Edge.Org. 6 Mar. 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20230306164658/https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Who Was Jeffrey Epstein? The Financier Charged with Sex Trafficking." BBC News, 8 July 2019. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48913377.Accessed 19 May 2023.

['finance']

True

In a tweet, @dom_lucre asked, "Serious question, why the hell was Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epstein's Island?"This is a real photograph of Hawking that shows him either on one of Epstein's private islands or on nearby St. Thomas Island, at an Epstein-sponsored conference. It was taken in March 2006, a few months before Epstein was charged with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor. Epstein, a financier who was later charged with sex trafficking, died in his prison cell in 2021 while awaiting trial (he previously had been convicted of other sex offenses). But before his fall, he was known for his parties and his extensive connections with high-profile celebrities, politicians, and intellectuals. He owned two private islands, Great St. James and Little St. James, which were prominent features in the civil and criminal cases against him. Numerous young women said in court papers that they were taken via private jet to Little St. James, where they were ordered to perform sex acts with Epstein and other men. For years, Epstein financed the Edge Foundation, billed as a salon for elite thinkers, which hosted prominent gatherings of scientists and intellectuals, and gave Epstein access to such circles. According to a Buzzfeed News investigation, Epstein's donations helped Edge carry out most of its activities, including an annual "billionaires dinner" that ceased to take place after his last contribution in 2015. An archived page from Edge.org describing Epstein's involvement can be seen here, where he was described as "a financier and science philanthropist." The website stated, "He is one of the largest supporters of individual scientists, including theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek." In 2006, Epstein sponsored a conference at the neighboring St. Thomas Island. Per a March 2006 report in the St. Thomas Source, a local newspaper, prominent scientists gathered in a series of private meetings dubbed "Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology." Among those scientists was Hawking. Epstein was also described by the local report as the "driving force behind the conference." He reportedly said to the paper that he brought the group to St. Thomas with hopes that the relaxed setting would free the physicists' minds to explore one of the 20th century's last unanswered physics questions: What is gravity?"There is no agenda except fun and physics, and that's fun with a capital 'F,'" Epstein reportedly said.The New York Times also reported in 2019 on Hawking's trip to this island (emphasis, ours):In another 2019 report, The New York Times described how, "Once, the scientists including Mr. Hawking crowded on board a submarine that Mr. Epstein had chartered." But where did the photograph come from? In 2006, The Edge Foundation also published a blog post on the conference and interviewed an attendee and organizer, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Per the post (emphasis, ours):We scrolled to the bottom of the page and found photographs of Hawking and more from the gathering. The photograph in question showed Hawking seated alongside Nobel Prize winner David Gross, and physicists Kip Thorne and Lisa Randall. Yet another shows Hawking on what appears to be the interior of a boat, captioned, "Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking on the way to Atlantis Submarine." The New York Times described Epstein's allure for these scientists:

Idaho clergy members compelled to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies.

['Rumor: Two Idaho pastors were threatened with arrest for refusing to perform gay weddings.']

Claim: Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real? Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs? What has happened to "separation of church and state"? Does it now only apply to churches preaching against orruption in government? Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins: On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement: The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple. The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A 2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho: Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated: 7 July 2015 Starnes, Todd. "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings." Fox News. 20 October 2014.

['income']

False

The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows:At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier:The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions:Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice:

John Stossel Fired?

["Was ABC News' '20/20' co-anchor John Stossel fired for trying to air a critical piece on health care reform?"]

Claim: ABC News' 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel was fired for trying to air a piece critical of health care reform. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] Amazing that John Stossel, the beauty boy of ABC and who was the true investigative reporter for the truly non-political program 20/20 program was fired when he tried to run this. Anyone know what is going on? Everyone like the change? Now you can hear and see WHY John was fired!!! (Where was Obama?> The following link is to John Stossel's ABC (20-20) special that was delayed by ABC until after Henry Waxman's House committee voted on HR3200. Possibly you have already seen it because, thank goodness, a lot of people have discovered it and are forwarding it to everyone they know. ABC's John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062 https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062 Origins: In September 2009, John Stossel, who had been a part of ABC News' popular 20/20 television program since 1981 (and had co-anchored the show since 2003), announced he was leaving that network for FOX: John Stossel FOX Award-winning journalist John Stossel has signed a multi-year deal with FOX Business Network and the FOX News Channel. Stossel, who is best known for his work on ABC's "20/20," will anchor a one-hour, weekly program on FOX Business, entitled "Stossel." It will debut in the fourth quarter of 2009 in FOX Business's prime-time lineup. The program will look at consumer-focused topics, such as civil liberties, the business of health care and free trade. Contrary to what is claimed above, no one involved not ABC, Fox, or John Stossel himself reported or claimed that Stossel had been "fired" (for "trying to run a program on health care" or any other reason). John Stossel voluntarily chose to leave ABC and take up a better opportunity with Fox: In a post on his ABC blog, Mr. Stossel said he wanted to "dig into the meaning of the words 'liberty' and 'limited government'" on the program. "ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more air time and a new challenge," he added. In a statement, ABC News wished Mr. Stossel well and said he would be "an asset to Fox News in this next chapter of his terrific career." It is true that John Stossel expressed disappointment with ABC's delayed airing of his critical piece on the Canadian health care system("Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?"), but even he acknowledged that the piece was pushed back four weeks from its original air date to accommodate more timely (and ratings-garnering) coverage about Michael Jackson, who had just died, and not because it was deliberately delayed until after a House committee vote on health care reform. As he wrote on his ABC blog on 29 June 2009: Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation? Here's one blog comment, after I reported that ABC will hold my health care report in favor of more Michael Jackson coverage: Free market in action. See there Stossel? What's not to like about that?Posted by: jan | Jun 26, 2009 5:12:12 PM p.s. Stossel. You've been hoisted on your own petard. Cheerio. Jan is right. It's the free market in action. Of course, maybe my bosses made the wrong choice. Maybe more viewers would have tuned in for my health care report. But the beauty of the market is that if they regularly choose wrong, they will go bankrupt. Networks better at giving the public what we want will take their business. Id rather have viewers vote with their remotes than have elites govern our choices, making sure we watch "serious" programming. Yes, I am sick of the coverage of Michael Jackson. I hate it that ABC didn't run my piece. Free markets sometimes encourage pandering to the masses. I still say, bless the market. The good outweighs the bad. Free speech means rude obscenity and hate speech. I treasure free speech too. Last updated: 5 November 2009 FOX Business. "John Stossel to Join FOX Business Network." 10 September 2009.

['asset']

NEI

https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062Origins: In September 2009, John Stossel, who had been a part of ABC News' popular 20/20 television program since 1981 (and had co-anchored the show since 2003), announced he was leaving that network for FOX: It is true that John Stossel expressed disappointment with ABC's delayed airing of his critical piece on the Canadian health care system("Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?"), but even he acknowledged that the piece was pushed back four weeks from its original air date to accommodate more timely (and ratings-garnering) coverage about Michael Jackson, who had just died, and not because it was deliberately delayed until after a House committee vote on health care reform. As he wrote on his ABC blog on 29 June 2009:

Does Health Insurance under the Affordable Care Act require monthly payments in the hundreds or thousands range?

["ACA costs are going up in 2017, but premium payments depend largely on the individual's income level."]

On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here: McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces." 25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace." 24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates." The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015.

['insurance']

NEI

We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida):McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers:This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected).According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs.Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs:

Did Fox News Use an Image of Patti LaBelle During Their Aretha Franklin Tribute?

["Fox News accidentally included a photograph of singer Patti LaBelle instead of Aretha Franklin as they reported on the latter's passing."]

On 16 August 2018, Aretha Franklin, the iconic Grammy Award-winning singer known as the "Queen of Soul," passed away at the age of 76. As fans took to social media to share their memories of the late soul singer, many of them noticed a curious graphic that had been shared by the official Fox News Twitter account. The news network used the same graphic in their television broadcast about Franklin's death. This graphic was of particular interest because while the foreground picture is that of Aretha Franklin, the woman in the green jacket seen in the background is not the Queen of Soul. That is actually an image of singer Patti LaBelle performing at the "Women of Soul: In Performance at the White House" concert in 2014. Zachary Pleat (@zpleat) shared a video on Twitter on August 16, 2018. Jessica Santostefano, Vice President of the Media Desk at Fox News, issued an apology for the mistake. She stated, "We sincerely apologize to Aretha Franklin's family and friends. Our intention was to honor the icon using a secondary image of her performing with Patti LaBelle in the full-screen graphic, but the image of Ms. Franklin was obscured in that process, which we deeply regret." LaBelle and Franklin both performed at a 2014 White House concert, but the network's explanation for the error seemed questionable to some viewers because Franklin didn't appear at all in the photograph of LaBelle that formed the basis of the graphic. The original photograph, which was taken during LaBelle's performance of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" by Reuters photographer Jonathan Ernst, can be seen below.

['interest']

True

On 16 August 2018, Aretha Franklin, the iconic Grammy Award-winning singer known as the "Queen of Soul," passed away at the age of 76. As fans took to social media to share their memories of the late soul singer, many of them noticed a curious graphic that had been shared by the official Fox News Twitter account:The news network used the same graphic in their television broadcast about Franklin's death:This graphic was of particular interest because while the foreground picture is that of Aretha Franklin, the woman in the green jacket seen in the background is not the Queen of Soul. That is actually an image of singer Patti LaBelle performing at the "Women of Soul: In Performance at the White House concert in 2014:Yep here's video pic.twitter.com/IIkMDuKB7e Zachary Pleat (@zpleat) August 16, 2018Jessica Santostefano, Vice President -- Media Desk at Fox News, issued an apology for the mistake:LaBelle and Franklin both performed at a 2014 White House concert, but the network's explanation for the error seemed questionable to some viewers because Franklin didn't appear at all in the photograph of LaBelle that formed the basis of the graphic. The original photograph, which was taken during LaBelle's performance of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" by Reuters photograph Jonathan Ernst, can be seen below:

In fact, theres more state funding for education today than any other time.

[]

Chris Christie heard the complaints often. He cut education funding and supports charter schools. He is hard on teachers, and his quest for tenure and other reforms is excessive. However, the governor continues to respond to those complaints with various versions of this refrain: New Jersey has the most funding allocated to education in state history. Christie reiterated this on November 2 during a gubernatorial campaign stop in Somers Point, when he and a public school teacher got into an argument. Christie was re-elected on Tuesday. In fact, there is more state funding for education today than at any other time, Christie said when the teacher cited the governor's education funding cuts as the reason he referred to New Jersey schools as "failure factories." Technically, Christie is correct about the level of education funding in New Jersey, but as we have pointed out in the past, there is more to this story that he does not address. First, let's return to that remark about "failure factories." Christie used it during a speech he gave on October 6 to the Orthodox Union in Teaneck, where he promoted his education policies. "I would be happy to take as many dollars as possible away from failure factories that send children on a nonstop route to prison and to failed dreams, if we could take that money and put it into a place where those families have hope," Christie said. Now, regarding the governor's point about education funding, Christie's proposed fiscal year 2014 budget called for nearly $9 billion in education funding, about $1 billion more than the previous year. Under that spending plan, state aid to schools increased by $97 million. While no district saw a decrease in state aid, many either received an increase of $1 or their funding remained the same as the previous year. At the time, Christie released a statement through the state Department of Education in which he touted the funding level while also emphasizing fiscal restraint. "However, even as we continue to fund education at the highest levels in state history, we must remain willing to reflect on how we are spending our money and work towards solutions that make every dollar we invest count," he said in the statement. We have previously run Christie's claim past Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union. Wollmer agreed that in terms of dollars, it is correct that the state has its highest-ever level of education funding. However, that does not mean there hasn't been a long-lasting downside to the cuts that Christie made during his first year as governor. He took office in January 2010. What he does not mention is that he cut $1.3 billion from state aid in his first year, withholding $475 million in aid in January, which was the amount that the state's nearly 600 districts had in total surpluses for unanticipated expenses (a new roof, a bus that needed replacing, an unanticipated special education placement), and another $820 million in the FY11 budget (which began for schools in September 2010), Wollmer said previously in a statement to PolitiFact New Jersey. Districts cut back dramatically, resulting in the layoff of 10,000 teachers and staff, cuts to programs, and increased class sizes. Those cuts continue to have a lasting impact, Wollmer said. In addition to the cuts, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2011 ordered Christie to increase aid to the now-former Abbott districts by about $500 million. Our ruling: Christie last week said during an argument with a teacher, "In fact, there is more state funding for education today than at any other time." Critics frequently call the governor out for the massive funding cuts he has made to education since taking office and for either increasing state aid by a minimal amount or not at all. However, the fact of the matter is that despite the cuts, New Jersey's education funding level is the highest it has ever been. For that reason, we rate Christie's statement as true. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.

['New Jersey', 'Education', 'State Budget']

True

To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.

I spent only $36.29 on my campaign for governor.

[]

Memorable and low-budget -- that's the type of election campaign Robert J. Healey Jr. likes to wage. While the other candidates campaigned for months and spent millions in the most expensive governors race in Rhode Island history, Healey didnt enter the contest until shortly after the September primary, when he replaced the Moderate Partys original candidate, who was unable to run because of illness. Healey, who has repeatedly run for lieutenant governor with the intention of abolishing the office, and who spent the 2002 election season handing out campaign condoms with the slogan Nothing never felt so good, got 21.4 percent of the vote after mail ballots were counted in the 2014 gubernatorial election. While the major party candidates, Democrat Gina Raimondo and Republican Allan Fung, saturated the airwaves with commercials, Healey made a few campaign appearances and put up a few signs. But his performance in televised debates in October won him support from a lot of people who like his unconventional style -- or didnt much like Fung or Raimondo, who won the race. The day after the election, Healey told Providence Journal columnist Edward Fitzpatrick that hespent just $36.29on his campaign. He madea similar claim on WPRO, where morning host Gene Valicenti congratulated him on his strong showing. Thank you. For 35, for 38 bucks, not bad, Healey said. I probably should have spent twice as much. I would have doubled my numbers and maybe be the governor. Valicenti joked that he didn't count gas money. I know, Healey responded. (But) I had to go there anyway. The Moderate Party candidate -- who also founded the Cool Moose Party -- has cited similar numbers in other venues. That prompted a reader to question the accuracy of Healey's statements. Someone had to spend money for those garish signs over I-195. And those signs weren't cheap, the reader said. Indeed, there were more than a few Healey signs throughout the state. We decided to check. Healey'smost recent filingwith the Rhode Island Board of Elections, for the period ending Oct. 27, 2014, shows that he raised no money and spent nothing during the previous 20 days.His previous reportshows that he gave himself $35.31 and spent it all on cell phone expenses. Healey told us the amount jumps to $36.29 when you add the price of the only two purchases he made since his last financial report -- a pair of postage stamps. Filings for the Moderate Party itself show that it spent no money on Healey's race either, at least through Oct. 27. So where did the money for the signs come from? Healey said a lot of supporters downloaded the public-domain images ofhim and his artworkfrom his website so anybody could produce anything. They printed their own. In addition, a local sign maker printed up his own signs and sold them at cost. The candidate also recycled signs from his past campaigns for lieutenant governor. We just crossed out the word 'lieutenant' and gave those away, said Healey. He also painted a campaign message on the wall of a building using old black paint. He initially had trouble opening the cans of Rust-Oleum paint because the covers had rusted shut. I found that rather ironic. They should make cans that don't rust, he said. In the end, I didn't spend any money on signs. Not at all, Healey asserted. In addition, people printed up a ton of T-shirts. I don't know what people did with them. But we're creating small business in Rhode Island. We're giving people jobs. We recycled everything -- anything I could cross out the word 'lieutenant.' We recycled buttons. We had some old bumper stickers from when I ran for governor in '98. In the attic, I found a case of Cool Moose combs, which I had in '86. Yardsticks, he said. And did he have any leftover condoms? We did, but they all expired in 2003. We didn't want to be giving out expired condoms. So when Robert Healey says he spent only about $36 on his campaign, all the evidence points to a truly shoestring operation. We rate his claim asTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

['Rhode Island', 'Campaign Finance', 'Elections', 'Jobs']

True

The day after the election, Healey told Providence Journal columnist Edward Fitzpatrick that hespent just $36.29on his campaign. He madea similar claim on WPRO, where morning host Gene Valicenti congratulated him on his strong showing.Healey'smost recent filingwith the Rhode Island Board of Elections, for the period ending Oct. 27, 2014, shows that he raised no money and spent nothing during the previous 20 days.His previous reportshows that he gave himself $35.31 and spent it all on cell phone expenses.Healey said a lot of supporters downloaded the public-domain images ofhim and his artworkfrom his website so anybody could produce anything. They printed their own. In addition, a local sign maker printed up his own signs and sold them at cost.We rate his claim asTrue.(If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

Was Barack Obama Arrested in a Japanese Drug Bust?

['Rumors that the former U.S. president was arrested in connection with the seizure of massive amounts of cocaine on his yacht are fake news.']

In April 2017, rumors appeared on social media that former United States President Barack Obama had been arrested in Japan in connection with large quantities of cocaine purportedly found on his yacht: The arrest rumor appeared to have originated via a 31 March 2017 blog post from Benjamin Fulford (who days earlier had claimed that the Japanese government was trying to kill him) that was further aggregated by other dubious web sites: originated claimed aggregated Former US President Barack Obama, in custody of the US military police, has informed on his drug dealing bosses, according to sources in Japanese military intelligence. As a result of this, an airplane filled with Afghan Heroin and North Korean amphetamines was impounded at Argyle International Airport on St. Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean, the sources say. The money raised from this drug flight was intended to be used to finance the operations of Daesh (formerly known as ISIS), the sources say. This impoundment follows the capture of an Obama linked ship containing 4.2 tons of cocaine, the sources note. At the bottom of the post was a citation referencing a 15 March 2017 post on conspiracy site WhatDoesItMean.com about Barack Obama's supposedly fleeing the scene of a drug bust that took place in the Caribbean on a "fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle" that was linked to the former president: post Obama Flees After Massive Drug Bust Aboard Lady Michelle Vessel In Caribbean An intriguing Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that former President Barack Obama fled Washington D.C. this past Friday (10 March) traveling to New York City, Omaha (Nebraska), San Jose (California) and ending up in Hawaii all occurring within 36 hours while he sought elite allies to defend him, and keeping him ahead of investigators from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the US Department of the Treasury (DoT) seeking to interview him about one of the largest drug busts in American history occurring in the Caribbean aboard a fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle. 4.2 tons of seized cocaine, worth an estimated $125 million, from the President Barack Obama linked fishing vessel named Lady Michelle on 16 February 2017 According to this report, nearly immediately upon taking office as President Donald Trumps Attorney General on 9 February, Jeff Sessions, as head of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), was handed a top secret file by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey detailing the nearly two-decade long crimes of 12 current and former security and intelligence officers belonging to the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) who for at least 18 years under both the Bush and Obama regimes had smuggled into the United States at least $100 million worth of cocaine. None this was true, as the "Obama drug bust" story originated with the WhatDoesItMean.com is a fake news conspiracy site, described by RationalWiki as follows: WhatDoesItMean.com fake news RationalWiki follows Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. The image used to illustrate the WhatDoesItMean article was taken from an earlier news report about a 16 February 2017 U.S. Coast Guard drug bust off the coast of Suriname that had nothing to do with Barack Obama or Japan: report The U.S. Coast Guard busted four men suspected of smuggling more than four tons of cocaine worth $125 million in the Atlantic Ocean. Officials said on Feb. 16 they intercepted a suspicious fishing boat off Paramaribo, Suriname. The 70-foot vessel was allegedly carrying numerous bales of cocaine, the Coast Guard said. Officials seized 4.2 tons of the drugs, worth an estimated $125 million in wholesale value.

['finance']

False

The arrest rumor appeared to have originated via a 31 March 2017 blog post from Benjamin Fulford (who days earlier had claimed that the Japanese government was trying to kill him) that was further aggregated by other dubious web sites:At the bottom of the post was a citation referencing a 15 March 2017 post on conspiracy site WhatDoesItMean.com about Barack Obama's supposedly fleeing the scene of a drug bust that took place in the Caribbean on a "fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle" that was linked to the former president: None this was true, as the "Obama drug bust" story originated with the WhatDoesItMean.com is a fake news conspiracy site, described by RationalWiki as follows:The image used to illustrate the WhatDoesItMean article was taken from an earlier news report about a 16 February 2017 U.S. Coast Guard drug bust off the coast of Suriname that had nothing to do with Barack Obama or Japan:

Did Musk Say 'I Hate When People Confuse Education with Intelligence'?

['We looked for the origins of a quote about confusing education with intelligence that has been attributed online to Tesla CEO Elon Musk.']

On April 30, 2022, a Facebook user posted what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet in which Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence. You can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." However, we were unable to find any record of him ever tweeting or saying these words. The Facebook post looked like this: This quote received numerous comments where users simply posted, "So true!" We have found in the past that these two words can be a red flag indicating that the person to whom a quote was attributed might not be its true originator. The first instance of Musk's name being attached to the quote appeared to occur on April 29, 2020. On that day, a Twitter user replied to a tweet from Musk with a similar quote about confusing "education with intelligence." Days later, on May 4, another user tweeted the same quote, giving credit for the statement to Musk. From there, it was shared for the next two years as if Musk had actually said the words. During our research, we found other instances of the same quote attributed (in some instances, verbatim) to physicist Richard Feynman, author Mark Twain, and film actors Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman. A quick search of Google Books and Newspapers.com showed that various people had been cautioning others not to confuse education with intelligence since at least the 1920s. For example, in a 1922 issue of the "Printer's Ink" periodical, one line read, "Do not confuse education and experience." The next sentence discussed "intelligence." In 1932, author Sadie Myers Shellow wrote in the book, "How to Develop Your Personality," the words, "Many people confuse education and intelligence." In 1941, a witness on the stand during a New York Court of Appeals hearing said, "I never confuse education with intelligence. They are two different things." On March 29, 1952, Dr. George W. Crane answered questions in a column titled, "The Worry Clinic." It was printed in The Charlotte News, a North Carolina newspaper. In one answer, Crane said, "You readers must never confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.' A mountaineer who cannot read may still have high mental horsepower or intelligence. You can thus have a brilliant mind, yet never have graduated from grammar school." On Dec. 7, 1977, Max Rafferty answered several questions in a column printed in The Pensacola News, a Florida newspaper. One of his answers to a reader identified as "N.J.S." was similar to the quote that was misattributed to Musk. It said, in part, "Don't ever confuse education with intelligence, N.J.S. Some of the biggest jackasses I've ever known had doctoral degrees." Basically, we found dozens of examples of various people from past decades expressing the same thought about education and intelligence that would later be attributed to Musk. Rafferty's words in the 1977 newspaper column came fairly close, with "doctoral degrees" taking the place of "bachelor's degree." In sum, no, Musk did not tweet or originate the words, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence," nor did he say, "you can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot."

['credit']

False

On April 30, 2022, a Facebook user posted what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet in which Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence. You can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." However, we were unable to find any record that he ever tweeted or said these words.This quote had plenty of comments where users had simply posted, "So true!" We've found in the past that these two words can be a red flag indicating that the person to whom a quote was attributed might not be its true originator.The first instance of Musk's name being attached to the quote appeared to occur on April 29, 2020. On that day, a Twitter user replied to a tweet from Musk with a similar quote about confusing "education with intelligence." Days later, on May 4, another user tweeted the same quote, giving credit for the statement to Musk. From there, it was shared for the next two years as if Musk had actually said the words.During our research, we found other instances of the same quote attributed (in some instances, verbatim) to physicist Richard Feynman, author Mark Twain, and film actors Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman.A quick search of Google Books and Newspapers.com showed that various people had been cautioning others to not confuse education with intelligence since at least the 1920s.For example, in a 1922 issue of the "Printer's Ink" periodical, one line read, "Do not confuse education and experience." The next sentence discussed "intelligence."In 1932, author Sadie Myers Shellow wrote in the book, "How to Develop Your Personality," the words, "Many people confuse education and intelligence."In 1941, a witness on the stand during a New York Court of Appeals hearing said the words, "I never confuse education with intelligence. They are two different things."On March 29, 1952, Dr. George W. Crane answered questions in a column titled, "The Worry Clinic." It was printed in The Charlotte News, a North Carolina newspaper. In one answer, Crane said, "You readers must never confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.' A mountaineer who cannot read may still have high mental horse power or intelligence. You can thus have a brilliant mind, yet never have graduated from grammar school."On Dec. 7, 1977, Max Rafferty answered several questions in a column printed in The Pensacola News, a Florida newspaper. One of his answers to a reader identified as "N.J.S." was similar to the quote that was misattributed to Musk. It said, in part, "Don't ever confuse education with intelligence, N.J.S. Some of the biggest jackasses I've ever known had doctoral degrees."Basically, we found dozens of examples of various people from past decades expressing the same thought about education and intelligence that would later be attributed to Musk. Rafferty's words in the 1977 newspaper column came fairly close, with "doctoral degrees" taking the place of "bachelor's degree."In sum, no, Musk did not tweet or originate the words, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence," nor did he say, "you can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot."

In the United States, a college loan stands out as the only type of loan that is not eligible for refinancing when interest rates decrease.

[]

Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while campaigning for his wife in Los Angeles this week: America's mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, trailing only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. It is often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the country's economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 graduated with an average of $35,000 in student loan debt, the highest in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt being such a significant issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. However, they weren't the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejected legislation by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have allowed student borrowers to refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in a Washington Post news article at the time. Republicans argued that they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have allowed people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 to refinance at 3.86 percent, the article stated. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, totaling $50 billion. Our research As they campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for the refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are discussing is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. However, doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Additionally, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But there is no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan into another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, regardless of how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistance advises potential borrowers. PolitiFact Texas examined a similar claim in 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke with Heather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who informed them that some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. However, she noted that this would only occur in cases where borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky, as the borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis stated, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former president's statement, Bill Clinton's press secretary said in an email that it is very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federal debt. She pointed to statistics from the College Board showing that federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She mentioned that a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by converting it into a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton stated at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and there is no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have been helpful. We rated his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

['Debt', 'Economy', 'Education', 'California']

True

Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website.In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt.Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time.What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing.There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers.PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True.They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income.Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Does this internet joke show evidence of racial discrimination in cases of tax evasion prosecution?

['What do these four examples have in common? Nothing of significance, as far as we can tell.']

One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks. However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples, not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion, so widely spaced in time and differing in circumstances as to be unhelpful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with or imprisoned for non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity. On June 4, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on December 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, who was then a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine, a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest. Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue; the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, so they took what was then a novel approach: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, "They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction, he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. In a literal sense, Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected, as well as the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities. Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative, we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons—maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advice, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of cases and will instead work with offenders to facilitate payment of their back debts, rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them. At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who, along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley, owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes," fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties to avoid paying immense sums of taxes. Some of Helmsley's luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987, a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year, Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn., a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsley's bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt—the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the money owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances, as well as liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though. Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the IRS that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to the National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he claimed, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again that his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report, which stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller. During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. "We're talking about old taxes," he said, adding, "We're not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I'm not paying taxes while I'm doing whatever I'm doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true." The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton's assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton's assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoing spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions.

['lien']

False

Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity:Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest).Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion.IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48.At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them).Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building.Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes:Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though:Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller:The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions.

'The Big Lebowski 2' Announced

["Fake news reports the Coen brothers have announced plans to begin filming a 'Big Lebowski' sequel."]

Claim: The Coen brothers have announced plans to begin filming a Big Lebowski sequel in January 2015. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Are they really making The Big Lebowski 2? Origins: On 10 September 2014, the National Report website published an article claiming that the Oscar-winning directorial duo of Joel and Ethan Coen had announced plans to begin filming a sequel to their popular 1998 film, The Big Lebowski, in January 2015. Exciting news for Big Lebowski fans around the world, as a sequel to the cult classic was just announced. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, directors of the first Lebowski movie, confirmed with E! Online that they would both be returning to direct the sequel. "We're thrilled to be coming back to film a second part to this classic movie," Ethan Coen said. "For years we've been staying away from doing this project, but when we received this new script and the cast fell into place, it was a no-brainer. We just had to do it." By the following day, links and excerpts referencing this item were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the article mistaking it for a genuine news item. However, the article was just another piece of misinformation from the National Report, a fake news site that publishes sensational, made-up stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." The National Report's disclaimer page notes that all of the site's articles are fiction: "National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental." In reality, the Coen brothers reiterated at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival that they had no interest in producing a Big Lebowski follow-up film: "Bummer, man, the Dude won't abide again. There will be no sequel to The Big Lebowski." That's the final word on the subject from filmmaking brothers Joel and Ethan Coen during a press day at the Cannes Film Festival for their new film, Inside Llewyn Davis. Despite a growing fanbase for the cult 1998 comedy about Jeff Bridges' hippie bowler character Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski and the clamor for a sequel, the writer/director duo aren't interested in revisiting the past, even though actors in the film, including Bridges, are keen to reprise their roles. "John Turturro, who wants it, talks to us incessantly about doing a sequel about his (bowler) character Jesus," Ethan Coen said. "He even has the story worked out, which he's pitched to us a few times, but I can't really remember it... No, I don't see it in our future." Joel Coen was even firmer: "I don't think it's going to happen... I just don't like sequels." Last updated: 21 October 2015.

['interest']

False

By the following day links and excerpts referencing this item were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the article mistaking it for a genuine news item. However, the article was just another bit of misinformation from the National Report, a fake news site that publishes sensational, made-up stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6."The National Report's disclaimer page notes that all of the site's articles are fiction:In reality, the Coen brothers proclaimed once again at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival that they had no interest in producing a Big Lebowski follow-up film:

Is There a Warrant for CIA Director Nominee Gina Haspel's Arrest?

['Activists have called on German prosecutors to move against Haspel, but no warrant has been issued.']

The Trump administration has had its share of embattled nominees, but President Donald Trump's pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency in March 2018 is controversial even by those standards. Trump nominated the agency's deputy director, Gina Haspel, on 13 March 2018. But her record has come under question both in the U.S. and abroad because of her service while stationed at a secret CIA facility in 2002, leading to allegations that she committed war crimes (with commentary appearing, naturally, in meme form): A human rights advocacy group the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) has called for Haspel to be taken into custody if she travels to the continent. The group has petitioned federal prosecutors in Germany since 2014 to issue a warrant, saying: saying: Those who commit, order or allow torture should be brought before a court this is especially true for senior officials from powerful nations. The prosecutor must, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, open investigations, secure evidence and seek an arrest warrant. If the deputy director travels to Germany or Europe, she must be arrested. Andreas Schller, director of the group's International Crimes and Accountability Program, has said that ECCHR does not expect that Haspel will actually face a warrant; its goal, he said, is that German officials recognize Haspel's alleged actions: said If you allow her to come here, you are making a clear political decision that you prioritize that over your obligations under the Convention Against Torture They can't say they didn't know who was coming here. Haspel, who first joined the agency in 1985 during President Ronald Reagan's administration, was reportedly in charge of a secret "black site" prison in Thailand at which a prisoner and terror suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was waterboarded. She also allegedly supported the destruction of videotapes in 2005 capturing waterboardings at the prison. (However, a report stating that she was in charge of the facility, code-named "Cat's Eye," at the time another suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was tortured was retracted.) reportedly retracted. The use of waterboarding or "enhanced interrogation," as officials called it at the time was banned in 2009 by President Barack Obama. Five years later, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report criticizing the practice. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who was the committee chair at the time, wrote in the foreword to the report: banned report CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values. In March 2018, Feinstein called on the agency to declassify documents related to Haspel's role in the program: called As we move forward with the nomination process for Ms. Haspel, my fellow Senators and I must have the complete picture of Ms. Haspel's involvement in the program in order to fully and fairly review her record and qualifications. I also believe the American people deserve to know the actual role the person nominated to be the director of the CIA played in what I consider to be one of the darkest chapters in American history. Two of Feinstein's GOP Senate colleagues, Rand Paul of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona, have also called for Haspel to explain how involved she was with the agency's interrogation program while it was active. Paul McCain Michaelson, Jay. "Could CIA Nominee Gina Haspel Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?" The Daily Beast. 19 March 2018. Senator Dianne Feinstein. "Feinstein to CIA: Release Haspel Torture Documents." 15 March 2018. Goldman, Adam. "Gina Haspel, Trump's Choice for C.I.A., Played Role in Torture Program." New York Times. 13 March 2018. Bonner, Raymond. "Correction: Trump's Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah." ProPublica. 15 March 2018. MacAskill, Ewen. "Obama: 'I Believe Waterboarding Was Torture, And it Was a Mistake.'" The Guardian. 29 April 2009. Paul, Rand. "Why I'm Against Gina Haspel." Politico. 18 March 2018. Sen. John McCain. "Statement by SASC Chairman John McCain on Leadership Changes at State Department & CIA." 13 March 2018.

['share']

False

A human rights advocacy group the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) has called for Haspel to be taken into custody if she travels to the continent. The group has petitioned federal prosecutors in Germany since 2014 to issue a warrant, saying:Andreas Schller, director of the group's International Crimes and Accountability Program, has said that ECCHR does not expect that Haspel will actually face a warrant; its goal, he said, is that German officials recognize Haspel's alleged actions:Haspel, who first joined the agency in 1985 during President Ronald Reagan's administration, was reportedly in charge of a secret "black site" prison in Thailand at which a prisoner and terror suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was waterboarded. She also allegedly supported the destruction of videotapes in 2005 capturing waterboardings at the prison. (However, a report stating that she was in charge of the facility, code-named "Cat's Eye," at the time another suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was tortured was retracted.)The use of waterboarding or "enhanced interrogation," as officials called it at the time was banned in 2009 by President Barack Obama. Five years later, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report criticizing the practice. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who was the committee chair at the time, wrote in the foreword to the report:In March 2018, Feinstein called on the agency to declassify documents related to Haspel's role in the program:Two of Feinstein's GOP Senate colleagues, Rand Paul of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona, have also called for Haspel to explain how involved she was with the agency's interrogation program while it was active.

More Than 60% of Nevada Primary Voters Picked 'None of These Candidates' Over Nikki Haley?

['"We didn\'t bother to play a game rigged for Trump," Haley\'s spokesperson said.']

On Feb. 6, 2024, the Republican presidential primary election results for Nevada started coming in, and X (formerly Twitter) was quickly flooded with posts claiming that former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley had embarrassingly lost to a Nevada ballot option: "None of These Candidates." primary election Nikki Haley Voters in the Nevada GOP Primary were presented with three choices: Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and none of these candidates. And well pic.twitter.com/TXIH9j2fHM pic.twitter.com/TXIH9j2fHM Charlotte Clymer ?? (@cmclymer) February 7, 2024 February 7, 2024 It's true that Voters were given the option to select the option "None of These Candidates," and 63.2% of voters did. Nikki Haley received only 30.5%, while former U.S. President Donald Trump opted to compete in the Feb. 8 Nevada caucuses instead of the presidential primary. Feb. 8 Nevada caucuses Although Trump's campaign encouraged voters to only focus on the Feb. 8 caucuses, many showed their support by voting for "None of These Candidates" in order to express displeasure with the remaining choices. The results for all candidates were as follows, as reported by AP. reported by AP. (Image via AP) Jon Ralston, the editor of The Nevada Independent and longtime political commentator, tweeted on the evening of Feb. 6: One of the most embarrassing things I have seen in all my years of covering politics. Major presidential candidate loses to None of these Candidates. Might as well drop out. Seriously. https://t.co/7kyQhp3kp0 https://t.co/7kyQhp3kp0 Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 7, 2024 February 7, 2024 "Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots, the house wins. We didn't bother to play a game rigged for Trump," Olivia Perez-Cubas, a spokesperson for Haley, responded to the results in a statement. "We're full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond." responded to the results Although they are focused on South Carolina where Haley served as state governor 2011 to 2017 Trump continues to lead the state by a wide margin compared to Haley, according to the Monmouth University-Washington Post Poll published on Feb. 1. Monmouth University-Washington Post Poll (Image via Monmouth University and the Washington Post) The option to vote for "None of These Candidates" has been in place in Nevada since 1975. The state only allows votes for specifically named candidates to count toward an official election result, so Haley will be considered the winner for technical purposes. Therefore, the loss is more symbolic, than anything, of her unpopularity with GOP voters compared to Trump. in place in Nevada since 1975 Continue following our coverage of the 2024 Presidential race here. here Haley Pushes Forward after Trumps Allies in Nevada Ensured Her Loss to None of These Candidates.AP News, 7 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/nevada-donald-trump-nikki-haley-none-candidates-d5ce36684eb7e41d7d2e74c6957e9196. Https://Twitter.Com/Cmclymer/Status/1755095824114094325.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1755095824114094325. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Nevada Primary and Caucus Results.AP News, https://apnews.com/ap-nevada-election-2024-results. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Nikki Haley Is Trounced by the none of These Candidates Option in Nevadas Republican Primary.AP News, 6 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/nevada-2024-presidential-primary-biden-trump-haley-d731bf8ab1e7d4a7379c07d3a37b581b. Nikki Haley Loses to none of These Candidates in the Nevada GOP Primary.NBC News, 7 Feb. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/haley-loses-nevada-republican-primary-without-trump-rcna137367. NJ 07764571-3400, 400 Cedar Avenue West Long Branch. Haley Trails in Home State.Monmouth University Polling Institute, 1 Feb. 2024, https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_sc_020124/. None of These Candidates Received the Most Votes Tuesday in Nevadas GOP Primary.USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/07/none-of-these-candidates-wins-an-election/72503691007/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Presidential Primaries and Caucuses | USAGov. https://www.usa.gov/primaries-caucuses. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Silver, Nate. In Nevada, No One Is Someone to Watch.FiveThirtyEight, 1282940575, https://archive.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/in-nevada-no-one-is-someone-to-watch/. Slattery, Gram, et al. Haley Vows to Stay in Race Following embarrassing Nevada Defeat.Reuters, 7 Feb. 2024.www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/haley-reels-stinging-loss-nevada-while-trump-seeks-clean-up-delegates-2024-02-07/.

['loss']

True

On Feb. 6, 2024, the Republican presidential primary election results for Nevada started coming in, and X (formerly Twitter) was quickly flooded with posts claiming that former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley had embarrassingly lost to a Nevada ballot option: "None of These Candidates."And well pic.twitter.com/TXIH9j2fHM Charlotte Clymer ?? (@cmclymer) February 7, 2024It's true that Voters were given the option to select the option "None of These Candidates," and 63.2% of voters did. Nikki Haley received only 30.5%, while former U.S. President Donald Trump opted to compete in the Feb. 8 Nevada caucuses instead of the presidential primary.The results for all candidates were as follows, as reported by AP.Seriously. https://t.co/7kyQhp3kp0 Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 7, 2024"Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots, the house wins. We didn't bother to play a game rigged for Trump," Olivia Perez-Cubas, a spokesperson for Haley, responded to the results in a statement. "We're full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond."Although they are focused on South Carolina where Haley served as state governor 2011 to 2017 Trump continues to lead the state by a wide margin compared to Haley, according to the Monmouth University-Washington Post Poll published on Feb. 1.The option to vote for "None of These Candidates" has been in place in Nevada since 1975. The state only allows votes for specifically named candidates to count toward an official election result, so Haley will be considered the winner for technical purposes. Therefore, the loss is more symbolic, than anything, of her unpopularity with GOP voters compared to Trump.Continue following our coverage of the 2024 Presidential race here.

Proposed fees for Rhode Island beaches will still be less than some of the town beaches.

[]

After an unusually cruel winter and chilly spring, we couldn't stop dreaming of hot summer days at the seashore. Then Governor Chafee proposed nearly doubling fees at state beaches. It hit us like a bucket of ice water. Under the plan, the price for a season pass would increase to $60 for Rhode Islanders, up from $30. Daily rates for state residents would jump to $10 from $6 during the week and to $14 from $7 on weekends and holidays. Fees for out-of-staters would also increase. While discussing the proposed fees on WJAR-TV's 10 News Conference on April 3, Richard Licht, director of the Department of Administration, asserted they weren't out of line. "For $30 more, you are getting a season pass to one of the greatest sets of beaches in the country. You still, at $60, are less than some of the town beaches charge. I don't think that's an inordinate burden on the people of Rhode Island," Licht said. Could the fees at state beaches still be lower than town beaches even if doubled? When we inquired where Licht got his information, the governor's spokesman, Michael Trainor, told us we'd hear back by the next day. While we waited, we made some phone calls and found 14 coastal communities that charge admission to their beaches. Most of the beach fees have been set for the season. Like a beach ball on a breezy day, the fees are all over the place. There are many different categories, covering residents, non-residents, and seniors. (The Chafee administration ultimately referred us to the state Department of Environmental Management, which cited many of the same figures we found in our survey.) We decided to focus on the fee that the majority of state residents—who don't live in beach communities—would pay for a season pass or a single day at the shore. If they visit a state beach, they'd all pay the new fees. If they visit a town beach, they'd pay that community's non-resident fee. The most expensive non-resident season pass costs $175 for Little Compton's South Shore Beach. Middletown's Sachuest Beach, also known as Second Beach, charges $140. Next comes Charlestown, at $90. Passes go for $80 at Newport's Easton's Beach and South Kingstown Town Beach, and $70 at Wuskenau Town Beach in Westerly. So how does the state's proposed $60 season pass compare? Of the eight towns that offer passes to non-residents, the state fee would be less than all but Portsmouth, which collects $50 for a pass to Sandy Point Beach on the Sakonnet River. So far, so good for Licht. But what about daily fees? (Remember, we're comparing state fees to local non-resident fees, setting aside favorable pricing for residents.) Let's begin with weekdays. The Chafee administration wants to increase the $6 daily state fee to $10. Three towns—Warren, Bristol, and Tiverton—charge just $5 per day. Westerly charges $6, and Portsmouth charges $7. Prices are higher at the ocean beaches: $10 in Charlestown, Narragansett, Middletown, and Newport; $12 in Little Compton; and $15 a day in South Kingstown and Jamestown. (Narragansett also charges a separate fee to walk onto the beach.) Two towns—Barrington and North Kingstown—don't allow non-residents to park at their beaches. So the $10 state fee would be less than 5 of the 12 towns that welcome out-of-towners. On weekends and holidays, the state's new fee would be $14—less than fees in 8 of the 12 beach towns. So when Licht says the new state fees are less than some of the town beaches, we can't disagree. In fact, the state fees are lower in many instances. We won't kick any sand at Licht on this one.

['Rhode Island', 'Recreation', 'State Budget']

True

After an unusually cruel winter and chilly spring, we couldnt stop dreaming of hot summer days at the seashore. Then Governor Chafee proposed nearly doubling fees at state beaches. It hit us like a bucket of ice water.Under the plan, the price for a season pass would increase to $60 for Rhode Islanders from $30. Daily rates for state residents would jump to $10 from $6 during the week and to $14 from $7 on weekends and holidays. Fees for out-of-staters would also increase.While discussing the proposed fees on WJAR-TVs 10 News Conference on April 3, Richard Licht, director of the Department of Administration, asserted they werent out of line.For $30 more, you are getting a season pass to one of the greatest sets of beaches in the country. You still, at $60, are less than some of the town beaches charge I dont think thats an inordinate burden on the people of Rhode Island, Licht said.Could the fees atstate beachesstill be lower than town beaches even if doubled?When we inquired where Licht got his information, the governors spokesman, Michael Trainor, told us wed hear back by the next day.While we waited, we made some phone calls and found 14 coastal communities that charge admission to their beaches. Most of the beach fees have been set for the season.Like a beach ball on a breezy day, the fees are all over the place. And there are many different categories, covering residents, non-residents and seniors.(The Chafee administration ultimately referred us to the state Department of Environmental Management, which cited many of the same figures we found in our survey.)We decided to focus on the fee that the majority of state residents -- who dont live in beach communities -- would pay for a season pass or a single day at the shore. If they visit a state beach, theyd all pay the new fees. If they visit a town beach, theyd pay that communitys non-resident fee.The most expensive non-resident season pass costs $175 for Little Comptons South Shore Beach. Middletowns Sachuest Beach, also known as Second Beach, charges $140. Next comes Charlestown, at $90. Passes go for $80 at Newports Eastons Beach and South Kingstown Town Beach and $70 at Wuskenau Town Beach in Westerly.So how does the states proposed $60 season pass compare? Of the eight towns that offer passes to non-residents, the state fee would be less than all but Portsmouth, which collects $50 for a pass to Sandy Point Beach, on the Sakonnet River.So far, so good for Licht.But what about daily fees? (Remember, were comparing state fees to local non-resident fees, setting aside favorable pricing for residents.)Lets begin with weekdays.The Chafee administration wants to increase the $6 daily state fee to $10.Three towns -- Warren, Bristol and Tiverton -- charge just $5 per day. Westerly charges $6 and Portsmouth charges $7.Prices are higher at the ocean beaches: $10 in Charlestown, Narragansett, Middletown and Newport; $12 in Little Compton; and $15 a day in South Kingstown and Jamestown. (Narragansett also charges a separate fee to walk onto the beach.) Two towns -- Barrington and North Kingstown -- dont allow non-residents to park at their beaches.So the $10 state fee would be less than 5 of the 12 towns that welcome out-of-towners.On weekends and holidays, the states new fee would be $14 -- less than fees in 8 of the 12 beach towns.So when Licht says the new state fees are less than some of the town beaches, we cant disagree. In fact, the state fees are lower in many instances.We wont kick any sand at Licht on this one. We rate his claimTrue.

Blunder Pressure

['']

FACT CHECK: Does a photograph depict a pressure canner accident? Claim: A photograph depicts a pressure canner accident. PROBABLY Example: [Collected via Reddit, August 2015] Why I'm not allowed to cook dinner anymore Origins: On 24 August 2015, a user (who has since deleted the post from their history) published a thread titled "Why I'm not allowed to cook dinner anymore" with the photograph shown above to Reddit's r/funny subreddit. The image garnered thousands of comments and "upvotes" for the submitter, but that user was very likely not the source of the image. One day earlier, Imgur user NineteenSeventyFour had published the same image in a separate post on that site with the title "Whoopsie." In both cases, no backstory for what was depicted in the photograph was provided. As is not uncommon for popular image posts of this sort, the photograph filtered over to Facebook. The account UNILAD published the same picture to their timeline (crediting the Reddit user who posted it as the source), and the Adinas Acres page also posted it along with the following text: UNILAD posted, "Canning season is upon us. If you use a pressure canner, be sure the weights/release is working correctly." Despite clear interest in the events of the photograph (and multiple reposts of the picture), the actual scenario depicted by the photograph remains unknown. We were unable to find any online versions of it before it was shared to Imgur in August 2015 with no description, and the user who posted it there has a site tagline that reads, "It's not a Repost, it's Nostalgia!", suggesting that they curate and share interesting images not personally taken by them. While it's possible the photograph indeed depicts a pressure canning or cooking scenario gone awry, no actual information was ever included alongside its iterations to definitively describe the image. We don't know when the photo was taken, by whom, or even in which country the purported kitchen catastrophe occurred. Moreover, canning enthusiasts commenting on the image noted that while debris from equipment was scattered throughout the scene in the photograph, the splattered food one would expect to see if a pressure cooker malfunctioned was curiously absent. It's unlikely that either the person who originally posted the photograph on Imgur or the Reddit reposter snapped the picture themselves. As such, any information gleaned from such online postings is speculative, and the humorous one-line descriptions that have accompanied it were likely invented to encourage sharing of an amusing picture. Last updated: 28 August 2015 Originally published: 28 August 2015

['share']

False

Origins: On 24 August 2015, a user (who has since deleted the post from their history) published a thread titled "Why I'm not allowed to cook dinner anymore" with the photograph shown above to Reddit's r/funny subreddit.The image garnered thousands of comments and "upvotes" for the submitter, but that user was very likely not the source of the image. One day earlier, Imgur user NineteenSeventyFour had published the same image in a separate post on that site with the title "Whoopsie." In both cases no backstory for what was depicted in the photograph was provided.As is not uncommon for popular image posts of this sort, the photograph filtered over to Facebook. The account UNILAD published the same picture to their timeline (crediting the Reddit user who posted it as the source), and the the page Adinas Acres page also posted it along with the following text:Despite clear interest in the events of the photograph (and multiple reposts of the picture), the actual scenario depicted by the photograph remains unknown. We were unable to find any online versions of it before it was shared to Imgur in August 2015 with no description, and the user who posed it there has a site tagline that reads "It's not a Repost, it's Nostalgia!", suggesting that they curate and share interesting images not personally taken by them.

Has Biden made a promise to get rid of the 'Stepped-Up' Basis for Capital Gains Tax?

['For once, a viral Facebook post critical of a politician accurately articulated their past pronouncements. ']

In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling a home inherited from their parents. The post, which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan, first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: "Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called 'stepped-up basis'? How does this affect you? When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at its current value. If you were to sell that house, you would only pay taxes on the gain from its current value and what it sells for. If Biden does away with 'stepped-up basis,' you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for it. If you decide to sell, you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like: Current Policy Inherited House at Current Value - $200,000 Sells for $205,000 Taxable income = $5,000 Taxes Due - 20% of $5,000 = $1,000 Profit to you = $204,000 Biden Policy Inherited House at Original Purchase Price - $40,000 Sells for $205,000 Taxable income = $165,000 Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000 Profit to you = $172,000 If your parents had sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence. So much for helping the middle class get ahead. My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans don’t even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of additional tax dollars for the average person after inheritance! Wow, Google 'Biden stepped-up basis' and educate yourself because this is significant! Please share! The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the 'stepped-up' basis for capital gains tax and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax burden for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares or property: When people sell an asset for more than the price they paid for it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the asset's adjusted basis—generally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the asset's fair-market value at the time of the owner's death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the asset's value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the asset's value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heir's basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it, so no income tax is due on the sale, nor ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of the stepped-up basis. During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that the plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt. Biden's policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who enter the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergraduate or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be funded through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told potential donors: "I'm going to get rid of the bulk of Trump's $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that, but I'm going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis." On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): "The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be funded by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the 'Stepped-up Basis Loophole' as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28%." Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only eliminating the stepped-up basis but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains—that is, profits from the sale of an asset owned for more than one year—for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: "As President, Biden will make healthcare a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Biden's capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will ensure that those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy." The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on an individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents before selling it. The tax burden for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.

['income']

True

The post which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows:Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on:In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works:During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that:In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis.On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated):Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan:

European Parental Leave Benefits

["Senator Bernie Sanders' office released an image showing how the U.S. 'lags' behind Canada, Norway, and Germany on the issue of parental leave."]

On 14 March 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) office posted an image on his Facebook page criticizing the lack of federally-funded family leave in the U.S. by highlighting how similar policies are implemented in three other countries: Facebook Sanders, who ran for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, expressed support for a federal family leave program in the U.S., as stated on his campaign website: stated In my view, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. Thats why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, which does just that. Under this measure, every employee would receive twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave: to take care of a baby, to help a family member who has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious medical condition, or to care for themselves if they become seriously ill. This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now. His office's claim that the U.S. and Papua New Guinea are alone "out of 188 countries" in lacking federal family leave programs is based on a 2015 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) reporting that statistic. Sanders' post was also accompanied by an image listing individual claims about parental leave policies in Canada, Germany, and Norway. study Canada allows parents to take 35 weeks' worth of leave while still receiving up to 55 percent of their regular salaries. The country's paid leave benefits are applied as part of its employment insurance (EI) program, which states: program For most people, the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings, up to a maximum amount. As of January 1, 2017, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $51,300. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $543 per week. While parents can divide the 35 weeks of leave between themselves, mothers can take an additional 15 weeks as part of the program: EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 15 weeks. You cannot receive EI maternity benefits beyond 17 weeks after the expected or actual week of childbirth, whichever of the two is later. EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 35 weeks. The payments must be made within 52 weeks of the week your child was born or the week your child was placed with you for adoption. Parents seeking to take the paid leave must also meet criteria regarding length of employment, and while parental benefits are open to "biological, adoptive, or legally recognized parents while they are caring for their newborn or newly adopted child," maternity benefits are only available to a child's biological mother: To be eligible for EI maternity benefits, you must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in your qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. To be eligible for EI parental benefits, each parent who applies for benefits must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. In Norway, as Sanders' office stated, parents may take 49 weeks of parental leave while receiving 100 percent of their pay. But the Norwegian government's web site also notes that parents have another option that provides lesser coverage for a longer period of time: notes When you apply for parental benefit, you must choose between 100 percent or 80 percent degree of coverage The total benefit period for parental benefit in the case of a birth, is 49 weeks at 100 percent coverage, and 59 weeks at 80 percent coverage. The parents must choose the same degree of coverage. Expectant mothers are also required to use three of their benefit weeks prior to their child's birth and can start using their benefits up to 12 weeks before the child's due date, though only nine of those weeks would be withdrawn from their accrued leave time. Adoptive parents also have two options: take 46 weeks off while receiving 100 percent of their pay, or take 56 weeks off at 80 percent of their pay. In Germany, there are two ways to take parental leave, one of which is mentioned in the post by Sanders' office: parents can each take between two and 12 months off while receiving "two-thirds of [their] previous income." Benefits range from at least 300 Euros a month to a maximum of 1,800 Euros a month. (Unemployed parents are also eligible for the benefits program.) receiving Parents who are already employed are each protected from losing their jobs while utilizing their family leave. However, parents taking the time off together can extend their benefits period to 14 months. Additionally, parents who participate in the "ElterngeldPlus" program can also add four months to their leaves if they each work up to 30 hours a week during their benefit period. Parents seeking to take part in Germany's parental leave program must submit applications to their employer (if applicable) at least seven weeks before they intend to start taking the time off. Additionally, as of 1 July 2015 parents are eligible for up to 24 months of parental leave if their children are between the ages of two and seven. Government of Canada. "Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits." Accessed 16 March 2017. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. "Parental Benefit." 19 July 2013. [Danish] Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. "Parental Allowance and Parental Leave." Accessed 16 March 2017. International Labour Organization. "Social Protection for Maternity: Key Policy Trends and Statistics." 2015. Sanders, Bernie. "Real Family Values." berniesanders.com.

['insurance']

True

On 14 March 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) office posted an image on his Facebook page criticizing the lack of federally-funded family leave in the U.S. by highlighting how similar policies are implemented in three other countries:Sanders, who ran for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, expressed support for a federal family leave program in the U.S., as stated on his campaign website:His office's claim that the U.S. and Papua New Guinea are alone "out of 188 countries" in lacking federal family leave programs is based on a 2015 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) reporting that statistic. Sanders' post was also accompanied by an image listing individual claims about parental leave policies in Canada, Germany, and Norway. Canada allows parents to take 35 weeks' worth of leave while still receiving up to 55 percent of their regular salaries. The country's paid leave benefits are applied as part of its employment insurance (EI) program, which states:In Norway, as Sanders' office stated, parents may take 49 weeks of parental leave while receiving 100 percent of their pay. But the Norwegian government's web site also notes that parents have another option that provides lesser coverage for a longer period of time:In Germany, there are two ways to take parental leave, one of which is mentioned in the post by Sanders' office: parents can each take between two and 12 months off while receiving "two-thirds of [their] previous income." Benefits range from at least 300 Euros a month to a maximum of 1,800 Euros a month. (Unemployed parents are also eligible for the benefits program.)

Were all Democrats in opposition to a 2.8 percent rise in Social Security COLA?

["Social Security cost of living allowances are established by formula and don't require Congressional approval."]

In mid-October 2018, Facebook users shared an inaccurate meme asking, "Were any of you aware that ALL the Democrats voted AGAINST the 2.8% Social Security cost of living increase?" No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases: Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed, and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30. These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together, these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose. In 1972, the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase, and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits. The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost.

['inflation']

False

No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases:In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits.The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost.

New American Tea Party

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

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

['stock market']

False

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

Is Biden Admin Restarting Border Wall Construction?

['Joe Biden promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 campaign.']

In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked us to investigate rumors that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration was considering a continuous wall between Mexico and the U.S. and potentially restarting construction on it. Among the entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Through statements like the Facebook post displayed below, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign. While it was false to claim the Biden administration had warmed up to the border wall as a solution to immigration problems, it was true that funding was allowed for "limited construction" (via unspecified congressional actions) to occur during the Biden presidency, according to The White House. Below, we lay out evidence for those conclusions. First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security." As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing—about one-third of the length of the entire border. The Associated Press reported that Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of canceling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports. Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet—such as The Associated Press or Reuters—reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting). According to the purported notes, Mayorkas said CBP leaders have submitted proposals for "different projects" along the border wall because officials supposedly have the opportunity to finish or update certain areas. Here's his full quote in The Washington Times: "The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished," he said. He mentioned those parts include "gaps," "gates," and areas "where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented." Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments. It is unclear how, or under what congressional action or work contract, border officials could legally access said funding for the potential construction. We reached out to agencies including the White House and DHS for clarity on that legality, and we did not receive a response. We will update this report when, or if, we do. During daily press briefings on April 6 and 7, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed previously approved congressional actions set aside funding for "some components of the wall" and "limited construction." Her comments did not explain the nature of that construction, nor when it would take place. Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event: "Wall construction remains paused, to the extent permitted by law. So some has already been funded through a congressional authorization and funding allocation. But as agencies develop a plan, it's paused while agencies are developing a plan for the President on the management of the federal funds. When the administration took office, as you referenced, funds had been diverted from congressionally appropriated military construction projects and other appropriated purposes toward building the wall. And wall construction was being challenged in multiple lawsuits—and for much of the wall, I should say; not all of it—by plaintiffs who allege serious environmental and safety issues. Under those circumstances, federal agencies are continuing to review wall contracts and develop a plan to submit to the President soon. It is paused. There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for, but it is otherwise paused." The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript. "There are some components of the wall that had already been allocated," she said. "We don't believe the wall is an answer. We have never believed the wall is an answer to addressing the challenges—immigration challenges at the border. There's a review underway of, kind of, where this funding had been allocated and not, but it's currently paused for the most part." Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall." In sum, the nature of the "limited construction" that could still take place on the wall under the Biden administration is unknown—no evidence showed it would extend the barrier's length. For that reason, and those listed above, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information.

['funds']

NEI

Among entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Via statements like the below-displayed Facebook post, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign.First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security."As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing about one-third of the length of the entire border.Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of cancelling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports.Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees.It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet -- such as The Associated Press or Reuters -- reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting).Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments.Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event:The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript. Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall."

Despite touting the economic stimulus as a great triumph, The very same report, however, notes that unemployment will average 10 percent for the rest of the year.

[]

Soon after the White House released the Economic Report of the President on Feb. 11, 2010, Republicans derided its claim that the massive economic stimulus championed by President Barack Obama may, in time, be viewed as one of the great triumphs of timely and effective countercyclical macroeconomic policy. "Washington Democrats still don’t get it," House Republican Leader John Boehner wrote in a press release. Two days after the president brushed off Republicans' concerns that Democrats' job-killing policies are causing great uncertainty for small businesses, the White House declared in a new report that the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' will be one of history's 'great triumphs.' The very same report, however, notes that unemployment will average 10 percent for the rest of the year. The Obama administration promised the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and keep joblessness below 8 percent. The report does, in fact, project that the unemployment rate will hover at about 10 percent through this year. With many press accounts of the economic report highlighting the forecast that job gains for 2010 will average 95,000 a month, those two facts may seem at odds. They are not. A certain number of jobs need to be created every month simply to hold the unemployment rate stable, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. That's because the working-age population is growing. In addition, as the job market improves—or is even perceived as improving—some people who had given up on looking for work may re-enter the job market and be added to the unemployed ranks. Therefore, about 100,000 jobs would need to be added each month just for the unemployment rate to remain stable. Even still, the report states that there's evidence the labor market is stabilizing. This is because the economy shed 691,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2009, 428,000 in the second quarter, 199,000 in the third, and 69,000 in the fourth. Thus, having the number of jobs increase even moderately is an improvement. However, Boehner's statement includes an assumption masquerading as a fact: that the stimulus has failed if unemployment rates remain at 10 percent throughout the year. While Boehner and other Republicans have long cited rising unemployment as proof that the stimulus hasn't created jobs, many reputable and independent economists argue that it has, and that the unemployment rate would be even worse without it. The Economic Report of the President estimates that the stimulus has already saved or created 1.5 million to 2 million jobs and is on track to save 3.5 million by the end of this year. We rated President Obama’s claim in his State of the Union address that the stimulus has already saved or created 2 million jobs as Half True, because that figure was on the high side of projections from his Council of Economic Advisers, the independent Congressional Budget Office, and several other reputable economic forecasters. However, all of those forecasters estimated the number to be above 1 million jobs. In other words, just because the unemployment rate may stay at a staggering 10 percent, it doesn't mean that the stimulus didn't prevent an even worse catastrophe, Burtless said. Regarding the last part of Boehner's statement, we rated a Barely True to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and other Republicans who have continued to claim that Obama promised the stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent. That was a forecast based on where the unemployment rate was expected to go without a stimulus. That forecast aligned with other independent forecasts at the time but proved overly optimistic, as Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged again in a press conference on Feb. 11, 2010. So, while Boehner is correct that the president's economic report forecasts the unemployment rate will remain at 10 percent through this year (even as jobs are added), when Boehner cites that statistic as proof that the stimulus is having no immediate effect on jobless rates as promised, it ignores the possibility that, without the stimulus, the unemployment rate might be even worse. Many economic forecasters believe that's exactly the case. Still, projections about the number of jobs saved or created by the stimulus are just that—projections. Many economists believe it is still too early to measure its effectiveness. However, we think it's misleading to simply point to a stagnant unemployment rate as proof that the stimulus isn't working. Therefore, we rate Boehner's statement as Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Stimulus']

True

While Boehner and other Republicans have long cited rising unemployment as proof that the stimulus hasn't created jobs, many reputable and independent economists say it has, and that the unemployment rate would be even worse without it. The Economic Report of the President estimates the stimulus has already saved or created 1.5 million to 2 million jobs, and is on track to save 3.5 million by the end of this year. We gave President Obama aHalf Truewhen he claimed in his State of the Union address that the stimulus has already saved or created 2 million jobs, because that was on the high side of projections from his Council of Economic Advisers, the independent Congressional Budget Office and several other reputable economic forecasters. But we should note all of those forecasters put the number north of 1 million jobs.In other words, just because the unemployment rate may stay at a whopping 10 percent, doesn't mean that the stimulus didn't prevent an even worse catastrophe, Burtless said.As for the last bit of Boehner's statement, we gave aBarely Trueto House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and other Republicans who have continued to claim that Obama promised the stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent. That was a forecast based on where the unemployment rate was expected to go without a stimulus. That forecast was in line with other independent forecasts at the time, but proved overly optimistic, as Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged again in a press conference on Feb. 11, 2010.So Boehner is correct that the president's economic report forecasts the unemployment rate will remain at 10 percent through this year (even as jobs are added). But again, when Boehner cites that statistic as proof that the stimulus is having no immediate effect on jobless rates as promised, it ignores the possibility that if not for the stimulus the unemployment rate might be even worse. Many economic forecasters believe that's exactly the case. Still, projections about the number of jobs saved or created by the stimulus are just that, projections. And many economists believe it is still way too early to measure its effectiveness. But we think it's misleading to simply point to a stagnant unemployment rate as proof that the stimulus isn't working. And so we rate Boehner's statement Mostly True.

Debt Payment in Pennies

['Does U.S. law specify that merchants do not have to accept more than 100 pennies as payment?']

Claim: U.S. law specifies that merchants do not have to accept more than 100 pennies in payment. Origins: This is one of the pieces of misinformation that makes me wish web sites like this one had been around when I was a kid so I have could pointed my father toward it and told him to shut up already. I can't recall how many times he solemnly intoned that "Pennies are not legal tender in quantities greater than 100" and therefore merchants were "legally" allowed to refuse any offer of payment that included more than one hundred one-cent coins (and, presumably, could not "legally" refuse payment offered in any other form of legal tender). As with so many other things he was dead wrong (and I knew it even then), but I had no way of proving him wrong. I can now, though. Title 31 (Money and Finance), Subtitle IV (Money), Chapter 51 (Coins and Currency), Subchapter I (Monetary System), Section 5103 (Legal Tender) of the United States Code states: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. What this statute means, in the words of the United States Treasury, is that "[A]ll United States money ... is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." In other words, U.S. currency and coins can be used for making payments, but merchants do not necessarily have to accept it for all forms of business transactions. If a shoemaker wants to sell his products for 8000 jelly beans per pair, he's entitled to do so; the buyer cannot demand that he accept the equivalent value in legal tender instead. However, legal tender is the default method of payment assumed in contractual agreements involving debts and payments for goods or services unless otherwise specified. So, for example, if an automobile dealer signs a contract agreeing to sell you a car for $8,000, but when you begin making monthly payments he rejects them and insists he wants to be paid in gold instead, you can go to court and have your debt discharged on the grounds that valid payment was offered and refused. Up until the late 19th century, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all. The Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879 made them legal tender for debts up to 25 cents only, while the other fractional coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) were legal tender for amounts up to $10. This remained the law until the Coinage Act of 1965 specified that all U.S. coins are legal tender in any amount. However, even in cases where legal tender has been agreed to as a form of payment, private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept. If a shop doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so (but, as mentioned earlier, they should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers). Businesses are free to accept or reject pennies as they see fit; no law specifies that pennies cease to be considered legal tender when proffered in quantities over a particular amount. Additional information: Designation of legal tender (United States Code, Title 31) What is legal tender? (United States Treasury FAQ) Last updated: 16 May 2011 Landers, Ann. "Ann Landers." 29 January 1996 [syndicated column]. Viets, Elaine. "A Penny Saved Can Be a Lot of Trouble." St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 24 April 1994.

['taxes']

True

Designation of legal tender (United States Code, Title 31) What is legal tender? (United States Treasury FAQ)

There was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010.

[]

One of the lines of defense in the current Internal Revenue Service controversy is that the agency stumbled under a heavy workload of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status. Steven Miller, the former acting IRS commissioner, made this point in a piece he wrote forUSA Today,describing a sharp increase in applications. The day after an audit critical of the agency went public on May 14, 2013, the IRS posted on aquestion-and-answer pagethat the number of applications has more than doubled in recent years. The agency connected that directly to the singling out of tea party groups, writing this inappropriate criterion was used as a shortcut to centralize similar cases. Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., took issue with that argument. At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Tuesday, he spoke about myths being thrown around. There was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, Griffin said. Its possible to check whether a flood of paperwork was a contributing factor in the IRS missteps and we can see if Griffin is on solid ground. The IRS keeps track of its workload and according to the inspector generals audit, IRS staff was on the lookout for tea party-type groups at least six months before we see a jump in the number of applications. In fact, the data tell us that the volume of applications had dropped a bit from the year before the screening began. Heres how the activity breaks down for 501(c)(4) applications, the sort of tax-exempt group where political activity is allowed: 2009: 1,751 2010: 1,735 2011: 2,265 2012: 3,357 The inspector generals report saidthese figurescame from the IRS Exempt Organizations office and were for the fiscal year. As a reminder, the governments fiscal year starts in October, so FY 2010 begins on Oct. 1, 2009, and runs through the end of September 2010. The inspector generals report also providesa detailed timelinethat tracks when the tea party screening began. On about March 1, 2010, a manager asked a staffer to tally the number of tea party-related applications. According to the report, the staffer used Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12 as part of the criteria for these searches. The earliest that there might have been a jump in applications would have been in October 2010. That is well after the IRS began its effort to give selective treatment to tea party groups. The IRS is correct in saying that the number of applications doubled, but that happened later -- from 2011 to 2012. We contacted the IRS and nothing we learned changes the numbers or the sequence of events. Reporters for theChronicle of Philanthropyand theWashington Posthave sifted the facts, too, and reached the same conclusion: The rise in applications for 501(c)(4) status came after the IRS began treating tea party-type groups differently. Our ruling Griffin said there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, and the numbers from the IRS back him up. The timeline in the Inspector Generals audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload. We rate the statement True.

['National', 'Taxes']

True

Steven Miller, the former acting IRS commissioner, made this point in a piece he wrote forUSA Today,describing a sharp increase in applications. The day after an audit critical of the agency went public on May 14, 2013, the IRS posted on aquestion-and-answer pagethat the number of applications has more than doubled in recent years. The agency connected that directly to the singling out of tea party groups, writing this inappropriate criterion was used as a shortcut to centralize similar cases.The inspector generals report saidthese figurescame from the IRS Exempt Organizations office and were for the fiscal year. As a reminder, the governments fiscal year starts in October, so FY 2010 begins on Oct. 1, 2009, and runs through the end of September 2010.The inspector generals report also providesa detailed timelinethat tracks when the tea party screening began. On about March 1, 2010, a manager asked a staffer to tally the number of tea party-related applications. According to the report, the staffer used Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12 as part of the criteria for these searches.Reporters for theChronicle of Philanthropyand theWashington Posthave sifted the facts, too, and reached the same conclusion: The rise in applications for 501(c)(4) status came after the IRS began treating tea party-type groups differently.

According to reports, Ronald Reagan rescinded the biggest tax reduction in the world and increased taxes when the collected revenues fell short of projections.

[]

Stephen Colbert has intervieweda slew ofpresidential candidates in the first weeks of his new job hosting CBSThe Late Show, including Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His time with Cruz on Sept. 21 stood out for a fact-filled back and forth about a major Republican role model, President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz if he could agree with Reagans support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants and record of raising taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said of course not before pivoting to Reagans most conservative accomplishments, one being that he signed the largest tax cut in history and spurred economic growth. You know, when Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. Theres only one other four-year period where thats true. Thats true from 2008 to 2012, Cruz said. Colbert jumped in, saying But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So its a matter of compromising. PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role and the first one in five years, period.) Did Reagan really shift course on tax cuts when the growth stopped? A CBS press contact did not return an email for comment. Reagans tax cut As Cruz said, the Gipper really did cut taxes with the help of Congress in his first year as president. The largest tax cut in history that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. This law included across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent to statutory income tax rates. As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic. These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Still, Baker said, the loopholes were big ones. Reagans tax increases 1982:The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP. The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.) This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagans tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues. Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars. Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 safe harbor leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration. 1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate. 1984:The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored, Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions). So where does that leave Reagans tax record on the whole? Its mixed. On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colberts show didnt prove to have lasting effects on the whole. A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back. Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases. Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases, Bartlett wrote. Our ruling Responding to Cruzs assertion that Reagan signed the largest tax cut in history, Colbert said he reversed it and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Legislation that Reagan signed over his time in office and raised taxes did not completely reverse the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. But the broader point Colbert makes is on point. Reagan agreed to raise taxes to deal with budget deficits, even if he wasnt enthusiastic about it. We rate the claim Mostly True.

['Taxes', 'PunditFact']

True

PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role and the first one in five years, period.)The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.)Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate.On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back.Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases.

I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago.

[]

Next to jobs and the economy, public employee pensions have been among the biggest issues in many 2014 political campaigns. Ernest Almonte, an independent running for general treasurer, was asked during an interview that aired Oct. 5, 2014 on the second half of WLNE's On the Record whether the 2011 overhaul of Rhode Islands state pension system went far enough. First of all, Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago, warning elected officials that if you didn't take care of this problem, it would take draconian measures to fix it. As a matter of fact, he said, it got to the point of saying that, 'If you're not going to fix this, you should start, (instead of) sending your children and grandchildren birthday cards and Christmas cards, you should just send them invoices and just tell them the truth: You're passing on your debt to them,' So something had to be done. We wondered whether Almonte, who served as Rhode Island's Auditor General from 1994 to 2010, was prescient enough to be warning about problems with Rhode Islands public pension systems 17 years ago, and what kinds of reforms he was saying were needed. Almontes campaign sent us several documents from the auditor general's office. Only a few go back to late 1990s and the relevant ones dealt with pension payment problems in individual communities, not state employees. One was a 1998 letter to Coventry's treasurer saying that some of the town's pension plans have insufficient assets to meet projected benefits. That was 16 years ago. Another was a 1998 copy of a report by the Johnston Financial Review Commission, which Almonte chaired, warning that the town owed $3.2 million in required pension contributions for its employees. For example, Johnston hadn't paid into the firemen's pension fund for more than three years, putting it more than $1.3 million behind in its payments. We note that Almonte's comments in both of these reports are in dry auditor language. Some readers might not take that as the type of scary warning that Almonte says he made. But we also found a May 8, 1988 front-page Providence Journal story reporting how Almonte explained to more than 200 Johnston residents that their town was in deep financial trouble. To drive home the severity of the situation, the story said, Almonte gave examples that sometimes made the audience wince: A bottom-of-the-barrel credit rating. A time between April 1996 and March 1997 when the town's bank account was overdrawn for 146 days. Falling behind $3.19 million in required pension contributions for workers. And that's not all, Almonte said. Still to be reckoned with is an unfunded pension liability that hasn't been quantified, and could add up to untold millions, the story reported. Almonte's campaign also referred us toa March 1999 report, available on the Auditor General's website, for the 1997 fiscal year. It notes that five school districts, five municipalities and three police and fire units were delinquent to the tune of about $1.7 million in their pension payments. The state withheld school aid and traffic fine payments to six municipalities until they paid up. That was 15 years ago. If Almonte wasn't warning about a looming crisis in the state pension system in those days, that's because there wasn't one. His2000 audit of the state Employees' Retirement System, covering the fiscal year that ended in 1999, reported that the funded ratios -- the amount of money each plan had compared to the amount of money it was expected to need to cover its pension costs -- had been growing steadily for years. The ratio for state employees, for example, went from 73 percent in 1993 to 81 percent in 1998. In addition, all the plans had been getting the recommended amount of funding since at least 1996 and, in many cases, even longer. That would change. By 2006, the funded ratio for that plan had dropped to 55 percent. By 2009, it had only gone up to59 percentand the debate about pension costs was poised to explode. We found no documentation from that era suggesting Almonte was advocating thetype ofsweeping changes to the separate pension plans for state employees and teachers that were pushed by General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and approved by the General Assembly and Governor Lincoln Chafee. In an interview, Almonte argued that he was talking about the state's pension problem at the time because late payments he was referring to were payments by cities and towns to the state-run Municipal Employees' Retirement System, also known as MERS, which is under the jurisdiction of the state treasurer. Reform is not just what you to do an employee or an employee's benefits, he said. I was advocating a reform of management to get the communities to make their payments on time, especially when the money being withheld by workers to help pay for pension benefits is being retained by the city or town. When payments are made late, you miss out on earnings, and that's the start of the problem because the problem compounds itself. Our ruling Ernest Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago. The comment was in the context of a question on the state's pension system. Its clear from documentation Almonte provided and information we found that Almonte was warning about problems years ago. But the documentation he could provide only dealt with problems in municipal plans, although some of those were in the MERS system run by the state. Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

['Rhode Island', 'Candidate Biography', 'Debt', 'Deficit', 'Economy', 'History', 'Labor', 'Government Regulation', 'Pensions', 'Retirement', 'State Budget', 'Unions', 'Wealth', 'Workers', 'Taxes']

True

Almonte's campaign also referred us toa March 1999 report, available on the Auditor General's website, for the 1997 fiscal year. It notes that five school districts, five municipalities and three police and fire units were delinquent to the tune of about $1.7 million in their pension payments.His2000 audit of the state Employees' Retirement System, covering the fiscal year that ended in 1999, reported that the funded ratios -- the amount of money each plan had compared to the amount of money it was expected to need to cover its pension costs -- had been growing steadily for years.That would change. By 2006, the funded ratio for that plan had dropped to 55 percent. By 2009, it had only gone up to59 percentand the debate about pension costs was poised to explode.Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True.(If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

Dollar Store Toothpaste

['Some dollar stores sell expired and foreign, non-ADA-approved formulations of toothpaste.']

Claim: Some dollar stores sell expired and foreign, non-ADA-standard formulations of toothpaste. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] I don't know if any of you watched Channel 5 News last night, but they did an investigation on dollar stores (including Dollar Tree, Greenbacks & 99 Cents). They discovered the Crest, Colgate and other brand name toothpastes weren't the same as from Wal-mart, grocery stores etc. The toothpastes were manufactured in many other countries and are not approved by the American Dental Association (ADA). There was even some from South Africa and the fluoride is ten times stronger than what we're allowed in the U.S. (prescription strength). They're allowed stronger because they don't have fluoridated water (like we do). So if we (or our kids) use it often and occasionally swallow it, we could be poisoning ourselves. The dollar stores declined to comment and a full investigation has begun. So stick to paying full-price at the grocery store and send this e-mail to anyone who shops at dollar stores. Origins: The last several years have seen the strong growth of dollar stores, outlets in which shoppers can find a wide variety of household items everything from canned goods to motor oil in one convenient location, with everything priced at $1.00 or $0.99 per unit. (No more sales clerks holding up check-out lines waiting for price checks!) Sometimes the merchandise found in dollar stores is just the same as what one might purchase elsewhere for a considerably higher price, but dollar stores sell it more cheaply because they've obtained supplies from manufacturers and wholesalers who are disposing of overstock or older merchandise for a fraction of the usual price. Often the items sold in dollar stores are inexpensive because they're produced and marketed by smaller brands, made from lesser-quality materials, of foreign manufacture, or were just cheaper merchandise to begin with. One of the items more commonly purchased through dollar stores by budget-conscious shoppers is toothpaste. Everyone uses toothpaste why pay $2 or $3 per tube in a grocery or drug store when you can stock up on it for $1 per tube somewhere else? In our household we've often purchased name-brand toothpaste in dollar stores, although we've noticed that our local dollar stores also stock name-brand toothpaste manufactured for foreign markets (usually Canada or Mexico) and off-brand toothpaste sold in "knock-off" packaging that mimics the packaging of more well-known brands. As television station in KXAS, a Dallas-based NBC affiliate, discovered in a report broadcast in May 2004 (and summarized in the message quoted above), consumers might want to be cautious when buying dollar-store toothpaste. One major concern is that one can often find toothpaste intended for foreign markets for sale in dollar stores, product that may not meet the same governmental regulations required of American manufacturers or that may have been made by foreign companies with lower quality-control standards than American firms. report Of course, where the toothpaste comes from can make a big difference. We have no issue with purchasing Canadian toothpaste for our household from our nearby dollar store, because it's manufactured by a major American corporation (Procter & Gamble), and it's approved by the Canadian Dental Association (CDA), whose standards are similar to the American Dental Association's (ADA): CDA ADA But, as KXAS reporters found, consumers may have good reason to be concerned about discount stores that carry toothpaste from other parts of the world: Dr. Charles Wakefield, a professor at the Baylor College of Dentistry, said fluoride levels in the foreign versions of toothpaste represent the biggest hazard. The fluoride in the South African version was 10 times that commonly sold in the United States. "You just don't want kids to swallow it," Wakefield said. "I really don't know how these are legally in stores." (We note that even brands of fluoride toothpaste manufactured in the U.S. to American Dental Association standards generally carry warning notices on their labels advising consumers not to swallow it, so parents should be cautious about their children swallowing any fluoride toothpaste, regardless of its country of origin.) Another potential issue of concern with cheap toothpaste can be the age of the product: The store owner declined to be interviewed. He did say, however, he buys the products from wholesalers, who failed to inform him of the expiration dates. In general, expired toothpaste doesn't pose a significant health risk (most brands don't even carry expiration dates on their packaging), but older toothpaste may be undesirable because it may be less effective or less pleasant to use due to changes in taste and consistency. In May 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about toothpaste products from China that were found to be contaminated with diethylene glycol: warning As always, the operative concept is caveat emptor: something that looks like a bargain may really be less than it appears, so shop wisely. Last updated: 29 February 2016

['budget']

False

As television station in KXAS, a Dallas-based NBC affiliate, discovered in a report broadcast in May 2004 (and summarized in the message quoted above), consumers might want to be cautious when buying dollar-store toothpaste. One major concern is that one can often find toothpaste intended for foreign markets for sale in dollar stores, product that may not meet the same governmental regulations required of American manufacturers or that may have been made by foreign companies with lower quality-control standards than American firms.Of course, where the toothpaste comes from can make a big difference. We have no issue with purchasing Canadian toothpaste for our household from our nearby dollar store, because it's manufactured by a major American corporation (Procter & Gamble), and it's approved by the Canadian Dental Association (CDA), whose standards are similar to the American Dental Association's (ADA):In May 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about toothpaste products from China that were found to be contaminated with diethylene glycol:

No, Walmart is not dismissing or disregarding the donations you make at the checkout.

['A social media meme mischaracterized business tax practices.']

In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout: according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers."

['income']

False

A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations.The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it:

Has Warrick Dunn Built More Than 145 Homes for Single Parents?

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

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

['profit']

True

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

Dr. Walter Williams - No Matter What

["Dr. Walter Williams penned an opinion piece entitled 'No Matter What'?"]

Claim: Dr. Walter Williams penned an opinion piece entitled "No Matter What," about President Obama'a inevitable re-election. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2011] No Matter WhatBy Dr. Walter Williams Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term. The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising. But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term. America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barak Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily. You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do. And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated. Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office. Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following: 1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us, 2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that, 3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope, 4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coattails will carry them to victory nationwide, 5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party, 6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics, 7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda, 8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist, 9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly, 10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012. - Dr. Walter Williams Origins: Dr. Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980. However, he is not the author of the "No Matter What" opinion piece reproduced above, as noted in a disclaimer from RiteOn.org posted on the GMU web site: Walter Williams disclaimer We published an article that we thought was written by him and we have subsequently found out it was not. The title of the article we published was "No Matter What" and it was published on April 1. Please be informed that this article was mistakenly attributed to Dr Williams. We admire Dr. Williams work and the article we published was not written by him and was, in fact, a "phony" that fooled us also. We hope, by way of this explanation, to inform those who took the article as genuine to know that it was bogus and that Dr Williams had nothing to do with the writing of the article entitled "No Matter What" that appeared under the column entitled "A Bad Dream" published on the RiteOn web site on April 1. We erred in not researching the real source of the article prior to publication and we erred in publishing it. We try within our means to avoid publishing phony material of the sort represented by this article and we are sorry we failed to catch the mistake prior to publication. Chuck MacNab, Editor and Publisher, RiteOn.org Last updated: 26 April 2011

['economy']

False

Origins: Dr. Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980. However, he is not the author of the "No Matter What" opinion piece reproduced above, as noted in a disclaimer from RiteOn.org posted on the GMU web site:

Charlie Crist raised taxes in 2009 and won't rule out raising taxes again.

[]

Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill that will cut auto tag fees and pointed the finger at his predecessor for raising them in the first place. We are going to right the wrong of the 2009 tax increase that Charlie Crist enacted, Scott said as he signed the fee rollback on April 2. Scott, a Republican, is expected to face Democratic frontrunner Crist in November. The Republican Party of Florida joined the Crist-as-tax-hiker chorus onTwitter: . @charliecrist raised taxes in 2009 and won't rule out raising taxes again. Well examine what type of taxes were raised under Crist in 2009 and what he has said about raising taxes in the future. Crist signed tax and fee increases in 2009 In May 2009, then-Republican Gov. Crist signed a $66.5 billion budget that included a slew of new taxes and fees -- roughly$2 billionworth -- intended to balance the state budget during the recession. The hikes included auto tag fees, a $1-a-pack cigarette tax, as well as higher fees to visit state parks and to file civil lawsuits and foreclosure actions. There is no dispute that Crist signed those tax and fee increases into law, but the Republican Party of Florida omits that the tax and fee hikes were supported by the Republican-led Legislature at the time. That includes influential Republican legislators who now in key leadership positions: Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, who was House majority whip at the time; House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel; and Senate President Don Gaetz. Recently, Crist made no apologies for supporting the auto tag increase when he spoke during an event in Tampa on the same day that Scott signed the cut into law. We had to get through a tough time, and sometimes you have to make difficult decisions, Crist said in Tampa. And we saved thousands of teachers' jobs, law enforcement officers' jobs, firefighters' jobs. What Crist has said about the potential for future tax increases As for Crists willingness to raise future taxes, the Republican Party of Florida pointed to a briefclipof MSNBCs Ed Schultz interviewing Crist on Nov. 18, 2013, a couple of weeks after Crist declared his candidacy. We went looking for thecomplete exchangeabout taxes; heres how it went: Schultz: What is your philosophy of taxation? What would you do different. We have income inequality as a huge issue in this country. The wealthy seem to get the breaks. They have under the conservative rule. What would you do differently? What would you do with Floridas finances and what would you expect? Would you expect more out of the wealthiest residents? Crist: Well, I think we all have to expect more out of each other. I dont like to raise taxes. I dont know that anybody really enjoys the idea of doing that. I did that as a governor, though. Schultz: Would you do it again? Crist: If necessary, I would. I mean, you know. Schultz: Is it necessary now? Crist: We have the highest budget weve had in the history of Florida right now at $74 billion. So, I dont know if its necessary right now. I like to live within our means if we possibly can do so, but we have to properly fund public education. We have to properly fund the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. And when Governor Scott got elected, the very first session, he whacked public education funding by $1.3 billion. Schultz: Would you restore that? Crist: Absolutely, wed restore that. Schultz: So that money would come back in under Charlie Crist. Crist: Yes sir. It would. And the $300 million, he took out of higher ed the second session. Schultz: And how would you pay for it? Crist: Pay for it by the existing revenues that we have. And if necessary, if we have to raise taxes, I would do it, but Id rather not if we dont have to. Like I said, I like to live within our means. Crists campaign website includes a mention of tax cuts for middle-class families on his policy position page about theeconomy and jobs, but its vague. It states: Today, Floridas tax policy works only if you are a special interest with a lobbyist but it fails everyday Floridians and small business owners. As Governor, Charlie will reform government to put the people first, using incentives to help homegrown Florida small businesses grow the economy from the middle class out, not simply giving handouts to political supporters. We sent the claim by the Republican Party to Crists campaign and an informal adviser to the campaign, former state Sen. Steve Geller. Geller said Crist supports giving small businesses a tax break and pointed to part of Cristsannouncement speechin November: As governor, we are going to have a tax policy that puts you the people first and when we can cut taxes and I do believe in cutting taxes it is you the people who would get the relief and when we spend money to help business, we are using it to grow the economy from the middle class out, not simply giving it away to supporters. Our ruling The Republican Party of Florida said that Crist raised taxes in 2009 and wont rule out raising taxes again. Crist -- along with the Republican-led Legislature -- did raise the cigarette tax and a slew of fees including auto tag fees in 2009 to balance the budget during a recession. When asked in November if he would raise taxes in the future, Crist said if necessary. The Republicans omitted Crists softer language in the same interview when he added, I dont know if its necessary right now. We rate this claim Mostly True.

['State Budget', 'Taxes', 'Florida']

True

The Republican Party of Florida joined the Crist-as-tax-hiker chorus onTwitter: .@charliecrist raised taxes in 2009 and won't rule out raising taxes again.In May 2009, then-Republican Gov. Crist signed a $66.5 billion budget that included a slew of new taxes and fees -- roughly$2 billionworth -- intended to balance the state budget during the recession. The hikes included auto tag fees, a $1-a-pack cigarette tax, as well as higher fees to visit state parks and to file civil lawsuits and foreclosure actions. There is no dispute that Crist signed those tax and fee increases into law, but the Republican Party of Florida omits that the tax and fee hikes were supported by the Republican-led Legislature at the time. That includes influential Republican legislators who now in key leadership positions: Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, who was House majority whip at the time; House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel; and Senate President Don Gaetz.As for Crists willingness to raise future taxes, the Republican Party of Florida pointed to a briefclipof MSNBCs Ed Schultz interviewing Crist on Nov. 18, 2013, a couple of weeks after Crist declared his candidacy. We went looking for thecomplete exchangeabout taxes; heres how it went:Crists campaign website includes a mention of tax cuts for middle-class families on his policy position page about theeconomy and jobs, but its vague. It states:We sent the claim by the Republican Party to Crists campaign and an informal adviser to the campaign, former state Sen. Steve Geller. Geller said Crist supports giving small businesses a tax break and pointed to part of Cristsannouncement speechin November:

Macy's wrote a letter to Rick Perry, asking him to reject the equal pay bill.

[]

A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

['Income', 'Legal Issues', 'Workers', 'Texas']

True

A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013.Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts.AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law.Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us.One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation.Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement.Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts.The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday.Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

The Russian ruble is already depreciating.

[]

American and European leaders find themselves scrambling to respond to Russias deployment of troops in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. With military action on no ones wish-list, diplomacy and economic sanctions are the only moves effectively in play. Secretary of State John Kerry said on CBSFace the Nationthat he had been on the phone with his counterparts among the G-8 nations. Every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion, Kerry said. Theyre prepared to put sanctions in place, theyre prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. This fact-check zeros in on the value of the Russian ruble. It has declined but partly because thats what the Russians wanted. A big drop In the early part of 2013, the ruble was worth 3.3 U.S. cents. Today, its value has tumbled by 15 percent, to 2.8 cents. A little less than half of that fall came in January as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com: There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine. But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check. The ruble got pretty over-valued in the big energy boom from 2001-08, said Mark Adomanis, a management consultant and contributor to Forbes. That hurt Russian manufacturing and letting the ruble fall potentially could help. With a weaker ruble Russian goods become more competitive on international markets, Adomanis said. That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same. Our ruling Kerry said the ruble is going down, and it is. The Russian currency has lost about 15 percent of its value against the dollar since early 2013. It is not all because of the situation in Ukraine, however, a fact that viewers may not have picked up on by hearing Kerry's statement. The currencys decline is also part of Russian policy to reduce inflation and make domestic manufacturers more competitive. Theres a little more going on here than Kerrys statement would suggest. We rate his claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Foreign Policy']

True

Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com:There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine.But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check.That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same.

Amero Coins

['Is the U.S. producing Amero coins?']

Claim: The U.S. has been producing the "Amero" coins, money to be used by an economic union of the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2007] "THE AMERO" IS REAL;I HAVE ONE TO PROVE IT!UNITED STATES, CANADA AND MEXICO TO BE MERGED INTO SINGLE NEW ENTITYNAMED NORTH AMERICAN UNION!By: Hal Turner Three weeks ago, I published a brief snippet on the front page of my web site reporting the governments of the US Canada and Mexico are conspiring in secret to merge the three nations into a new entity called the North American Union. There has been much talk of this on various internet blogs for over a year. Most of those blogs have been smeared as "conspiracy theorists" and have been largely ignored by the main stream. What prompted my interest in the issue was money: I was sent professional images of actual AMERO coins by someone in the US Treasury! The person included a note saying they like my radio show and are frightened by what's been going on in secret within our government. This Treasury Department person was outraged that our country was beginning to coin money as part of a merger that would do away with our country, via a merger the American public knew nothing about! (Rest of article here). here Origins: To make sense of this wild tale about "Amero" coins being secretly minted by the U.S. government for use by an economic union of the USA, Canada, and Mexico, we will first delve into what the Euro is and why some folks are far from enamored of it. Bear with us while we take that short side trip. (Or, if you must, skip the next three paragraphs to transition directly to the U.S. portion of the story.) The Euro is the official currency of the European Union, a supranational union comprising 27 member states, and is the sole currency for more than 317 million people. (Not every EU member country has chosen to adopt the Euro; some continue to use their traditional currencies.) The move to a single currency in Europe comes with both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it does away with the cost of exchanging money, thereby leaving more cash in the pockets of both individual consumers and businesses. It also puts an end to the trouble of having to change one's currency into that of the country being traveled to or traded with, then having to change it back again afterwards one simply uses the same wad of bills. And it ends fluctuations in the value of one country's money in relation to that of another: when only one currency is used, a cross-border deal struck for a specified amount of cash does not suddenly go up or down in price as the financial markets move, thereby ruining one party to the deal while dropping a windfall into the undeserving lap of the other. On the downside, one central currency means one central bank, which means one central monetary policy. That means individual countries which have subscribed to such a plan cannot combat their individual homelands' economic problems by adjusting their countries' money supplies, either to stimulate growth in moribund national economies or to put the brakes on those that appear to be racing out of control those countries must instead abide by what the group is doing, even when it runs counter to their individual best interests. That covers what's going on in Europe, and why some love the Euro while others view it as a dangerous idea set loose upon an unsuspecting public. At various times it has been suggested that North America should follow a like route by adopting an omnibus currency similar to the Euro, one that would serve as the common money for the USA, Canada, and Mexico. While that notion does have a few proponents, it is a long way from being taken seriously, let alone being regarded as a good idea. Which brings us to the question of the "Amero," the name bestowed upon the hypothetical currency such a union would use as its common specie. In 1999, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver published The Case for the Amero, a study that advanced the idea that the The Case for the Amero three North American countries would be better served by their having a common currency. And there the matter rests, or at least it did before Designs Computed thought to add to its catalogue of commemorative coins, medals, and tokens a suite of Ameros, a series of collectible coins struck from its concept of what coinage for such a currency might look like. Designs Computed is very clear on its web site that its Ameros are in fact "private-issue fantasy pattern coins [that] will be struck as an annual series," and indeed is already offering some of them for sale. Neither the U.S. Mint nor the U.S. Treasury had a hand in creating these "Ameros." These coins are merely collectibles offered to the buying public by a private company in the business of manufacturing such curiosities. Designs Computed Ameros sale On 31 August 2007, radio host Hal Turner used images of the Amero tokens offered by Designs Computed as the basis for propagating a patently false tale about his having been given a "real" Amero coin on the sly by an anonymous Treasury agent, and that the existence of said coin was "proof" that the USA, Canada, and Mexico were "to be merged into a single new entity" known as the North American Union. Hal Turner tale After we (and others) debunked Turner's fictional, outrage-provoking conspiracy theory by pointing out the true origin of the Amero tokens, he began claiming that the Designs Computed site had been hastily erected on the Internet as part of "a full blown effort to discredit my story and the images as fake." That was not the case: Daniel Carr, the entrepreneur behind Designs Computed, has been displaying the coins he has designed on his web site since at least 2000 and has been offering some of them for sale since at least 2005. While his "Amero" entry dates only to 2007, the coins depicted thereon fit seamlessly into his catalogue of similar offerings, including his "parody State Quarters." parody (Do have a look at some of his "parody State Quarters," particularly Maine's and Colorado's, which especially tickled our fancy.) Maine Colorado Barbara "maine event" Mikkelson Last updated: 5 December 2008 Ramsey, Bruce. "Bet Your Bottom Amero That U.S. Sovereignty Is Safe." The Seattle Times. 22 August 2007. Smith, Michael A. "Amero-ca the Oh, So Dubious." The [Galveston County] Daily News. 18 May 2008. Canada NewsWire. "Canada Would Benefit from a Common North American Currency." 5 October 1999.

['interest']

False

(Rest of article here).Which brings us to the question of the "Amero," the name bestowed upon the hypothetical currency such a union would use as its common specie. In 1999, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver published The Case for the Amero, a study that advanced the idea that the three North American countries would be better served by their having a common currency. And there the matter rests, or at least it did before Designs Computed thought to add to its catalogue of commemorative coins, medals, and tokens a suite of Ameros, a series of collectible coins struck from its concept of what coinage for such a currency might look like. Designs Computed is very clear on its web site that its Ameros are in fact "private-issue fantasy pattern coins [that] will be struck as an annual series," and indeed is already offering some of them for sale. Neither the U.S. Mint nor the U.S. Treasury had a hand in creating these "Ameros." These coins are merely collectibles offered to the buying public by a private company in the business of manufacturing such curiosities.On 31 August 2007, radio host Hal Turner used images of the Amero tokens offered by Designs Computed as the basis for propagating a patently false tale about his having been given a "real" Amero coin on the sly by an anonymous Treasury agent, and that the existence of said coin was "proof" that the USA, Canada, and Mexico were "to be merged into a single new entity" known as the North American Union.After we (and others) debunked Turner's fictional, outrage-provoking conspiracy theory by pointing out the true origin of the Amero tokens, he began claiming that the Designs Computed site had been hastily erected on the Internet as part of "a full blown effort to discredit my story and the images as fake." That was not the case: Daniel Carr, the entrepreneur behind Designs Computed, has been displaying the coins he has designed on his web site since at least 2000 and has been offering some of them for sale since at least 2005. While his "Amero" entry dates only to 2007, the coins depicted thereon fit seamlessly into his catalogue of similar offerings, including his "parody State Quarters." (Do have a look at some of his "parody State Quarters," particularly Maine's and Colorado's, which especially tickled our fancy.)

The Real Story on Paul Ryan's Proposed Budget Cuts

["Item provides a list of 'Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts'?"]

Claim: Item provides a list of "Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts." Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] The real story on Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts List of Republican Budget Cuts, WOW Notice Soc.Sec. and the Military are NOT on this list. These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end. * Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy $445 million annual savings. * Save Americas Treasures Program $25 million annual savings. * International Fund for Ireland $17 million annual savings. * Legal Services Corporation $420 million annual savings. * National Endowment for the Arts $167.5 million annual savings. * National Endowment for the Humanities $167.5 million annual savings. * Hope VI Program $250 million annual savings. * Amtrak Subsidies $1.565 billion annual savings. * Eliminate duplicative education programs H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. * U.S. Trade Development Agency $55 million annual savings. * Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy $20 million annual savings. * Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding $47 million annual savings. * John C. Stennis Center Subsidy $430,000 annual savings. * Community Development Fund $4.5 billion annual savings. * Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid $24 million annual savings. * Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half $7.5 billion annual savings * Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% $600 million annual savings. * Essential Air Service $150 million annual savings. * Technology Innovation Program $70 million annual savings. * Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program $125 million annual savings. * Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization $530 million annual savings. * Beach Replenishment $95 million annual savings. * New Starts Transit $2 billion annual savings. * Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts $9 million annual savings * Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants $2.5 billion annual savings. * Title X Family Planning $318 million annual savings. * Appalachian Regional Commission $76 million annual savings. * Economic Development Administration $293 million annual savings. * Programs under the National and Community Services Act $1.15 billion annual savings. * Applied Research at Department of Energy $1.27 billion annual savings. * Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership $200 million annual savings. * Energy Star Program $52 million annual savings. * Economic Assistance to Egypt $250 million annually. * U.S. Agency for International Development $1.39 billion annual savings. * General Assistance to District of Columbia $210 million annual savings. * Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority $150 million annual savings. * Presidential Campaign Fund $775 million savings over ten years. * No funding for federal office space acquisition $864 million annual savings. * End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. * Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act More than $1 billion annually. * IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget $1.8 billion savings over ten years. * Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees $1 billion total savings. * Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees $1.2 billion savings over ten years. * Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of $15 billion total savings. * Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. Untold savings could result from this. * Eliminate Mohair Subsidies $1 million annual savings. * Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $12.5 million annual savings * Eliminate Market Access Program $200 million annual savings. * USDA Sugar Program $14 million annual savings. * Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) $93 million annual savings. * Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program $56.2 million annual savings. * Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs $900 million savings. * Ready to Learn TV Program $27 million savings. * HUD Ph.D. Program. * Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. * TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place? Send to everyone you know. Summary: This itemized list of proposed budget cuts is real in the sense that it was encapsulated in a bill (H.R. 408) known as the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, a plan to reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion through fiscal year 2021, and the specific amounts of savings to be gleaned by eliminating each item on the list come from a Republican Spending Committee report of January 2011. The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 was introduced to the House of Representatives in January 2011 and referred to committee, where it has remained ever since; it has not been passed or ever put to a vote. H.R. 408 report The current identification of this list as "Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts" is inaccurate, however, as it was not proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee. The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, not Paul Ryan, and Ryan was not among the bill's 32 co-sponsors. (Rep. Ryan, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has proposed a different budget plan ("The Path to Prosperity") for fiscal year 2013, which seeks to balance the federal budget by the year 2040.) sponsored budget plan The estimate that "requiring collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees" would produce $1 billion in total savings has raised some eyebrows, but according to the Washington Post, records provided by the Internal Revenue according showed that "about 98,000 federal, postal and congressional employees owed $1.03 billion in unpaid taxes at the end of fiscal 2010." In February 2011, Rep Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a bill, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 828), which would "provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment." That bill was passed by the House but has not been voted upon by the Senate. H.R. 828 One of the few items on this list of proposed budget cuts which is not accompanied by a specific amount of expected dollar savings is the "Death gratuity for Members of Congress," which in the Internet-circulated version of this list bears the legend "Untold savings could result from this," suggesting that this item is a comparatively large one. In fact, it has been the traditional practice of Congress that when a member dies in office, an appropriation is made to provide the deceased member's spouse, children, or other next-of-kin with a one-time payment equal in amount to the member's annual salary. Since the current salary for members of Congress is $174,000 per year, and Congress averages about two deaths per year (84 members of Congress have died in office since 1973), the expected savings from the elimination of this tradition would be a bit less than $350,000 per year. (More recently, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida has sponsored a bill specifically seeking to "prohibit the payment of death gratuities to the surviving heirs of deceased Members of Congress," but that bill has also failed to clear its committee assignment.) practice sponsored Last updated: 12 October 2012

['taxes']

True

Summary: This itemized list of proposed budget cuts is real in the sense that it was encapsulated in a bill (H.R. 408) known as the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, a plan to reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion through fiscal year 2021, and the specific amounts of savings to be gleaned by eliminating each item on the list come from a Republican Spending Committee report of January 2011. The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 was introduced to the House of Representatives in January 2011 and referred to committee, where it has remained ever since; it has not been passed or ever put to a vote.The current identification of this list as "Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts" is inaccurate, however, as it was not proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee. The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, not Paul Ryan, and Ryan was not among the bill's 32 co-sponsors. (Rep. Ryan, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has proposed a different budget plan ("The Path to Prosperity") for fiscal year 2013, which seeks to balance the federal budget by the year 2040.) The estimate that "requiring collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees" would produce $1 billion in total savings has raised some eyebrows, but according to the Washington Post, records provided by the Internal Revenue showed that "about 98,000 federal, postal and congressional employees owed $1.03 billion in unpaid taxes at the end of fiscal 2010." In February 2011, Rep Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a bill, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 828), which would "provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment." That bill was passed by the House but has not been voted upon by the Senate.One of the few items on this list of proposed budget cuts which is not accompanied by a specific amount of expected dollar savings is the "Death gratuity for Members of Congress," which in the Internet-circulated version of this list bears the legend "Untold savings could result from this," suggesting that this item is a comparatively large one. In fact, it has been the traditional practice of Congress that when a member dies in office, an appropriation is made to provide the deceased member's spouse, children, or other next-of-kin with a one-time payment equal in amount to the member's annual salary. Since the current salary for members of Congress is $174,000 per year, and Congress averages about two deaths per year (84 members of Congress have died in office since 1973), the expected savings from the elimination of this tradition would be a bit less than $350,000 per year. (More recently, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida has sponsored a bill specifically seeking to "prohibit the payment of death gratuities to the surviving heirs of deceased Members of Congress," but that bill has also failed to clear its committee assignment.)

Food Stamp participation hits 10 year low.

[]

Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or food stamps, has been declining for the past several years, largely due to an improving economy. President Donald Trump referred to the decline in a July 9 tweet, mentioning a right-wing media outlet that published an article about the 10-year low just hours before. "Food Stamp participation hits 10-year low. Wow!" @OANN, Trump wrote. The White House and Trump campaign did not provide a comment. SNAP benefits are food vouchers issued by the government to eligible participants and families with no or low income. While the federal government oversees the program, benefits are administered monthly at the state level. When comparing SNAP participation over the past 10 years, the best approach is to examine the percentage of the U.S. population participating in the program, said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. It's preferable to use the percentage of the population rather than a simple count because the U.S. population is growing. She pointed to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Since April 2009, the only month that had a lower participation percentage was February 2019. There were unusual circumstances—a government shutdown—that affected the February numbers. The general decline in SNAP benefits is likely due to the very low level of unemployment and gradually rising wages, said Michael Wiseman, a professor of public policy at George Washington University. Due to a government shutdown, February 2019 had the lowest participation percentage; only 2.22% of people received SNAP benefits. As the record-breaking shutdown lasted from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, most February benefits were distributed in January to ensure SNAP recipients would receive their February 2019 benefits in a timely manner, according to the USDA. The number of SNAP participants largely depends on the economy, said Brynne Keith-Jennings, a senior research analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Experts noted that policy changes haven't had significant long-term effects on the decline in participation—that's how strongly tied SNAP is to the economy. Because of the Great Recession, SNAP benefits were expanded at the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009 as a counter-recession effort, Wiseman said. The expansion was eliminated in 2013, so the 2009 Recovery Act had short-term, if any, effects, Keith-Jennings added. Another part of the 2009 stimulus was suspending a three-month limit on SNAP participation for Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents. States with high unemployment rates have the ability to waive the limit, at least for now. The Trump administration has proposed tightening standards for permitting relief from time limits, Wiseman said. In my judgment, time limits on Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents, while questionable policy, are not the driving factor behind the slowdown of SNAP enrollment. A proposal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture would make it more difficult for states to waive the three-month limit. If the USDA rule is approved, an estimated 755,000 people would no longer be eligible for SNAP benefits, according to a USDA estimate that is part of the proposed rule. However, even if it's approved, the economy would still have a larger effect on overall trends in SNAP participation due to the relatively small size of this population among SNAP participants, Keith-Jennings said. Our ruling: Trump tweeted, "Food Stamp participation hits 10-year low." He's correct. The abnormally low SNAP participation in February 2019 was due to benefits for that month being distributed in January 2019 because of a government shutdown. We rate this True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Poverty']

True

President Donald Trump referred to the decline in a July 9 tweet, mentioning a right-wing media outlet that published anarticleabout the 10-year low hours before.Food Stamp participation hits 10 year low. Wow!@OANN, Trumpwrote.She pointed us to data from theU.S. Department of Agricultureand theU.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Since April 2009, the only month that had a lower participation percentage was February 2019. As well see, there were unusual circumstances a government shutdown that affected the February numbers.Due to agovernment shutdown, February 2019 had the lowest participation percentage only 2.22% of people received SNAP benefits. As the record-breaking shutdown lasted from Dec. 22, 2018, to Jan. 25, 2019, most February benefits were distributed in January to ensure SNAP recipients would receive their February 2019 benefits in a timely manner, according to the USDA.Aproposalby the U.S. Department of Agriculture would make it more difficult for states to waive the three-month limit.If the USDA rule is approved, an estimated 755,000 people would no longer be eligible for SNAP benefits, according to a USDA estimate thats part of theproposed rule. However, even if its approved, the economy would still have a larger effect on overall trends in SNAP participation due to the relatively small size of this population among SNAP participants, Keith-Jennings said.

Does the rate of abortions decrease under Democratic leadership and increase under Republican leadership?

['Abortion rates have risen and fallen throughout presidencies of both parties, making drawing a direct correlation between the two untenable.']

In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception.

['funds']

False

In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old).While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations:Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data:The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute:At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007.What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute:According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions:

Does This Photograph Show Democrats Campaigning in the Nude?

['This is neither a typical nor an established way of getting more party supporters to the polls.']

A photograph purportedly showing three naked women campaigning for Democrats ahead of the 2018 midterm election was shared by a Facebook user in November 2018: shared This picture has virtually nothing to do with Democrats, the 2018 midterm elections, or U.S. politics in general. This image is a photograph taken in 2005 and shows a protest staged at the entrance of the Presidential Palace in Mexico City, Mexico. The picture was snapped by Juan Barreto and is available via Getty Images with the following caption: Getty Images MEXICO CITY, MEXICO: Naked women, from the '400 People Movement', protest at the entrance of the Presidential residence of Los Pinos in Mexico City, against the expropriation of their lands by federal deputies,16 May 2005. AFP PHOTO/Juan BARRETO (Photo credit should read JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images) The pictured women were members of an indigenous organization known as "the Movement of 400 Peoples" who were participating in an annual protest to demand the return of land they say was taken from them by the government. According to a 2008 report from the Inter Press Agency, the group has been holding such marches in the nude since 2002: Press Agency Every year, some 300 indigenous people from the eastern Mexican state of Veracruz march naked through the streets of the capital to demand land. But while their unusual form of protest certainly attracts attention, there is little chance that it will achieve their goals. The protesters, most of them from the Nahua indigenous community, are members of an organisation known as the Movement of 400 Peoples. The organisation suffered a heavy blow in 1992 when the police evicted them from a parcel of over 2,000 hectares of private land in Veracruz that they had occupied in 1988. Following the eviction, they began to demonstrate in the capital to air their grievances. First they demanded the release of 100 members of the group imprisoned on charges of squatting, theft, assault and murder. Once this had been achieved, they began to call for the restitution of the land they originally occupied or to be granted ownership of other land, as well as punishment for the authorities who evicted them 15 years ago. In 2002, during one of their annual visits to the capital, where they spend two or three months living in tents set up between the busy downtown thoroughfares of Reforma and Insurgentes Avenues, they decided to take off their clothes as a form of protest. Since then, they have continued to stage their nude demonstrations every year. Cevallos, Diego. "MEXICO: A Naked Call for Indigenous Peoples Right to Land Inter Press Agency. 2 January 2008.

['credit']

False

A photograph purportedly showing three naked women campaigning for Democrats ahead of the 2018 midterm election was shared by a Facebook user in November 2018:The picture was snapped by Juan Barreto and is available via Getty Images with the following caption:The pictured women were members of an indigenous organization known as "the Movement of 400 Peoples" who were participating in an annual protest to demand the return of land they say was taken from them by the government. According to a 2008 report from the Inter Press Agency, the group has been holding such marches in the nude since 2002:

Tax on sales of residential properties.

['Does a provision of health care legislation impose a 3.8% sales tax on all home sales?']

Claim: A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions. OF AND INFORMATION: Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales. Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day the day they sell their house and buy a new one. Origins: One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions. This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households. Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount. As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners" if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit. Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale). The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude a) The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level. b) The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion). The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900. (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount. In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information: The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated: 15 March 2012 Sahadi, Jeanne. "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay." CNNMoney.com. 25 March 2010.

['income']

False

Origins: One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013:First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households. Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount. As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review:For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit. Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale). The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser:The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount. In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples

Was a study able to determine if a vegan diet might offer greater health benefits for dogs compared to meat-based diets?

['Vegan diets were described by researchers as less hazardous for dogs than conventional or raw meat-based diets.']

Well-rounded vegan diets may be less hazardous and better for the health of dogs compared to conventional meat or raw meat diets, according to research published in April 2022. Pets are a multibillion-dollar industry. According to estimates published in 2018, there are 471 million pet dogs and 373 million pet cats worldwide, which sets the international worth of pet food sales at nearly 132 billion euros. Such high demand has a significant impact on the environment, particularly in the sourcing of the animal and agricultural products that make up pet food. Feeding pets is also a lucrative market. In 2020, the vegan pet food market alone was worth $8.7 billion in the U.S. and was expected to grow to over $15 billion in the next six years. Because pets and their nutrition represent large shares of both the economy and its production line, researchers at the University of Winchester in the U.K. set out to determine which diets are best for the health of pets. To explore the links between diet and health, the team advertised an online survey through social media between May and December 2020 and analyzed the data of more than 2,500 dogs included in the survey responses from the pets' guardians. Each dog had been living with its guardian for at least one year. About half were fed conventional meat-based diets, around one-third raw meat, and 13% were fed a vegan diet. The survey included questions about the dogs' health, such as veterinary visits, medications, and overall health disorders, and consulted both the guardian and a veterinarian on the dog's health status. "We believe our study of 2,536 dogs is by far the largest study published to date exploring health outcomes of dogs fed vegan and meat-based diets," wrote the researchers in a news release. It analyzed a range of objective data, as well as owner opinions and reported veterinary assessments of health. It revealed that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs are nutritionally sound vegan diets. Figures show the three main diets fed to the 2,536 dogs included in the survey. Publishing their work in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, the team found that overall, dogs on conventional meat diets were less healthy than those on raw meat or vegan diets. Previously, it was thought that raw meat diets were linked to an increased risk of pathogen exposure, while vegan diets might result in nutritional deficiencies. However, when necessary hygienic and nutritional supplements were taken into consideration, both diets were, by and large, shown to be healthier and less hazardous to the canine consumer. In summary, when jointly considering health outcomes and dietary hazards, our results and those of other studies indicate that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs are nutritionally sound vegan diets, concluded the researchers. However, there are several limitations to the study that should be taken into consideration. For one, it could be the case that dogs given a raw meat diet were not necessarily healthier than those given a conventional diet, but rather that their guardians might have been less likely to take their pets to a veterinarian. Because the frequency of veterinarian visits was considered a health indication, this internal bias may have skewed the results. Furthermore, dogs given a raw meat diet tended to be younger in age than those eating other diets, which could further explain why they were deemed healthier. The study authors also didn't factor in the sex or breed of each dog, a limitation that may have influenced the results given that certain breeds are more prone to illness than others. Let's also look at the structure of the study itself. Participating guardians were asked to consider the main ingredients within their pets' normal diet, which means that a pet may not have been fed the identified diet exclusively, nor were treats or other dietary supplements excluded. It was also an opinion-based study in which respondents gave their thoughts on a dog's health in a non-standardized way. Additionally, because the survey was conducted online, this required that respondents have internet access and the time necessary to complete the survey, which may have excluded pet guardians of lower income statuses. Lastly, there is an inherent unconscious bias within the study structure, which means that a given guardian might have been expecting a better health outcome based on the preferred diet, and this expectation could have influenced how they responded to the survey question. While there is now scientific evidence to suggest that both raw meat and vegan diets are better than conventional diets alone, the study authors said more research is needed to determine which of the two is associated with better dog health outcomes. Dog guardians should ensure that all aspects of their dogs' nutrition are being met, regardless of primary diet preference. They should check pet food labels and consult with manufacturers to ensure that healthy practices are in place to provide nutritional soundness.

['income']

True

Pets are multibillion-dollar industries. According to estimates published in 2018, there are 471 million pet dogs and 373 million pet cats worldwide, which sets the international worth of pet food sales at nearly 132 billion euros. Such high demand has a large impact on the environment, particularly in the sourcing of the animal and agricultural products that make up pet food. Feeding pets is also a lucrative market. In 2020, the vegan pet food market alone was worth $8.7 billion in the U.S., and was expected to grow to over $15 billion in the next six yearsWe believe our study of 2,536 dogs is by far the largest study published to date, exploring health outcomes of dogs fed vegan and meat-based diets, wrote the researchers in a news release. Figures show the three main diets fed to the 2,536 dogs included in the survey. PLOS OnePublishing their work in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, the team found that overall, dogs on conventional meat diets were less healthy than those on raw meat or vegan diets. Previously it was thought that raw meat diets were linked to an increased risk of pathogen exposure, while vegan diets may result in nutritional deficiencies. But when necessary hygienic and nutritional supplements were taken into consideration, both diets were, by and large, shown to be healthier and less hazardous to the canine consumer.

Does President Trump Have Financial Interests in Saudi Arabia?

["In response to Trump's tweet claiming that he has no such financial interests, social media users shared a Fox News Research tweet highlighting Trump's business dealings with the Saudis."]

On 2 October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared during a visit to Saudi Arabia's consulate in Instanbul, Turkey. Although foul play was suspected, the Saudi government at first denied that any harm had been done to the journalist. Then they began releasing conflicting accounts, beginning with the claim that Khashoggi died accidentally in a "fistfight." Ultimately, the Saudis acknowledged that evidence provided by Turkish investigators pointed to his being slain in a "premeditated" attack, which they said was undertaken in a "rogue operation" not authorized by the Saudi royal family. Two senior government officials were dismissed, and 18 Saudi nationals allegedly involved in the murder were arrested. President Trump was criticized in the immediate aftermath of Khashoggi's disappearance for his apparent reluctance to hold the Saudis responsible for the incident. "We want to find out what happened," he said. But he also maintained that the United States' relations with the kingdom were "excellent" and he would not consider stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite calls from members of Congress to do so. Various commentators, including Washington Post contributor Brian Klaas, suggested that Trump's official dealings with Saudi Arabia are "compromised by deep financial conflicts of interest": suggested His business interests -- past, present, and future -- make it impossible for him to contemplate the kind of consequences that the Saudis deserve. In 1991, when Trump was $900 million in debt, he was bailed out by a member of the Saudi royal family, who purchased his 281-foot yacht, Trump Princess. Trumps other princess, Ivanka, is married to Jared Kushner, who has deep ties to the crown prince. In 2015, when asked about his relationship with the Saudis, Trump said: I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. As recently as December 2016, Trump owned companies in Saudi Arabia, as he sought to build a hotel there. Three days after Trumps inauguration, lobbyists working for the Saudi government funneled $270,000 directly to the Trump Organization by booking rooms at his Washington hotel. More recently, Trumps flagging Manhattan hotel got bailed out thanks to a lucrative visit from none other than the Saudi crown prince. It raises the disturbing possibility that Saudi Arabia will get away with abduction or murder because the president is beholden to Saudi money. Trump responded by tweeting that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia: tweeting For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter). Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018 That same day, Fox News Research (a Fox News Twitter account that regularly posts newsworthy data) tweeted a list highlighting some of Trump's business relationships with the Saudis: tweeted Trump & Saudi Business:1991: Sold yacht to Saudi Prince2001: Sold 45th floor of Trump World Tower to SaudisJun 2015: I love the Saudis...many in Trump TowerAug 2015: "They buy apartments from me...Spend $40M-$50M"2017: Saudi lobbyists spent $270K at Trump DC hotel Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018 Shortly afterward, Trump's tweet and the Fox News tweet were combined into a meme and unleashed on Facebook: The meme presented the Fox News tweet as a refutation of Trump's, but although each of the former's statements can be confirmed via reliable sources, they don't necessarily disprove President Trump's claim that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. The sticking point (and the reason we're rating the claim a mixture of true and false) is that the term "financial interests" usually denotes the ownership of property or investments in a given place, company, or industry. We have found no evidence that either Trump or Trump Organization (the umbrella company operated by Trump's sons, Donald Jr. and Eric), currently owns property or investments in Saudi Arabia. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, the Trump Organization was pursuing plans to open businesses in Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016, but the Associated Press reported in October 2018 that the companies had been shut down by the time Trump took office: reported Shortly after he announced his run for president, Trump began laying the groundwork for possible new business in the kingdom. He registered eight companies with names tied to the country, such as "THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor LLC" and "DT Jeddah Technical Services," according to a 2016 financial disclosure report to the federal government. Jeddah is a major city in the country. "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," Trump told a crowd at an Alabama rally on Aug. 21, 2015, the same day he created four of the entities. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." The president's company, the Trump Organization, said shortly after his 2016 election that it had shut down those Saudi companies. The president later pledged to pursue no new foreign deals while in office. In a statement this week, the company said it has explored business opportunities in many countries but that it does "not have any plans for expansion into Saudi Arabia." There is no question that Trump has profited from business dealings with the Saudis, however. Let's take the items in the Fox News Research list one by one: Fortune reported in 2017 that Trump, facing financial difficulties in 1991, sold a yacht he purchased from the Sultan of Brunei in the 1980s to Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. reported The Associated Press reported that the Kingdom of Saudi purchased the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower in New York City in 2001, "the biggest purchase in that building to that point." reported During a 16 June 2015 speech at Trump Tower announcing his presidential candidacy, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, they make $1 billion a day. $1 billion a day. I love the Saudis. Many are in this building." At a campaign rally one month later, he said: "I like the Saudis; they are very nice. I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff -- all kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions." speech said At a campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama in August 2015, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." said The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2017 that Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., received payments amounting to roughly $270,000 for services provided to lobbyists working for the Saudi government. Although Trump had announced earlier in the year that any Trump Organization profits from foreign governments would be donated to the U.S. Treasury, the company did not respond to the Journal's questions about what would be done with the Saudi payments, which were made through a third party. reported Despite his not owning businesses, properties, or investments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Trump has clearly, and by his own admission, profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from business dealings with the Saudis, and over a long period of time. We reached out to the Trump Organization for comment but received no reply. Beavers, Olivia. "Saudis Spent $270K at Trump Hotel Amid Lobbying Efforts: Report." The Hill. 5 August 2017. Condon, Bernard et al. "'I Love the Saudis': Trump Business Ties to Kingdom Run Deep." Associated Press. 16 October 2018. Fahrenthold, David A. and Jonathan O'Connell. "'I Like Them Very Much:' Trump Has Longstanding Business Ties with Saudis, Who Have Boosted His Hotels Since He Took Office." The Washington Post. 11 October 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. "Trump's Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions About His Allegiances." The New York Times. 17 June 2017. Klaas, Brian. "Jamal Khashoggi's Fate Casts a Harsh Light on Trump's Friendship with Saudi Arabia." The Washington Post. 10 October 2018. Mangan, Dan. "Trump Claims He Has 'No Financial Interests in Saudi Arabia' --- But He Makes Lots of Money from It." CNBC. 16 October 2018. Myre, Greg. "The Big Overlap Between Trump's Global Holdings and U.S. Foreign Policy." NPR. 22 November 2016. Orden, Erica. "Saudi Disappearance Puts Spotlight on Trump's Business Ties." CNN. 12 October 2018. Smith, Geoffrey. "This Is the 420-Foot Yacht Donald Trump Wanted -- Before He Filed for Bankruptcy." Fortune. 13 February 2017. Tau, Byron and Rebecca Ballhaus. "Trump Hotel Received $270,000 from Lobbying Campaign Tied to Saudis." The Wall Street Journal. 6 June 2017. Watson, Kathryn. "What's at Stake in the Trump Administration's Ties to the Saudis." CBS News. 12 October 2018. Wong, Edward et al. "Trump Calls Relations with Saudi Arabia 'Excellent,' While Congress Is Incensed." The New York Times. 11 October 2018. Associated Press. "A Timeline of Events in the Khashoggi Case." 25 October 2018. CBS News. "Transcript: Donald Trump Announces His Presidential Candidacy." 16 June 2015.

['investment']

NEI

Various commentators, including Washington Post contributor Brian Klaas, suggested that Trump's official dealings with Saudi Arabia are "compromised by deep financial conflicts of interest":Trump responded by tweeting that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2018That same day, Fox News Research (a Fox News Twitter account that regularly posts newsworthy data) tweeted a list highlighting some of Trump's business relationships with the Saudis: Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 16, 2018According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, the Trump Organization was pursuing plans to open businesses in Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016, but the Associated Press reported in October 2018 that the companies had been shut down by the time Trump took office:Fortune reported in 2017 that Trump, facing financial difficulties in 1991, sold a yacht he purchased from the Sultan of Brunei in the 1980s to Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.The Associated Press reported that the Kingdom of Saudi purchased the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower in New York City in 2001, "the biggest purchase in that building to that point."During a 16 June 2015 speech at Trump Tower announcing his presidential candidacy, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, they make $1 billion a day. $1 billion a day. I love the Saudis. Many are in this building." At a campaign rally one month later, he said: "I like the Saudis; they are very nice. I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff -- all kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions."At a campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama in August 2015, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much."The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2017 that Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., received payments amounting to roughly $270,000 for services provided to lobbyists working for the Saudi government. Although Trump had announced earlier in the year that any Trump Organization profits from foreign governments would be donated to the U.S. Treasury, the company did not respond to the Journal's questions about what would be done with the Saudi payments, which were made through a third party.

Was a Florida Man Arrested After Throwing a Christmas Tree at His Wife?

['We received inquiries from readers who wanted to know if this story really happened.']

In early January 2023, we received reader mail that asked if it was true that a Florida man was arrested after allegedly throwing a Christmas tree at his wife. Attached to one reader's email was a screenshot of a headline that read, "Florida man arrested, allegedly struck wife with Christmas tree." We found that this was a real headline publishedby ABC6 News on WATE.com, as well as other local news websites. The article cited reporting fromFox 35 Orlando, which was originally printed on Dec. 13, 2022. WATE.com Fox 35 Orlando According to the story, 52-year-old Richard Atchison had allegedly thrown a Christmas tree at his wife after drinking alcohol.The arrest occurred on the night of Dec. 12 in the city of Fruitland Park. We confirmed via the Lake County Sheriff's Department website that Atchison was arrested at 7:16 p.m. local time on suspicion of false imprisonment, violation of injunction, and battery. According to the records, this was Atchison's second time arrested on suspicion of battery. He was released the following day. website By email, the Lake County Sheriff's Office provided us with the arrest affidavit, written by Officer K. Richetti. It read as follows: The defendant stated the victim slammed a utensil into hot food which in turn splashed the right side of his face. The defendant advised he "lost his temper" and stated he was leaving, packed clothes, and walked out to his truck. The defendant then decided to return to the residence, as he had been drinking and told the victim to leave instead. The defendant stated the argument was verbal only and no physical contact was made that evening. I then spoke with the victim, who advised she was making dinner when the defendant became angry with her for asking for help. They engaged in a verbal argument, at which point she put a spoon in the sink, accidentally, splashing the defendant and escalating his temper. The defendant began packing his things and went out to his vehicle. The defendant then returned stating she should be the one to leave. The victim attempted to leave out the front door, but the defendant used both hands and pushed the victim in her shoulder area away from the door, to which she stumbled. The victim then went into the living room and sat with her friend. The defendant picked up the Christmas tree in the corner of the room and threw it towards the kitchen, where it broke in half. The defendant then took the Christmas tree and threw it at the victim, subsequently striking her. The victim went into her bedroom and closed the door, in an attempt to separate herself from the defendant. At this time, the defendant kicked the bedroom door attempting to enter. The victim again tried to leave through the front door, but the defendant was blocking the exit and was yelling at her when law enforcement arrived. It should be noted that the front door is the only door to exit located within the residence. I observed no visible redness or injuries on the defendant. I observed slight redness to the victim's left and right arms, but no other visible injuries. I observed a partial black shoe print on the lower center half of the bedroom door. According to the rest of the affidavit, a witness corroborated the victim's story, including the part about Atchison throwing the Christmas tree. FOX 35 News Staff. "Florida Man Accused of Hitting Wife with Christmas Tree after Asked to Help with Dinner." FOX 35 Orlando, 13 Dec. 2022, https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-man-accused-of-attacking-wife-with-christmas-tree-when-asked-to-help-with-making-dinner. "Richard Daniel Atchison." Lake County Sheriff's Office, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.lcso.org/inmates/mugshot_booking_detail.php?bookingnumber=22008209. Richetti, Officer K.Arrest Affidavit/First Appearance Form for Richard Daniel Atchison. Lake County Sheriff's Office, 12 Dec. 2022. Sloan, Kaycee. "Florida Man Arrested, Allegedly Struck Wife with Christmas Tree." WATE 6 On Your Side, 15 Dec. 2022, https://www.wate.com/news/florida-man-arrested-allegedly-struck-wife-with-christmas-tree/.

['loan']

True

We found that this was a real headline publishedby ABC6 News on WATE.com, as well as other local news websites. The article cited reporting fromFox 35 Orlando, which was originally printed on Dec. 13, 2022.We confirmed via the Lake County Sheriff's Department website that Atchison was arrested at 7:16 p.m. local time on suspicion of false imprisonment, violation of injunction, and battery. According to the records, this was Atchison's second time arrested on suspicion of battery. He was released the following day.

Pandora Endorses Black Lives Matter?

['The streaming music service Pandora caused controversy by posting a message using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media.']

In July 2016, a week of high-profile shootings involving police occurred in the United States. On July 5, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The following day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Minnesota. The day after that, a sniper shot and killed five police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas. On July 8, 2016, the streaming music service Pandora posted a message on social media expressing pain and support related to these events. Although Pandora's post stated that their "hearts ache for all of those who unfairly lost their lives" and included the hashtag #LoveAboveAll, their use of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to represent the victims of police shootings, without an equivalent hashtag to represent the policemen killed in Dallas (such as #BlueLivesMatter), generated controversy and calls for boycotts of the music service. This reaction prompted social media calls for people to subscribe to Pandora as a gesture of support. Social media messages expressing anger over Pandora's message often asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-police or that the movement was responsible for the shooting of police in Dallas. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza attempted to dispel these rumors during an appearance on "All In with Chris Hayes." Garza stated, "Black Lives Matter has never, ever called for the murder of police officers. What we have said over and over

['loss']

NEI

July 2016 saw a week of high-profile shootings involving police the United States: On 5 July 2016, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the following day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Minnesota; and the day after that a sniper shot and killed five police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas. On 8 July 2016, the streaming music service Pandora posted a message on social media expressing a feeling of pain and a gesture of support related to those events:@pandora_radio and I'm deleting now Big_Blue_Nate123 (@BlueNate123) July 9, 2016@pandora_radio took a stand, and ppl are pissed....let's support and subscribe! #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd Olivia X (@EsSeNCeofaDiVa) July 11, 2016Social media messages expressing anger over Pandora's message often asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-police, or that the movement was responsible for the shooting of police in Dallas. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza attempted to dispel these rumors during an appearance on All in with Chris Hayes:Ironically, those upset over Pandora's message announced that they would be boycotting the streaming music service on Facebook, even though Facebook openly expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement by erecting a Black Lives Matter sign outside their headquarters in Menlo Park, California:

Did Oprah Say, 'When People Treat You Like They Don't Care, Believe Them'?

['We looked back several years on social media to find the origins of a quote about a bit of life advice regarding believing people based on their actions.']

Facebook, Twitter, Google Images, and websites that collect famous quotes are full of posts and memes claiming that TV icon Oprah Winfrey once said, "When people treat you like they don't care, believe them." The question is whether there is evidence that she actually said these words. We looked back several years and found that the quote first appeared to be shared by a handful of Facebook and Twitter users in July and August 2013, at which time Winfrey's name was not attached to it. For example, the oldest posting we could find of the words was a tweet from that period. When we searched Twitter for a timeline of the quote's appearances, it seemed that Winfrey's name first appeared alongside it in August 2014, indicating that the saying may have been misattributed to her. The saying was later tweeted by former professional fighter Gary Goodridge in April 2022, without any mention of Winfrey. To continue our research, we performed a special search on Twitter, looking for tweets that contained the quote and filtering the results to show only messages with more than 250 likes. This search returned 15 results, none of which credited Winfrey with the quote. Several of the tweets attributed the saying to "Anonymous." We also found several Facebook posts on pages that collect inspirational sayings, which credited the quote to "Hina," "Kate," "OmI," "Bella," "ADMIN 2," "Uzi," "ShahID," and several other names we did not recognize. No evidence we found indicated that the quote originally came from any specific noteworthy person. Days after we published this story, we received a tweet from a reader that included a video from 1997. In that video, Winfrey is talking to American author, poet, and civil rights activist Maya Angelou, recounting a valuable lesson she learned from her. Winfrey recalled Angelou saying, "When people show you who they are, believe them," which is similar but slightly different from the quote in the meme. Winfrey recounted the story of Angelou telling her the phrase like this: "When she first told me this story, I was talking about some bad relationship or relationship gone bad because of my own choices. And she was saying to me, 'Why are you blaming the other person? He showed you who he was. He told you who he was.' When you look back on bad relationships, like for myself, sitting in a window waiting for him to show up, not even answering the phone—this was before we had cellphones—not even getting on the phone because I was afraid if it was busy for one second that he would call and I would miss the call. Not taking out the garbage on the weekends because I might be out taking the garbage out the moment he called. Not running the bathwater because he might call while I’m running the bathwater, and I might miss the phone. And waiting and waiting and waiting. When you look at that process of waiting for somebody who has told you they were going to do something and promised to be there for you but did not, they are showing you in that moment exactly who they are. That means that’s somebody who cannot be trusted. So why would you trust that person the next time? So, Maya Angelou said to me, when I was telling her one of these stories about, 'I'm waiting and I couldn't believe it and he didn't call me and I don't know what happened,' she was saying, 'My dear,' in her Maya voice, 'My dear, when people show you who they are, why don't you believe them? Why must you be shown 29 times before you can see who they really are? Why can't you get it the first time?' And so the adjunct of that is, when people show you who they are, believe them the first time. Don't wait for the twenty-ninth time." In sum, Winfrey did once say a phrase somewhat similar to the words in the meme. However, if we were to give credit for the saying to anyone, that credit would go to Angelou.

['credit']

False

We looked back several years and found that the quote appeared to have first been shared by a handful of Facebook and Twitter users in July and August 2013. At that time, Winfrey's name was not attached to it. For example, this tweet was the oldest posting we could find of the words:When we searched Twitter for a timeline of the quote's appearances there, it looked like it wasn't until August 2014 when Winfrey's name first appeared with it. This indicated that the saying was perhaps misattributed to her.The saying was later tweeted by former professional fighter Gary Goodridge in April 2022, without any mention of Winfrey:To continue our research, we performed a special search on Twitter. We searched for tweets that contained the quote and filtered the results to only show messages with more than 250 likes. That search returned 15 results. None of the 15 popular tweets showed Winfrey's name next to the quote. Several of the tweets credited the saying to "Anonymous."We also saw several Facebook posts on pages that collect inspirational sayings. Those posts credited the quote to "Hina," "Kate," "OmI," "Bella," "ADMIN 2," "Uzi," "ShahID," and several other names we did not recognize. No evidence we found showed that the quote originally came from any specific noteworthy person, let alone Winfrey.Days after we published this story, we received a tweet from a reader that included a video from 1997. In that video, Winfrey is talking to American author, poet, and civil rights activist Maya Angelou, telling her of the time that she taught her what she saw to be a valuable lesson. Winfrey told Angelou that she remembered her saying the phrase, "When people show you who they are, believe them." This was similar but slightly different than the quote in the meme.

The Last of the Kennedy Dynasty

["Article lists facets of Ted Kennedy's life and career?"]

Claim: Article chronicles aspects of Senator Ted Kennedy's life and career. true Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] The Last of The Kennedy Dynasty As soon as his cancer was detected, I noticed the immediate attempt at the "canonization" of old Teddy Kennedy by the mainstream media. They are saying what a "great American" he is. I say, let's get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history. 1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying aclassmate to cheat for him. 2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops! The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him! 3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER advancing past the rank of Private! 4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing! 5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media, did we? 6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. 7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, passing several houses and a fire station. Two friends then returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began "calling in favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills ... a "token of friendship"? 8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism". In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries. 9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of an increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. 10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. Origins: It's probably impossible for a politician such as Edward M. ("Ted") Kennedy the youngest child in a family that included a U.S. President (John) and a U.S. Attorney General and Senator (Robert) to have served as long as he did without acquiring a good many admirers and detractors. When Ted Kennedy died of cancer in August 2009, after a career spanning more than 46 years as a U.S. Senator, both groups offered their observations, laudatory and critical, on his life and career. The much-circulated example cited above, of the critical variety, is true in its broad outlines (although some of its subjective observations are questionable): 1) Ted Kennedy did get expelled from Harvard for cheating (but not twice: a single incident has erroneously been represented as two different events in the example reproduced above). At the end of his freshman year at Harvard College, in 1951, Kennedy arranged for a classmate to take a Spanish exam in his place: As it had been at Milton [Academy], Spanish was the course that gave Teddy the most difficulty at Harvard. For the others, he would muddle through with C's, he thought, but as the final examination approached, he felt in danger of failing both the test and the course, which would render him ineligible for varsity football in the fall, an intolerable prospect. Knowing he could not pass the examination himself, he arranged to have a friend [Bill Frate], much more proficient in the language, take it for him, signing Teddy's name to the booklet. As it happened, however, the graduate student assigned as proctor for the Spanish examination that day was personally acquainted with the student whom Teddy had recruited as his stand-in. When the stand-in, who did exceedingly well on the test, handed in the booklet, the proctor saw that he'd signed it "Edward M. Kennedy." Perhaps no more than an hour later, [Kennedy and Frate] were both called to the dean's office and expelled. They were told they could apply for readmission in a year or two if they behaved themselves. That was not the most severe punishment Harvard imposed, but it was typical in serious cases. [The preponderance of sources suggest that Frate agreed to take Kennedy's exam for him out of friendship, not because he was paid for his efforts.] 2. With Kennedy's expulsion from Harvard in 1951, he was ineligible for a student deferment and therefore subject to the draft (which had been re-initiated after the Korean War broke out in mid-1950). In June 1951, he enlisted in the U.S. Army for four years, a term which his father's intervention shortened to two years: On the morning Ted enlisted for four years, the newspapers reported truce proposals [in Korea] but also severe Communist attacks, along with twenty-eight New England casualties. Joe Kennedy, having lost one son to war, was furious, asking Ted, "Don't you ever look at what you're signing?" In those days, most young men understood the laws about military service, even if they had a student deferment. But Ted did not know that he had the option of volunteering for induction, in effect getting drafted when he chose and for the draft's two years. After Joe intervened, Ted got the shorter term. 3. Also due largely to his father's influence, Ted Kennedy spent the bulk of his military service stationed in Paris: Joe had no intention of letting Teddy get anywhere near the war in Korea. Instead, Teddy was inducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey, sent to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for basic training, and then shipped to Paris, where his father had arranged for his assignment to a military police honor guard detachment which had the wholly ceremonial task of standing watch over the NATO headquarters office located there. Kennedy was discharged from the Army in March 1953 with the rank of private first class, returned to Cambridge (where he took two summer school courses), and was readmitted to Harvard for the fall 1953 term. The comment about a "person of his 'education'" only having attained the rank of private is something of an anachronism, as at the time Kennedy enlisted in the military he had little more than a high school education (having been expelled from Harvard at the end of his freshman year). The bulk of his education (his final three years at Harvard and an additional four years of law school) did not take place until after his discharge from the Army. 4. Ted Kennedy was known for driving wildly and accumulating speeding tickets while attending the University of Virginia (UVa) law school, prompting his UVa alumnus brother Robert to quip (during a talk at the school) that their mother had asked him to find out "what side of the court my brother is going to appear on when he gets out of law school, attorney or defendant." After the most serious incident (involving a police chase at speeds up to 90 MPH), Kennedy was arrested and charged with reckless driving and driving without a license (he possessed a valid license but had left it at home), an arrest which his father managed to keep out of the news for several weeks. There does not appear to be a record of his driver's license having been revoked (but standards for mandatory revocation may have been quite different fifty years ago). We're unsure what "amazing coincidence" supposedly connects Kennedy's having been arrested for reckless driving in Virginia in March 1958 and his having passed the Massachusetts bar exam in August 1959. 5. On the evening of 19 June 1964, after a late vote in the U.S. Senate on a civil rights bill, Senator Ted Kennedy boarded a six-seat private plane to fly to the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention in West Springfield. The plane crashed on approach to Barnes Municipal Airport in conditions of marginal visibility; the pilot and a Kennedy aide were killed; Kennedy himself suffered crushed and fractured vertebrae, a collapsed lung, and several broken ribs, injuries which required several months of hospitalization and rehabilitation. The mention of Kennedy's supposedly having been "legally intoxicated" at the time of the accident is a red herring he was a passenger in the plane, not the pilot, and was not responsible for the crash. (The Civil Aeronautics Board found the probable cause to be "an improperly executed instrument approach in which improper altitude control resulted in a descent below obstructed terrain.") 6.-7. The July 1969 "Chappaquiddick incident," in which Mary Jo Kopechne (a former campaign worker for Robert F. Kennedy) drowned after Ted Kennedy drove the car in which he and Mary Jo were riding off the side of a bridge late one evening, is well known and too complex a subject for us to adequately summarize in a paragraph or two, so interested readers might wish to peruse Wikipedia's entry on that topic. entry It's fair to say that, at the very least, Kennedy's actions after the Chappaquiddick accident (particularly his failure to report it to authorities until well into the following morning) were both questionable and inexcusable. As Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer wrote of the Chappaquiddick controversy: No other automobile accident in history has stirred as much suspicion and speculation. There is no question that the authorities, simultaneously sympathetic, in awe, and in fear of a messy case involving a hugely popular Senator, did a terrible job of investigating the accident. The Kennedy camp did not help, but in legal terms, it did nothing to obstruct, either. Absent different evidence, it is almost impossible to see how the authorities could have proved a more serious crime [than leaving the scene of an accident]. The accident itself is consistent with the fact that Kennedy was a terrible, easily distracted driver. Moreover, even if he had only the two drinks he reported, liquor probably mattered. He was almost certainly not legally drunk in 1969, when the blood alcohol standard was 0.15 percent. He might not even have been over the current Massachusetts standard, which is 0.08. But any alcohol consumption diminishes driving ability. There is no direct evidence that Kennedy dove to the wrecked car. Some critics have dismissed his account, claiming that his bad back and the tides made this impossible. But since childhood, Kennedy had taken physical risks. After he broke his back, he was skiing on difficult slopes again the next year. Adrenaline would have boosted his energy. There is no reason to doubt that he tried as hard as he could to rescue Mary Jo immediately. Just as there was no good excuse for Kennedy's not knocking on doors until he found a house with a telephone, there was no excuse at all for [Kennedy friend and former U.S. Attorney Paul] Markham and [Kennedy cousin Joe] Gargan's failing to summon help. Each was a lawyer, and [unlike Kennedy] neither had a concussion. Their instinct, and perhaps Kennedy's too, appears to have been to prevent disclosure of his having been in the car with a pretty young woman under circumstances that invited suspicion. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that faster action to summon help would in fact have saved her life. Considering that it took more than an hour to get her body out the next morning, when everyone involved was already awake and dressed and visibility was good, Lange and Dewitt [authors of Chappaquiddick: The Real Story] argue convincingly that she had to have died before help would have arrived in the middle of the night. But Markham, Gargan, and Kennedy didn't know that. They should not have worried about how it would look and should have called the police without delay. 8. How one evaluates the accomplishments and achievements of Ted Kennedy's 46-year tenure as a U.S. Senator is a subjective issue, but no even-handed evaluation could fairly describe them as "scant." Wikipedia, for example, observes that: Wikipedia Since his presidential bid [in 1980], Kennedy became one of the most recognizable and influential members of the party, and was sometimes called a "Democratic icon" as well as "The Lion of the Senate". Kennedy and his Senate staff had written about 2,500 bills, of which more than 300 were enacted into law. Kennedy had co-sponsored another 550 bills that became law since 1973. Kennedy was known for his effectiveness in dealing with Republican senators and administrations, sometimes to the irritation of Democrats. During the 101st Congress under President George H. W. Bush, fully half of the successful proposals put forward by the Senate Democratic policy makers came out of Kennedy's Labor and Human Resources Committee. During the 2000s, almost every bipartisan bill signed during the George W. Bush administration had significant involvement from Kennedy. A late 2000s survey of Republican senators ranked Kennedy first among Democrats in bipartisanship. Kennedy strongly believed in the principle "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and would agree to pass legislation he viewed as incomplete or imperfect with the goal of improving it down the road. In April 2006, Kennedy was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best Senators"; the magazine noted that he had "amassed a titanic record of legislation affecting the lives of virtually every man, woman and child in the country" and that "by the late 1990s, the liberal icon had become such a prodigious cross-aisle dealer that Republican leaders began pressuring party colleagues not to sponsor bills with him". (A [partisan] list of Kennedy's accomplishments published on his portion of the U.S. Senate web site can be viewed here.) here Ted Kennedy was a strong advocate for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a bill that abolished U.S. national-origin immigration quotas which had been in place since 1924 quotas that apportioned immigration visas according to the demographic breakdown of the U.S. as recorded by the 1920 census and thereby placed few limits on immigrants from Western and Northern Europe but strict limits on immigrants from the rest of the world. Although Kennedy argued during debate on the bill that "Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think," the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 did have a significant impact on immigration patterns: President Kennedy proposed a new immigration structure that would no longer be based on national origins. After Kennedy's assassination, his brother Ted took up the fight, pushing the Johnson administration to go even further than it wanted in evening the playing field. Though Lyndon Johnson, in signing the bill, tried to reassure opponents that it wouldn't do much to change the balance of immigration, its impact was dramatic. In the 1950s, 53 percent of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians; by the 1990s, just 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were Asians. The percentages of Latino and African immigrants also jumped significantly. In 1965, the U.S. was around 85 percent white, according to various estimates. Today, a third of the country is minority, and nonwhites are on track to become the majority sometime in the 2040s. Minority populations have grown by leaps and bounds because of high birth rates among those first generations of immigrants and a steady flow from Latin America, Asia and Africa since. 9. During his long career in the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy was certainly a consistent advocate of immigration policy reform: Historians and immigrant advocates are remembering the senator perhaps more than any other as championing legislation that directly benefited immigrants, their children and their grandchildren. The 1965 law that he sponsored fundamentally changed the demographics of the country and transformed many urban enclaves into majority-minority cities. But they say Kennedy also remained a "point man" in the Senate for immigrant advocates and minorities throughout his career, even supporting recent proposals to overhaul immigration laws aimed at undocumented workers. Kennedy advocated for the children of immigrants and minorities by pushing legislation on voting rights and health care for uninsured children. The list of accomplishments on Kennedy's web site describes his efforts in this area thusly: Senator Kennedy had long been convinced that legal immigration is good for our country. As such, he had been at the forefront of efforts to improve U.S. immigration policy by sponsoring beneficial legislation and opposing initiatives that are harmful to immigrants and refugees. In 1986, Senator Kennedy worked to obtain legal status for undocumented workers and address the potential for increased employment discrimination against immigrant workers as a result of the employer sanction provisions. He was the lead sponsor of the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased the quotas for family immigration, established a diversity visa program, and created a temporary safe haven program for persons fleeing oppressive governments. He was also an original sponsor of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act and its re-authorization in 2000, which allows battered immigrant women and children to apply for permanent residence without the cooperation of their abusive spouses or parents. He strongly opposed the harsh 1996 immigration laws, which divided families, returned refugees to the hands of their persecutors, and denied immigrants their day in court, as well as the 1996 welfare law that turned immigrants into second class citizens, and he continues to work to eliminate the harshest provisions of these laws. His goal was to preserve families, assure fairness and due process, and maintain the integrity of our immigration laws. Senator Kennedy believed that immigrants deserve the same due process protections available to U.S. citizens, and that it is contrary to basic principles of fairness and justice to take immigrants from their U.S. citizen families, without even an opportunity to have their day in court. He also helped lead the way in efforts to restore fairness and justice to immigrants and refugees. Senator Kennedy's support was instrumental in restoring public benefits, such as Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid, to countless elderly, disabled, and legal immigrants. He continues to push for the further restoration of benefits to all legal immigrants. 10. No one could deny that Ted Kennedy was known as a drinker and a womanizer, particularly in the earlier years of his life. As the Miami Herald noted of his passing: For his many critics, the flaws in Kennedy's character and his mistakes above all, Chappaquiddick overshadow his good works. He paid for that by losing the campaign to unseat President Carter in 1980 and later suffered humiliations over his drinking and womanizing. Ultimately, he turned his energies to Congress and forged one of the great Senate careers. Last updated: 30 August 2009 Canellos, Peter S. "Obama Victory Took Root in Kennedy-Inspired Immigration Act." The Boston Globe. 11 November 2008. Canellos, Peter S. Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. ISBN 1-4391-4873-2. Clymer, Adam. Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: William Morrow, 1999. ISBN 0-688-14285-0. Contreras, Russell. "For Immigrants, Kennedy Remained Tireless Advocate." Associated Press. 29 August 2009. McGinniss, Joe. The Last Brother: The Rise and Fall of Teddy Kennedy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. ISBN 0-671-67945-7. Miami Herald. "Ted Kennedy: The Lion Sleeps." 27 August 2009.

['income']

False

6.-7. The July 1969 "Chappaquiddick incident," in which Mary Jo Kopechne (a former campaign worker for Robert F. Kennedy) drowned after Ted Kennedy drove the car in which he and Mary Jo were riding off the side of a bridge late one evening, is well known and too complex a subject for us to adequately summarize in a paragraph or two, so interested readers might wish to peruse Wikipedia's entry on that topic. 8. How one evaluates the accomplishments and achievements of Ted Kennedy's 46-year tenure as a U.S. Senator is a subjective issue, but no even-handed evaluation could fairly describe them as "scant." Wikipedia, for example, observes that:(A [partisan] list of Kennedy's accomplishments published on his portion of the U.S. Senate web site can be viewed here.)

Don't Buy Gas on April 15

['Will not buying gas on April 15 help lower gasoline prices?']

Claim: Participating in one-day boycott of gasoline on 15 April will help lower gasoline prices. Examples: [Collected on the Internet, March 2012] Don't pump gas on April 15, 2012. KEEP SENDING THIS. Let's all try this, wonderful if it helps. I'll do it! If running low, just get your gas the day before on April 14 or the day after on April 16. Every little bit helps. In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On April 15th 2011, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $1.20 a liter/$3.87 is most places. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on April 15th and let's try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day. [Collected on the Internet, 2007] DO NOT PUMP GAS ON MAY 15TH... On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day. If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) repost this bulletin repost it with "Don't pump gas on May 15th, 2007" [Collected on the Internet, 2006] No Gas on May 15th On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day.. [Collected on the Internet, 2005] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1st HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHIND " DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THESE TWO NATIONS SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE SEPTEMBER 1ST A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" [Collected on the Internet, 2004] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Last year on April 30, 1999, a gas out was staged across Canada and the U.S. to bring the price of gas down, and it worked. It's time to do something about it again. Only this time lets make it for three days instead of just one. The so-called oil cartel decided to slow production to drive up gasoline prices. Lets see how many CanadianAmerican people we can get to ban together for a three day period in April, NOT TO BUY ANY GASOLINE, during those three days. LET'S HAVE A GAS OUT. Do not buy any gasoline from APRIL 7, 2000, THROUGH APRIL 9, 2000. Buy what you need before the dates listed above, or after, but try not to buy any during the GAS OUT. If you want to help, just send this to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. We brought the prices down once before, and we can do it again. Come on North America lets stand together. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Even if you receive this 100 times keep passing it around, this way you know everyone is being informed and no one will forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Origins: The above-quoted pieces advocating one-day gasoline boycotts are proof that some bad ideas never go away; they just keep getting recycled year after year. This year's e-mail (proposing a one-day "gas out" on 15 April) is yet another recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999. All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness. A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little active participation and had no real effect on retail gasoline prices. The recycling of the same campaign in subsequent years hasn't drawn enough interest to even be considered newsworthy. The premise behind all these messages is inherently flawed, because consumers' not buying gasoline on one particular day doesn't affect oil companies at all. The "gas out" scheme doesn't call upon people to use less gasoline, but simply to shift their date of purchase and buy gas a day earlier or later than they usually would The very same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don't lose any money. By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the "gas out" calls for isn't consumers' swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by a couple of days at most. Because the "gas out" doesn't call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one. Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without. Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the "gas out" messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain: the independent service station operators, who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. (Independents are at the mercy of a very volatile oil market and operate on thin profit margins, and even a single day's disruption of supply or demand can wipe out many days' worth of hard-earned profits.) As such, the "gas out" is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person. Either apathy or an outbreak of common sense has made previous "gas outs" non-events with very low levels of participation, as documented by these snippets of news accounts from across North America: Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died. Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices. Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic. In Seattle, there were so many cars waiting to get into [a] Texaco station ... yesterday afternoon that it caused a backup five cars deep into [the] right-hand lane. Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth. A planned nationwide boycott protesting the high price of gasoline didn't have much effect on local gas stations. "We were expecting something substantial," said Mark Johnson, the owner of a Chevron station. "We haven't really noticed much of a difference." Irving stations in sunny Halifax said the boycott had no effect on business. "It's been busy as a bugger here," said Bruce Riley, manager of one station. "We haven't been busier in the last two weeks," added the manager at another Halifax outlet. Gas stations [in Ottawa] reported "busier than ever" conditions at the pumps on the day of The Great Internet Gas-Out. Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing. An event like a "gas out" can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: "We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can't even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost." What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices? Those who really want to send a "message" to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row. Other articles about gasoline prices: Petition to President Bush Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down Last updated: 11 March 2013 Deibel, Mary. "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say." The [Albany] Times Union. 27 April 1999 (p. A2). De Marcol, Donna. "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal." The Washington Times. 1 May 1999 (p. C11). Heaster, Jerry. "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty." The Kansas City Star. 30 April 1999 (p. C1). Howe, Kenneth. "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area." The San Francisco Chronicle. 1 May 1999 (p. A1). Sands, Aaron. "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas." The Ottawa Sun. 1 May 1999 (p. A4). Simmons, Cindy. "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump." Associated Press. 1 May 1999. Surman, Matt. "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change." Los Angeles Times. 1 May 1999 (p. B6). Associated Press. "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'" 1 May 1999. Calgary Herald. "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott." 1 May 1999 (p. E5). Indianapolis Business Journal. "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump." 3 May 1999 (p. B9). Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps." 1 May 1999 (p. B3). The Toronto Star. "Gas Boycott Sputters." 1 May 1999.

['economy']

False

Petition to President Bush Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down

Hooters Bans Motorcycle Clubs from All Restaurants

['Rumor: Photograph shows a sign at a Hooters restaurant stating that motorcycle clubs are not allowed inside.']

Claim: Hooters has banned motorcyclists from wearing club patches and colors in all of their locations. Example: [Collected via e-internet, May 2015] I was wondering if there is any truth that Hooters as a National chain was completely banning Motorcycle club colors from every Hooters around or only certain ones like in Atlanta. Origins: Shortly after a deadly motorcycle gang shootout took place in in Waco, Texas, in May 2015, a photograph purportedly showing a "no motorcycle colors or patches" sign outside of a Hooters restaurant began circulating online: Several motorcyclist took to the company's Facebook page to voice their complaints about the new rule, with most posters taking issue with the fact that the preponderance of motorcycle clubs have no gang affiliations. Although many viewers assumed the sign was an expression of a new corporate policy, that was not the case: Hooters has not made any official announcements regarding a newly-imposed ban on motorcycle clubs. The above-displayed photograph is the only image documenting the purported policy; there is no information about where it was taken, nor do any other photographs document that this type of sign has been put on display at other Hooters restaurants across the country. In fact, at least one Hooters location has taken to Facebook to say specifically that they have not been instructed to ban people wearing motorcycle club patches. After hearing about the sign, Hooters McKinney changed their Facebook profile to a Hooters girl washing a motorcycle and posted a message to their customers: Facebook The sign being referred to, that has been passed around the Internet, is not and has not ever been at our location. As far as management knows there is not any in the area of us either. We do not know where the sign was seen but can guarantee it was not with our location. We welcome everyone and will continue to welcome everyone. On 28 May 2015, Hooters confirmed that while the sign is real, it was displayed only at a single location (in Waco, Texas), and the company does not have a chain-wide ban on the display of motorcycle patches and colors: confirmed In light of the tragic events of May 17, the Hooters restaurant in Waco, Texas, has posted a sign requesting that patrons refrain from displaying their motorcycle club affiliation while dining with us. Even though none of our restaurants were involved in the incident, the safety and wellbeing of our guests and employees are always our top priorities and we believe special precautions are warranted in this situation, at least for now. This is not a system-wide policy. Although a similar request was made of guests last year in one East Coast location, we have no plans of implementing it elsewhere at this time. We fully understand that the majority of motorcycle enthusiast organizations are comprised of upstanding folks that share a passion for riding and a common interest in our community. It has been and will continue to be our privilege to welcome and serve them, along with all of our other guests, in our restaurants. Hooters will continue to work with local authorities to preserve a safe environment for our guests and employees. Last updated: 28 May 2015

['interest']

False

In fact, at least one Hooters location has taken to Facebook to say specifically that they have not been instructed to ban people wearing motorcycle club patches. After hearing about the sign, Hooters McKinney changed their Facebook profile to a Hooters girl washing a motorcycle and posted a message to their customers:On 28 May 2015, Hooters confirmed that while the sign is real, it was displayed only at a single location (in Waco, Texas), and the company does not have a chain-wide ban on the display of motorcycle patches and colors:

Did a Restaurant Customer Leave an Anti-Immigration Note in Lieu of a Tip?

['Social media controversy erupted over a diner who purportedly stiffed his waitress and mocked her for being an immigrant.']

In November 2015, a photograph began circulating online via sites such as Imgur and Facebook, showing a restaurant bill from a customer who purportedly stiffed his waitress and mocked her for being an immigrant. The identity of the original friend of a friend who posted the image wasn't clear, but a FoxNews.com article provided some additional information about the circumstances under which the controversy began. After serving a customer at Bamboo Thai Bistro in Redondo Beach, Calif., an Asian waitress received a short note scribbled on the receipt instead of a tip, according to NBC Los Angeles. It read, "Tip for U.S. citizens only." The server is from Thailand and is in the U.S. legally on a visa with the hope of obtaining a green card one day. According to NBC, on Nov. 11, a male diner paid for his meal of kung pao spaghetti that totaled $22.84, which would have meant the server received $3.43. However, after discovering the nasty note, it's believed another diner snapped a photo of the receipt, which included the man's name, and posted it online. An earlier report from Los Angeles television station KNBC included a brief video segment about the ensuing controversy. Despite massive social media interest in the receipt and its unpleasant message, the man whose name appeared on the slip of paper hasn't responded to media requests for his version of events. He has neither confirmed nor denied that he left the message and hasn't emailed a response to any of the several media outlets covering the viral controversy. Although KNBC included CCTV footage of the man purportedly entering Bamboo Thai Bistro in Redondo Beach, California, on Nov. 11, 2015, that clip didn't definitively indicate he signed a receipt, much less left a rude, anti-immigrant message on a piece of paper that included his full legal name. A report from the Daily Breeze of Los Angeles County's South Bay left it unclear whether the man was a take-out customer or a diner who was waited upon by the server. A 15 percent tip would have been $3.43, but the male customer wrote "Tip for U.S. Citizens Only" on the tip line for his $22.84 receipt for kung pao spaghetti. "It was really bizarre," said the owner, who asked to be identified only as Adison. "She thought she did something wrong. She is one of the best workers here." The man ordered his food and got up and left. "I went outside to do something, and when I came back in, my waitresses were showing me the receipt," Adison said. "This guy left this." Searches for Jason Naglich, restricted to a few days before the Nov. 11, 2015 date supplied by the restaurant, revealed he had no Internet presence to speak of. How a fellow customer who was not part of the transaction came to view the receipt, as the restaurant claimed, was unclear. The restaurant's owner later said he feared litigation as a result of the controversy. So while the story has drawn massive interest from across the country, little about Naglich and the purported receipt, beyond the original assertion, has been confirmed. It's possible that a diner by that name chose to add insult to injury by stiffing his waitress and blaming it on her immigrant status. It's similarly possible that, as with prior claims of this variety, someone somewhere along the line fabricated the slip's message. However, diners swept up in previous hoaxes have quickly spoken up to correct the story once it came to their attention, whereas Naglich has yet to address the rumor.

['interest']

NEI

In November 2015, a photograph began circulating online via sites such Imgur and Facebook showing a restaurant bill from a customer who purportedly stiffed his waitress and mocked her for being an immigrant:The identity of the original friend of a friend who posted the image wasn't clear, but a FoxNews.com article provided some additional information about the circumstances under which the controversy began:An earlier report from Los Angeles television station KNBC included a brief video segment about the ensuing controversy:A report from the Daily Breeze of Los Angeles County's South Bay left it unclear whether the man was a take-out customer or a diner who was waited upon by the server:Searches for Jason Naglich restricted to a few days before the 11 November 2015 date supplied by the restaurant revealed he had no Internet presence of which to speak. How a fellow customer who was not party to the transaction came to view the receipt (as the restaurant claimed) was unclear. The restaurant's owner later said he feared litigation as a result of the controversy.So while the story has drawn massive interest from across the country, little about Naglich and the purported receipt (beyond the original assertion) has been confirmed. It's possible that a diner by that name chose to add insult to injury by stiffing his waitress and blaming it on her immigrant status. It's similarly possible that as with prior claims of this variety, someone somewhere along the line fabricated the slip's message. However, diners swept up in previous hoaxes have quickly spoken up to correct the story once it came to their attention, whereas Naglich has yet to address the rumor.

Is Olive Garden set to close down?

['An online ad promoting a list of restaurants closing in 2020 may have stopped breadstick-lovers in their tracks.']

In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020." This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered 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

['loan']

False

This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop.While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast."The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively.Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed.On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses."On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?"Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining.Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue.The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well.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.

What silently occurred on January 1, 2015?

['This claim about taxes quietly imposed as part of the Affordable Care Act has been circulating for years.']

An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases: Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list. These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis. Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6% The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%). The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%). Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold. It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation). estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket. Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income. (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax. The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended. Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill

['asset']

False

Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list. These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis. Under the provisions of that bill:It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold. It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation). The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket. Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income. (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.)Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.)

Who was the individual known as Michael Myers?

["The face of the mass-murdering Michael Myers character in the 'Halloween' films was originally a Captain Kirk mask."]

One of the most iconic masks in movie history is the one worn by the crazed killer Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise of slasher films, the first installment of which was released in 1978. According to rumor, this frightful face originated with a character from a very different series and medium: Captain Kirk from television's Star Trek. The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have the funds to create a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and made a few alterations to create the iconic look of Michael Myers. He explained, "There was a choice we had to make because we didn't have any money to make a mask. So the art director went up to Bert Wheeler's magic shop on Hollywood Boulevard, which was right up the street from our offices, and he got two masks. One was a clown mask, and one was a Captain Kirk mask. It was supposed to be Captain Kirk. It looked nothing like William Shatner, nothing like anybody, really. It was just a strange mask, which was perfect for us. So we spray-painted it, altered the eye holes, and just did a couple of things with the hair, and there you had it. I like to think it's Shatner, but it's not really." Similar versions of the story have been told by other members of the crew, including Rick Sternbach, who worked as an illustrator/designer on Halloween 2, and William Shatner (who portrayed Captain Kirk) himself. Sternbach's account is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact. He stated, "I was hired as an illustrator on Halloween 2 in 1981, working for production designer J. Michael Riva. In a supply cabinet at Pumpkin Pie Productions, we had one mask left from the original Halloween and no idea where to get any others for the sequel. It appeared that we'd need to check out some of the toy stores and such, but I noticed that there was some wording molded into the neck area. There was a model number and the words 'Don Post Studios.' I made a call, read off the model number, and the word came back, 'It's our Captain Kirk mask.' I asked if we could buy a number of them, and was told, 'We'll give you a box, just give us credit.' With that, I turned the official dealings over to the higher-ups."

['credit']

True

The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have funds for creating a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and applied a few alterations to it to create the iconic look of Michael Myers:Sternbach's story is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact:

Does an 'Increase' in Arctic and Greenland Ice Cast Doubt on the Reality of Global Warming?

['Single data points presented without context do not interfere with the scientific consensus on climate change.']

On 1 October 2017, pseudoscientific alternative health website NaturalNews.com, which is geared primarily toward supplement enthusiasts with a discerning taste for deep state conspiracy theories, posted an article ("Dont Look Now, But Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012") that attempts to cast doubt on the scientific veracity of global warming by first presenting the following grotesque caricature of a straw man argument: article straw man One of the most popular pieces of "evidence" that climate alarmists just love to bring up to prove the global warming narrative is the "all the ice is melting in the Arctic and the polar bears are dying" line. Weve all seen the documentaries where a polar bear is desperately clinging to a tiny piece of ice and you just know hes going to die soon. They article then presents two observations that make the generally factual point that there has been relatively more sea ice in the Arctic and glacial ice on Greenland in 2017 than there have been at specific times in the recent past: The latest figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, located at the University of Colorado, show that sea ice extent has increased by 40 percent since 2012. [...] [The Danish Polar Portal reports that]: If we rank the annual surface mass balance since 1981 from low to high, the lowest on record was 2011-2012 (38 Gt) and this year is the 5th highest out of the 37 year record. Danish Polar Portal To be clear, the primary data scientists use to document global warming are records of Earth's temperature over time, not doomed polar bear imagery. Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist for the independent, nongovernmental Berkeley Earth research group told us in an e-mail that, in this area, pretty much "all groups who provide estimates" of global temperature unequivocally point to nearly uninterrupted temperature rises since the 1970s, as shown in this comparison of various estimates produced by the climate and energy policy website Carbon Brief: Zeke Hausfather produced "People interested in global warming are best-served looking at actual global temperatures," Hausfather said. While this temperature trend is uncontroversial and clear, the climate system as a whole is a complex beast with numerous entangled parts. The basic approach to writing a blog post that "debunks" the concept of global warming is to highlight without explanation various parts of that system at a single point in time. NaturalNews.com is no exception to that basic strategy here. Arctic Sea Ice Natural News cites a climate change denial blog called ClimateDepot.com as evidence of the claim that sea ice has grown 40 percent since 2012. In reality, the claim made by this website was more specific and less useful. In a post dated 18 September 2017, Climate Depot stated: stated Arctic sea ice extent is up 40% from this date five years ago. "Sea ice extent" is one of many different metrics used to characterize the presence of sea ice, and is generally defined as "the area of ocean [based on pixels in satellite imagery] where at least 15 percent of the surface is frozen". On the day of 17 September 2017, sea ice extent was indeed higher than it was on 17 September 2012: defined This does not mean, however, that sea ice has grown almost 40 percent since 2012, nor does it mean that the overall trend in arctic sea ice is toward growth it hasn't and it isn't. The issue here is that sea ice extent is quite variable from year to year, and thus looking at two discrete points is a fairly useless exercise without the full context. "We don't expect it to monotonically decrease every year," Hausfather told us. This chart (using data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center) shows September sea ice extent compared against the same average used in the maps cited by Climate Depot, showing both this aforementioned variability but also an overall trend of reduced ice extent. Note that the year 2012 was no random year to select for comparison; it is actually the record lowest year in terms of Arctic sea ice extent making anything compared to it necessarily higher: from The overall trend of declining sea ice is even clearer when you look at a different measure: sea ice volume (presented by the Polar Science Center, below). Not only do such records show a clear negative trend, they also show just how anomalous 2012 was as a data point: Polar Science Center In reality, 2017 was the eighth lowest year on record for Arctic sea ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1978. But in no world but the pseudo-scientific fringe internet would the concept of global warming rely on every single year breaking the previous year's record for sea ice minimum. eighth Tom Karl, the former director of NOAAs National Centers for Environmental Information, told us that 2017's sea ice extent was still much lower than the 1980-2010 average (by two standard deviations), and that, despite claims to the contrary, "one can't look at a trend over 5 years and say much about the impact of global warming as other factors are also important on these short time scales." director Glacial Ice on Greenland The NaturalNews.com approach for glacial ice on Greenland was similarly lacking scale and context. The main source for these arguments was a completely legitimate end-of-year report put out by the Danish Polar Portal, a website run by the Danish Meteorological Institute. In that report, the organization makes this factual statement: report Heavy snow and rain in winter with a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season have left the Greenland ice sheet with more ice than has been usual over the last twenty years in fact we have to go back to the 1980s and 90s to see a year similar to this one in terms of snow fall and ice melt. This statement, and the figures presented by NaturalNews.com, are referring to a metric known as Surface Mass Balance (SMB), which Polar Portal describes: describes Each year glaciers gain ice from snow and freezing rain and lose ice by melt that runs off. Adding these together gives the surface mass budget (SMB) in Greenland, the ice sheet typically gains mass from around September to May and loses more mass than it gains in the ablation [melting] season of June, July and August. Importantly, however, this measurement only presents half the picture in terms of how much mass is being lost from year to year from Greenland's glaciers. That's because it does not include the rather significant portion of ice that breaks or calves off into the ocean to melt elsewhere. On average this accounts for about 500 Gt [gigatons] of further ice loss. This, as stated in the Polar Portal post, nearly matches the estimated gain in SMB reported by Natural News, effectively canceling it out. In a post on Carbon Brief, analysts with the Danish Meteorological Society put this years measurement in context: post While the Greenland ice sheet has seen a neutral, or small positive, change in ice for this year, it should be noted that Greenland has lost approximately 3,600bn tonnes of ice since 2002. Like the record of Arctic sea ice earlier, when put in the context of the entire trend of Greenland's ice mass over time (presented by Polar Portal below), 2017's measurement does nothing to change larger and completely unambiguous trends of overall melting: Polar Portal Further, in the case of Greenland's ice sheet, there is not much of a mystery surrounding the lackluster amount of melting this year; a massive storm the remnants of Hurricane Nicole parked itself atop the continent, dumping a large amount of snow on the ice-covered continent: Hurricane Nicole dumping Heavy rain and snow in October in especially eastern Greenland gave record totals of precipitation in the main east coast town of Tasiilaq as the remnants of former hurricane Nicole passed by and, much as with Harvey in Houston this year, got lodged over eastern Greenland for some days. However, after Nicoles extreme precipitation, the rest of the winter was actually pretty average in terms of the amount of snow that fell. Because neither the higher-than-2012 arctic sea ice from 17 September 2017 nor the neutral amount of ice loss in Greenland in 2017 do anything to disrupt the overall trends of decreasing ice, and because climatological science does not require (nor does it expect) ice or temperature records to be broken every single year, we rank the claim that these observations are reasons to doubt the tenets of climate change as false. Watson, Tracey. "Dont Look Now, but Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012." Natural News. 1 October 2017. Mottram, Ruth, et al. "Guest Post: How the Greenland Ice Sheet Fared in 2017." Carbon Brief. 1 September 2017. Polar Portal. "End of the SMB Season Summary 2017." 12 September 2017. Morano, Marc. "Massive Arctic Ice Gain (Up 40%) Since Low Point of 2012. Climate Depot. 19 September 2012. Hausfather, Zeke. "State of the Climate: Warm Temperatures and Low Sea Ice Mark First Half of 2017." Carbon Brief. 21 July 2017. National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Arctic Sea Ice at Minimum Extent." 19 September 2017. Polar Science Center. "PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis." Accessed 4 October 2017. NASA. "End-of-Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is Eighth Lowest on Record." 19 September 2017. NASA. "NASA Sees Tropical Storm Nicole Going Extra-Tropical." 18 October 2016.

['budget']

False

On 1 October 2017, pseudoscientific alternative health website NaturalNews.com, which is geared primarily toward supplement enthusiasts with a discerning taste for deep state conspiracy theories, posted an article ("Dont Look Now, But Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012") that attempts to cast doubt on the scientific veracity of global warming by first presenting the following grotesque caricature of a straw man argument:[The Danish Polar Portal reports that]: If we rank the annual surface mass balance since 1981 from low to high, the lowest on record was 2011-2012 (38 Gt) and this year is the 5th highest out of the 37 year record.To be clear, the primary data scientists use to document global warming are records of Earth's temperature over time, not doomed polar bear imagery. Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist for the independent, nongovernmental Berkeley Earth research group told us in an e-mail that, in this area, pretty much "all groups who provide estimates" of global temperature unequivocally point to nearly uninterrupted temperature rises since the 1970s, as shown in this comparison of various estimates produced by the climate and energy policy website Carbon Brief:Natural News cites a climate change denial blog called ClimateDepot.com as evidence of the claim that sea ice has grown 40 percent since 2012. In reality, the claim made by this website was more specific and less useful. In a post dated 18 September 2017, Climate Depot stated:"Sea ice extent" is one of many different metrics used to characterize the presence of sea ice, and is generally defined as "the area of ocean [based on pixels in satellite imagery] where at least 15 percent of the surface is frozen". On the day of 17 September 2017, sea ice extent was indeed higher than it was on 17 September 2012:This chart (using data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center) shows September sea ice extent compared against the same average used in the maps cited by Climate Depot, showing both this aforementioned variability but also an overall trend of reduced ice extent. Note that the year 2012 was no random year to select for comparison; it is actually the record lowest year in terms of Arctic sea ice extent making anything compared to it necessarily higher:The overall trend of declining sea ice is even clearer when you look at a different measure: sea ice volume (presented by the Polar Science Center, below). Not only do such records show a clear negative trend, they also show just how anomalous 2012 was as a data point:In reality, 2017 was the eighth lowest year on record for Arctic sea ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1978. But in no world but the pseudo-scientific fringe internet would the concept of global warming rely on every single year breaking the previous year's record for sea ice minimum.Tom Karl, the former director of NOAAs National Centers for Environmental Information, told us that 2017's sea ice extent was still much lower than the 1980-2010 average (by two standard deviations), and that, despite claims to the contrary, "one can't look at a trend over 5 years and say much about the impact of global warming as other factors are also important on these short time scales."The NaturalNews.com approach for glacial ice on Greenland was similarly lacking scale and context. The main source for these arguments was a completely legitimate end-of-year report put out by the Danish Polar Portal, a website run by the Danish Meteorological Institute. In that report, the organization makes this factual statement:This statement, and the figures presented by NaturalNews.com, are referring to a metric known as Surface Mass Balance (SMB), which Polar Portal describes:In a post on Carbon Brief, analysts with the Danish Meteorological Society put this years measurement in context:Like the record of Arctic sea ice earlier, when put in the context of the entire trend of Greenland's ice mass over time (presented by Polar Portal below), 2017's measurement does nothing to change larger and completely unambiguous trends of overall melting: Further, in the case of Greenland's ice sheet, there is not much of a mystery surrounding the lackluster amount of melting this year; a massive storm the remnants of Hurricane Nicole parked itself atop the continent, dumping a large amount of snow on the ice-covered continent:

Did Keanu Reeves Say, 'Grief Changes Shape but It Never Ends?'

['Quotes seen as deep and thoughtful are often attributed to the widely loved actor.']

Actor Keanu Reeves has a reputation for being one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, and, as a result, many statements considered to be thoughtful or kind articulations of profound emotions often get attributed to him. Not all of those attributions are correct, as weve covered in the past. nicest guys covered However, one very popular quote lapping the internet was indeed pulled from an old interview with the actor. Spreading on Reddit and numerous blogs, he reportedly said, Grief changes shape, but it never ends. [...] People have a misconception that you can deal with it and say, 'It's gone, and I'm better.' They're wrong. Reddit numerous blogs Reeves did indeed say this in a 2006 interview with Parade magazine, speaking with author and playwright Dotson Rader. For that reason, we rated this fact check "Correct Attribution." say 2006 interview In the interview, Reeves was talking largely about grief in his own life. He had experienced the deaths of his former girlfriend Jennifer Syme in a car crash and friend River Phoenix due to a drug overdose, among other challenges. We found an archived copy of the interview on newspapers.com: car crash River Phoenix newspapers.com 'Grief changes shape, but it never ends,' [Reaves] told me. 'People have a misconception that you can deal with it and say, 'It's gone, and I'm better.' They're wrong.' 'When the people you love are gone, youre alone,' he added quietly. 'I miss being a part of their life, and them being a part of mine. I wonder what the present would be like if they were herewhat we might have done together. I miss all the great things that will never be.' 'Damn it! Its not fair! Its absurd,' he said angrily. 'All you can do is hope that grief will be transformed and, instead of feeling pain and confusion, you will be together again in memory, that there will be solace and pleasure there, not just loss.' I asked if loss had changed him. 'Much of my appreciation of life has come through loss,' he said. 'Life is precious. It's worthwhile.' Here's a screenshot of the Parade article via newspapers.com, showing the relevant quote: newspapers.com Articles by Dotson Rader. Parade: Entertainment, Recipes, Health, Life, Holidays, https://parade.com/author/dotsonrader. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Did Keanu Reeves Say No One Has the Right To Judge You? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keanu-reeves-judge-quote/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Fry, Naomi. Keanu Reeves Is Too Good for This World. The New Yorker, 3 June 2019. www.newyorker.com, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/keanu-reeves-is-too-good-for-this-world. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Inside Keanu Reeves Private World: Love, Motorcycles and Epic Movie Stardom After Tragedy. E! Online, 2 Sept. 2022, https://www.eonline.com/news/1042084/inside-keanu-reeves-inscrutable-private-world-tragedy-motorcycles-and-epic-movie-stardom. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Keanu Reeves: I Want to Get Married. Peoplemag, https://people.com/celebrity/keanu-reeves-i-want-to-get-married/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. The Modesto Bee 11 Jun 2006, Page 100. Newspapers.Com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/698247275/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022.

['loss']

True

Actor Keanu Reeves has a reputation for being one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, and, as a result, many statements considered to be thoughtful or kind articulations of profound emotions often get attributed to him. Not all of those attributions are correct, as weve covered in the past. However, one very popular quote lapping the internet was indeed pulled from an old interview with the actor. Spreading on Reddit and numerous blogs, he reportedly said, Grief changes shape, but it never ends. [...] People have a misconception that you can deal with it and say, 'It's gone, and I'm better.' They're wrong.Reeves did indeed say this in a 2006 interview with Parade magazine, speaking with author and playwright Dotson Rader. For that reason, we rated this fact check "Correct Attribution."In the interview, Reeves was talking largely about grief in his own life. He had experienced the deaths of his former girlfriend Jennifer Syme in a car crash and friend River Phoenix due to a drug overdose, among other challenges. We found an archived copy of the interview on newspapers.com:Here's a screenshot of the Parade article via newspapers.com, showing the relevant quote:

John Roberts and the ruling on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

["Opinion piece expresses Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare?"]

I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly attributed. Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer. To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reasoning or the makeup of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision, and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and even Kennedy wanted, and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have outmaneuvered the liberals and demonstrated that the liberals are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain. First, let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative, and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter, or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius, along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read, the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious, and it requires a passable understanding of constitutional law, but if it is explained, anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill had been struck down completely with Roberts on the other side, there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision, that dynamic is reversed, and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even among people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today; additionally, Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and liberals would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way, as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision, the liberals are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair, and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision, even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future, when Roberts rules conservatively, it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts Court's fairness. That's why he, as Chief Justice, went to the other side for this decision, not Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next, let's look at the decision itself. Thankfully, Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice, and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this, the liberals don't even know what has happened; they just think Roberts is great and that they won, and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services, and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause, which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the U.S. Constitution. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that had been the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because it means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, which was Obama's whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause. Even better, both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision, so it is a bonus that we got the liberals to concede this, and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done. Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the federal government has the power to do this, as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax," and now he has to admit this law is a tax, and it is on everyone, even the poor. That will hurt him significantly in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly, though, is the fact that this makes it a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, they can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally, the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicaid as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision, and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause, so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional, the whole bill should have been struck. If that had happened, none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it, but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap, the Roberts Court, through a brilliant tactical maneuver, has: strengthened the limitations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney's and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion, and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises, all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. What a day.

['taxes']

True

Origins: This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March). His column on the court's Obamacare decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.

In Austin, Texas, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture, meaning funds spent in non-Austin school districts.

[]

For years, Austin taxpayers have indirectly helped fund schools elsewhere in accordance with the state's more than 20-year-old system for equalizing aid among school districts, some of which have vast differences in taxable property wealth. Kirk Watson, the Democratic state senator from Travis County, attached an eye-catching figure to those costs during a November 2016 Texas Tribune panel discussion about hot issues in the 2017 legislative session. In Austin, Texas, Watson said, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture, referring to funds shifted to less property-rich districts elsewhere. And so that's going to the state to fund state obligations. We have to look at how we are managing our school finance system so that we can do right by the people in this state and have a fair and equitable system. We asked Watson's office how he arrived at his figure for how much average Austin homeowners are paying to schools elsewhere. By email, Kate Alexander said Watson relied on September 2016 testimony by the Austin school district's chief financial officer. According to Nicole Conley's prepared remarks for a Sept. 28, 2016, appearance at a joint hearing of the Texas House committees on appropriations and public education, Conley described the Austin school district as the state's largest single payer of recapture. "Our payment alone comprises 13 percent of all state collections," Conley's testimony states. During the next five years, between fiscal years 2016 and 2020, Austin ISD is projected to pay almost $2.6 billion in recapture payments to the state. By 2019, more than half of every tax dollar collected in Austin will go to the state. Later in her testimony, Conley said, "So to put it in perspective, we could lower our tax rate by 35 cents if we weren't sending $406 million to the state under the recapture system. For the average homeowner in Austin, that would amount to about $1,400 in lower taxes. That's fairly substantial; that's pretty significant tax relief. That would certainly make Austin more affordable for some of our taxpayers." In response to our inquiry, district spokesman Jacob Barrett told us Conley reached her savings figure for the average homeowner starting from the district's 2016-17 budget, indicating it expects to pay $406 million in recapture to the state in accordance with the school funding system. That payment amounts to 38 percent of the district's $1.061 billion in budgeted property taxes, Barrett noted. Barrett explained that the district calculated the average homeowner's share of the budgeted recapture payment starting from its average taxable value of a home in the district of $328,844 (as of June 2016), on which such an owner expected to pay $3,548 in school maintenance and operations property taxes at the M&O tax rate of $1.079 per $100 valuation. Finally, Barrett said, multiplying the 38 percent by that $3,548 yields the portion of taxes on an average-value residence that goes to recapture, which amounts to $1,355. Barrett also emailed us a December 2012 district document showing that, by amount, the Austin district's 2015 recapture payment was followed by what was paid by the Highland Park (Dallas), Eanes, Cotulla, and Karnes City districts, respectively. Additionally, the document states that the Austin district's annual recapture payment is projected to exceed $630 million in 2019, when more than half of every school property tax dollar collected locally will be recaptured by the state. Next, we asked non-district experts—Joe Wisnoski, a former Texas Education Agency official; Tom Canby of the Texas Association of School Business Officials; and Christy Rome, who advocates for districts required to make recapture payments—to evaluate how the Austin district determined that the average Austin homeowner will pay $1,355 in school property taxes toward the district's 2016-17 recapture total. "Solid," each expert said. By email, Wisnoski cautioned, though, "The average doesn't really describe much about the distribution of payment amounts, so you don't really know how many taxpayers are clustered close to that amount, and how many are really far away (high or low) compared to the average." Finally, we looked into how much a district resident with a median-value home might be paying toward its recapture total. For that, we ran the median value of homes in the Austin district as of Aug. 8, 2016—$261,487—through the district's equation. The result: The median-value homeowner is expected to pay $2,821 in M&O school taxes, of which $1,078 would be their share of the district's recapture payment. Barrett, the district spokesman, didn't question our math. He noted, though, that Watson referred to the average homeowner. "It's fair," Barrett said by email, "to use the variable that we do."

['Education', 'State Budget', 'Texas']

True

Kirk Watson, the Democratic state senator from Travis County, attached an ear-catching figure to those costs during a November 2016Texas Tribune panel discussionabout hot issues in the 2017 legislative session.According to Nicole Conley'sprepared remarksfor a Sept. 28, 2016, appearance at a joint hearing of the Texas House committees on appropriations and public education, Conley described the Austin school district as the states largest single payer of recapture.Later inher testimony: Conley said: So to put it in perspective, we could lower our tax rate by 35 cents if we werent sending $406 million to the state under the recapture system. For the average homeowner in Austin, that would amount to about $1,400 in lower taxes. Thats fairly substantial; thats pretty significant tax relief. That would certainly make Austin more affordable for some of our taxpayers.Barrett said the district got to the average homeowners share of the budgeted recapture payment starting from its average taxable value of a home in the district of $328,844 (as of June 2016) on which such an owner expected to pay $3,548 in school maintenance and operations property taxes at the M&O tax rate of $1.079 per $100 valuation. Finally, Barrett said, multiplying the 38 percent by that $3,548 delivers the portion of taxes on an average-value residence that goes to recapture of $1,355.Barrett also emailed us a December 2012district documentshowing that by amount, the Austin district's 2015 recapture payment was followed by what was paid by the Highland Park (Dallas); Eanes; Cotulla; and Karnes City districts, respectively. Also, the document says, the Austin districts annual recapture payment is projected to exceed $630 million in 2019 when more than half of every school property tax dollar collected locally will be recaptured by the state.TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f5103bc2-4b1f-4b8e-9d32-d1795f788004

Ive even cut my own salary -- twice.

[]

Elected officials' pay can be a sensitive topic for taxpayers, especially in today's economic climate. So it's no surprise that Ohio Treasurer Kevin Boyce, who is running in November to keep his job, is bragging about cutting his salary. Boyce discussed his six-figure earnings in a YouTube video released by his office. Presented as a preview of the office's forthcoming annual financial report, the production feels more like a tribute to Boyce's performance as treasurer, aimed directly at voters. "I've even cut my salary -- twice," said Boyce, a Democrat and former Columbus city councilman. Boyce was appointed Treasurer in late 2008 after Richard Cordray left a vacancy when he took the state attorney general's job following Marc Dann's resignation. Annual salaries for the state's elected officials are set in state law, which lawmakers can amend to increase or decrease pay. The treasurer's salary has been set at $109,986 since 2008. In June 2009, Boyce sent a memo to the state Department of Administrative Services stating that he was taking a pay cut that would reduce his gross salary that year to $107,874. The pay cut, effective July 1, 2009, was equivalent to taking five unpaid furlough days, a cost-saving measure that has been imposed on many state employees. In the same memo, Boyce authorized an extension of the reduction for all of 2010. This year's pay cut is equivalent to 10 unpaid furlough days, according to the administrative services department. Boyce's gross salary this year will be $105,757. Boyce lumped both cuts -- each about 2 percent -- in the same memo, but he effectively trimmed his salary twice. Had he not extended the cut into 2010, his pay would have jumped back up to $109,986, a spokeswoman for the administrative services department said.

['Ohio', 'Message Machine 2010', 'State Budget']

True

Comment on this item.

Was $30 million donated by Planned Parenthood to Democrats in an effort to sway the outcome of the Midterm Elections?

['Social media memes misleadingly conflated Planned Parenthood itself with a coalition of organizations and PACs.']

On 18 April 2018, the Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections. A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates. However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented funds to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member. A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the midterm elections. Targeting people of color, young people, and women is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and do not build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative, which the coalition is calling Win Justice, are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization. Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend funds on political activities. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors. Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities that are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law. Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage in such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections.

['funds']

NEI

On 18 April 2018 Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections:However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented monies to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member:Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization:Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend monies on political activities. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors:However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities which are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status."The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity."

President Joe Bidens infrastructure proposal is fully paid for. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments.

[]

After signing a coronavirus and economic relief plan into law, President Joe Biden turned to an infrastructure proposal as his next legislative priority. Cabinet members, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have fanned out to promote the presidents $2 trillion-plus package, while critics of the plan are complaining about the cost. In an interview on NBCs Meet the Press April 4, Buttigieg emphasized that the expenditures would be covered by revenue increases. The vision the president has put forward (in the infrastructure bill) is fully paid for,he said. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. The president himself re-emphasized the importance of this point in a speech touting the plan on April 7. Weve got to pay for this, he said. Buttigieg is largely correct, though there are some important caveats to note. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg appeared on NBCs Meet the Press on April 4, 2021. (Screenshot) Bidens proposal, called the American Jobs Plan, would provide funding for highways, bridges, ports, airports and transit systems, as well as infrastructure for water, the electric grid, and expanded high-speed Internet access. It would also support retrofitting and upgrading homes, commercial and federal buildings, schools, child care facilities and veterans hospitals, and it would invest in research and development. The proposal also includes items not traditionally considered infrastructure, such as funding to support home health care workers and job training, and pro-union provisions. In all, the proposal comes with a price tag of more than $2 trillion over a decade. To pay for it, Biden would lean heavily on new or higher taxes on corporations, including raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, preventing U.S. corporations from claiming an offshore tax haven as their place of business, eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuels, tightening tax enforcement by adding employees to the Internal Revenue Service, and changing other taxes that hit corporations. Republicans have attacked both the spending and revenue sides of Bidens proposal, arguing that some of the items in it are not really infrastructure, and that raising corporate tax rates could lead businesses to leave the United States. Biden said in his April 7 remarks that hes open to compromise on what a bill ultimately includes. For this article, well focus on whether the spending portions of the plan are equaled by the revenue-raising portions, as Buttigieg said. The White House pointed us to thefact sheetit has released on the plan, which makes that claim, but doesnt get into details. However, at least two independent groups have analyzed the plan and found that Buttigiegs formulation checks out. One was published by theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It found that the plan has approximately $2.65 trillion in new costs over eight years. Over the first 10 years, the group found, the plan would increase the deficit by about $900 billion. However, over a longer, 15-year period the one Buttigieg cited the plans revenues would match its expenses and would actually reduce deficits beyond that. The other analysis, published by the University of PennsylvaniasPenn Wharton Budget Model, came to a similar conclusion. The Penn group said the Biden plan would spend $2.7 trillion over 10 years and raise $2.1 trillion in that period, expanding the deficit by about $600 billion. However, the group found that over 15 years, it would generate more than $3.6 billion, which would be more than enough to cover its costs. Projections are always just that projections. Rght now, there is not even a formal bill, so the spending and revenue provisions could shift in either direction before theyre signed into law. For instance, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. whose support would be required for any Democratic bill has already said he wont support a corporate tax hike to anything higher than 25%. And under a 25% corporate tax, a lot of revenue would disappear. Similarly, some of the bills spending items could also disappear during lawmaker negotiations. Another asterisk is that these analyses are based on eight years worth of spending and 15 years of revenue increases, which is an unusual method. Typically, congressional legislation is judged based on what happens during a 10-year window. Buttigieg wouldnt have been able to say the plan paid for itself over the standard, 10-year budget window, so his focus on the 15-year time frame is a bit of cherry-picking. And the revenue impacts 15 years down the road are going to be harder to predict than the impacts in 10 years. That said, theres nothing economically significant about the 10-year window, said Marcos Dinerstein, an economist with the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Its just a convention. Just looking at a 10-year window can miss the benefits of policies like infrastructure and research and development that often take a while to start generating returns. Buttigieg said Bidens infrastructure proposal is fully paid for. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. Two independent analyses back up the notion that the new spending will be evened out by the new revenue raised in the plan after 15 years. But long-term projections like this are always tricky, and a 15-year time frame is unusual for evaluating the budget impact of legislation; under the typical 10-year time frame, the plan would not be fully paid for. We rate the statement Mostly True.

['Federal Budget', 'Infrastructure', 'Transportation', 'Taxes']

True

The vision the president has put forward (in the infrastructure bill) is fully paid for,he said. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments.The White House pointed us to thefact sheetit has released on the plan, which makes that claim, but doesnt get into details.One was published by theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It found that the plan has approximately $2.65 trillion in new costs over eight years. Over the first 10 years, the group found, the plan would increase the deficit by about $900 billion. However, over a longer, 15-year period the one Buttigieg cited the plans revenues would match its expenses and would actually reduce deficits beyond that.The other analysis, published by the University of PennsylvaniasPenn Wharton Budget Model, came to a similar conclusion.

Is Olive Garden Going Out of Business?

['An online ad promoting a list of restaurants closing in 2020 may have stopped breadstick-lovers in their tracks.']

In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020." This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered 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

['income']

False

This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop.While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast."The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively.Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed.On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses."On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?"Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining.Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue.The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well.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.

Did Taylor Swift Say 'We Should FORGIVE' YouTube's Logan Paul?

['A Twitter account posing as the E! cable network fabricated "forgiveness" statements by both Swift and Mariah Carey.']

Amid an outpouring of criticism against YouTube personality Logan Paul, who broadcast a video of a man who had committed suicide, a fake news Twitter account leapt to his defense with made-up statements of support purporting to be from pop music star Taylor Swift. On January 5, 2018, the user @enewsatnight, which falsely presents itself as E! News, the news component of the E! entertainment network, posted: "Taylor Swift on Logan Paul: There are some points he has made; he's hilarious; we should FORGIVE." Swift's social media accounts have never mentioned Paul, though he tried (unsuccessfully) to generate interest in December 2017 for a request that they work together. While the quotes were fabricated, the link attached to the tweet leads to an actual E! story about Paul's puerile excursion to Japan, during which he not only filmed the body of someone who took his own life but also attempted to "catch" bystanders in the manner of a Pokémon game and threw raw fish at others. Though that tweet had been shared around 700 times as of January 8, 2018, a separate user's post spreading it with the dismissive caption, "Bitch we hate you too lmaoo," received more than 68,000 retweets, thus giving it even more exposure. The footage of Paul's Tokyo visit has drawn criticism not only against him but also against YouTube itself for continuing to allow Paul to profit from his off-kilter and often ill-mannered content. Paul has taken a hiatus from broadcasting after releasing written and video apologies for his actions. E! News (which is actually @enews on Twitter) did not comment on the fabricated story. We also contacted police in the Yamanashi Prefecture of Japan concerning reports that they are seeking to question Paul. The fake E! account also posted a tweet containing fake statements attributed to another singer, Mariah Carey: "Mariah Carey on Woody Allen: 'He's made mistakes, sure... But so have we all, it's time for forgiveness.'" However, that tweet also redirects readers to the network's January 5, 2018, story about Paul. Heller, Corinne. "Logan Paul's Whole Trip to Japan Was Pretty Disrespectful." E! News. January 5, 2018. Matsakis, Louise. "The Logan Paul Video Should be a Reckoning for YouTube." Wired. January 3, 2018. Akbar, Jay. "YouTube Star Logan Paul Wanted by Cops Over Japan 'Suicide Forest' Video Where He Filmed a Hanging Body." The Sun. January 3, 2018. Entertainment Tonight. "Watch Logan Paul's Hilarious Plea to Collaborate with -- and Marry -- Taylor Swift!" December 5, 2017. Update [January 8, 2018]: Added accurate retweet totals for a user who spread the original post.

['interest']

False

On 5 January 2018 the user @enewsatnightwhich falsely presents itself as E! News, the news compoment of the E! entertainment networkposted:Swift's social media accounts have never mentioned Paul, though he tried (unsuccessfully) to generate interest in December 2017 for a request that they work together.While the quotes were fabricated, the link attached to the tweet goes to an actual E! story about Paul's puerile excursion to Japan, during which he not only filmed the body of someone who took his own life but attempted to "catch" bystanders in the manner of a Pokemon game and throwing raw fish at others.Though that tweet had been shared around 700 times as of 8 January 2018, a separate user's post spreading it with the dismissive caption, "Bitch we hate you too lmaoo" received more than 68,000 retweets, thus giving it even more exposure:The footage of Paul's Tokyo visit has brought about criticism against not only him but YouTube itself for continuing to allow Paul to make money off of his off-kilter and often ill-mannered content. Paul has taken a hiatus from broadcasting after releasing written and video apologies for his actions.E! News (which is actually @enews on Twitter) did not comment on the fabricated story. We also contacted police in the Yamanashi Prefecture of Japan concerning reports that they are seeking to question Paul.The fake E! account also posted a tweet made up of fake statements attributed to another singer, Mariah Carey:

Petition to Save the NEA

['Are the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street in danger of extinction due to government cutbacks?']

Claim: Legislation currently under proposal would result in substantial cuts to federal funding of the NEA and other public arts programs. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1995] SAVE SESAME STREET! This is a petition to save Sesame Street. ALL YOU DO IS ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM, then forward it to everyone you know. The only time you send it to the included address is if you are the 50th, 100th, etc. Send it on to everyone you know. PBS, NPR (National Public Radio), and the arts are facing major cutbacks in funding. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, the government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as "unworthwhile." Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment for the Arts equals $.64 a year in total. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding. Each year, the Senate and House Appropriations commitees each have 13 subcommitees with jurisdiction over many programs and agencies. Each subcommitee passes its own appropriation bill. The goal each year is to have each bill signed by the beginning of the fiscal year, which is October 1. In the instance of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, the bill determines the funding for the next three years. When this issue comes up in 1996, the funding will be determined for fiscal years 1996-1998. The only way that our representatives can be aware of the base of support or PBS and funding for these types of programs is by making our voices heard. Please add your name to this list if you believe in what we stand for. This list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives and Congress. If you happen to be the 50th, 100th, 150th, etc. signer of this petition, please forward to: <kubi7975@blue.univnorthco.edu>. This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know, and help us to keep these programs alive. Thank you. Variations: In 1998 versions of the above appeared which claimed "Nina Tottenberg" had appeared on NPR's Morning Edition. Some versions circulated in 2001 rendered "Nina Tottenberg" as "Nina Rottener." Origins: Some e-mail items never die off completely they periodically go through fallow periods during which they cease to circulate widely, but eventually something occurs that prompts people to begin forwarding them anew. This petition to help save the NEAfrom funding cutbacks was created a decade ago, and even though it long outlived the situation it was originally intended to address, it has been circulating for so long that the circumstances it describes may finally have come to pass. In 1995 a student at the University of Northern Colorado was writing a paper for a class about the downfall of culture in our society. During the course of her research she discovered proposed congressional budget cuts for PBS funding and, being young and idealistic, she decided to do something about it. She enlisted the help of another student, and the two of them drafted the petition that has been haunting the Internet for years since. The original contained no reference to Sesame Street that part was added shortly after the petition began to circulate, likely by a well-meaning supporter who thought suggesting that Sesame Street was in danger would garner additional sympathy for the cause. And it did. Couched in terms of "Save Sesame Street!," this petition decrying proposed government cuts to the 1996 public television budget began circulating on the Internet in the spring of 1995. (The ways of the Internet being what they are, it continues to circulate even though the "crisis" has long passed. Scarelore rarely comes with expiration dates.) The response it raised was breathtaking. The two college students who'd dreamed it up were almost immediately swamped with 2,000 incoming e-mails a day. Attempting to compile petition lists to forward to the government quickly became a Herculean task. Stopping what they'd set in motion proved every bit as impossible as keeping track of the incoming mail. After the congressional budget was announced (and arts funding wasn't slaughtered as badly as had been anticipated), they sent out a follow-up e-mail telling people the danger was over, to quit circulating the petition, and to tell others who were still circulating it to stop. To no avail, though; that petition continues to make the rounds even to this day. Though it's true the 104th Congress did cut the 1996 public television budget to $260 million, Sesame Street was never in danger of being axed. The Sesame Street name was invoked solely to anger people enough to get them involved in the protest over public television cuts, not because the show itself was at risk. As such, the ranks of those fighting the cuts were seeded by those duped into believing a personally-cherished icon of childhood was going down. PBS was neither the force behind this misleading e-mail petition, nor did they support it. The following is taken from the standard e-mail response sent out by PBS Viewer Services regarding this petition rumor: In the last several months, there has been a campaign on the Internet that incorrectly alleges that SESAME STREET is in jeopardy of being taken off the air. The "Save Sesame Street" campaign is unfounded and we at PBS and Children's Television Workshop (CTW), the producers of SESAME STREET, would like to tell you that Sesame Street is alive and well! In fact, SESAME STREET launched its 28th Season on November 18, 1996 with special guest ER's Noah Wyle. In addition to launching a new season, SESAME STREET is busy preparing for their 30th anniversary celebration which is just around the corner (fall 1998). We can assure you that there is no PBS sanctioned petition. Please disregard any you come across. Like all good bad pieces of misinformative netlore, this one kept going and going. In early 1997 all references to Sesame Street had been stripped out of this message, and it began causing consternation all over again as it made another round of the Internet. Then yet another version sprang up in early 1999: This message is long but important. On Thursday January 6th's NPR Morning Edition, Nina Totenberg reported that if the Supreme Court supports Congress to cut the budget of the National Endowment of the Arts, it is in effect the end of NEA. This situation creates great concerns about Congressional funding for creative arts in America, since NEA provides major support for NPR (National Public Radio), PBS (Public Broadcasting System), and numerous other creative and performing arts. If NEA is lost or weakened, our lives will be similarly diminished. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, some government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as not worthwhile. Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment for the Arts equals $.64 a year. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding. Each year the Senate and House Appropriations committees each have 13 subcommittees with jurisdiction over many programs and agencies. Each subcommittee passes its own appropriation bill. The goal each year is to have each bill signed by the beginning of the fiscal year, which is October 1. The only way that our representatives can be aware of the base of support for PBS and funding for these types of programs is by our making our voices heard. Please add your name to this list and forward it to friends who believe in favor of what this stands for. The full list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House, whose office has in the past been the instigator of the action to cut funding to these worthwhile programs. This petition is being passed around the Internet. Please add your name to it so funding can be maintained for the NEA, NPR, and PBS. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO MAKE INTERNET TECHNOLOGY WORK AS A VOICE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. IT'S EASIER THAN EVER TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. Please keep the petition rolling. Do not reply to me. Add your name and locale to the list and forward it to others to sign. If you prefer not to sign, please send the list to the email address given below. This is being forwarded to numerous people at once. It won't matter if many people receive the same list as the names are being managed. This is for anyone who thinks NPR and PBS deserve $1.12/year of their taxes. If you sign, please forward the list to others. If not, please don't kill it. **** If you happen to be the 150th, 200th, 250th, tc., signer of this petition, please forward a copy to: <wein2688@blue.univnorthco.edu>. This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know and help keep these programs alive **** Thank you. (NOTE: It is preferable you SELECT the entirety of this letter and COPY it into a NEW outgoing message, rather than simply forwarding it.) In your new outgoing message add your name to the bottom of the list, then send it on. Or, if the option is available, do a SEND AGAIN. Why anyone would re-invent this petition in 1997 and again in 1999 to fight something that was a done deal by mid-1996 is puzzling. Coincidentally, though, in June 2005 the non-existent situation which this petition had been decrying for several years finally hit the news for real when a House committee voted to sharply reduce (and eventually eliminate) federal financial support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The proposed cuts were rescinded by a subsequent vote of the full House. voted Barbara "knights of the undead" Mikkelson Last updated: 23 June 2005 Sources: Farhi, Paul. "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House." The Washington Post. 10 June 2005 (P. A1). Sierra, Bryan. "Bert and Ernie Lobby for Funding." United Press International. 1 March 1995. Vittachi, Nury. "It's Amazing What Brews ." South China Morning Post. 18 July 1996 (p. 12). Wolf, Richard. "An Epic Battle of the Budget Begins Today." USA Today. 16 March 1995 (p. A4). Electronic Media. "The Insider." 13 May 1996 (p. 10). NetGuide. "The Little Petition That Grew." 1 November 1996. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "ABC Switches to Movies with Football Season Over." 26 December 1996 (p. F6).

['taxes']

False

Coincidentally, though, in June 2005 the non-existent situation which this petition had been decrying for several years finally hit the news for real when a House committee voted to sharply reduce (and eventually eliminate) federal financial support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The proposed cuts were rescinded by a subsequent vote of the full House.

Costco CEO

['Image presents information about Costco CEO James Sinegal?']

Claim: Image presents information about Costco CEO James Sinegal. PARTLY Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] Is this true? Costco CEO pays his employees $17 hour plus benefits and resists Wall Street demands to cut pay and benefits. Origins: This graphic featuring a photograph and information about Costco warehouse store chain CEO James Sinegal was circulated in November 2012 and was generally accurate, but a bit outdated. Jim Sinegal co-founded Costco and served as the company's President and CEO for nearly three decades, but he stepped down from those positions in January 2012 (although he remains a company advisor and a member of the Costco board of directors). The accompanying text about employee pay and benefits and Sinegal's resistance to Wall Street criticisms appears to have been drawn from a July 2005 New York Times profile of Sinegal and Costco: Combining high quality with stunningly low prices, [Costco products] appeal to upscale customers and epitomize why some retail analysts say Mr. Sinegal just might be America's shrewdest merchant since Sam Walton. But not everyone is happy with Costco's business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well. Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder." Mr. Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit demands. Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business." He also dismisses calls to increase Costco's product markups. Mr. Sinegal, who has been in the retailing business for more than a half-century, said that heeding Wall Street's advice to raise some prices would bring Costco's downfall. Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies. Similarly, Slate wrote in 2008 that: It's not hard to make a case that Costco pays employees more. The most relevant comparison is between Costco and Sam's Club, Wal-Mart's membership warehouse, since both business models rely on membership fees for a large percentage of revenues. A Sam's Club employee starts at $10 and makes $12.50 after four and a half years. A new Costco employee, at $11 an hour, doesn't start out much better, but after four and a half years she makes $19.50 an hour. In addition to this, she receives something called an "extra check" a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months. A cashier at Costco, after five years, makes about $40,000 a year. Health benefits are among the best in the industry, with workers paying only about 12 percent of their premiums out-of-pocket while Wal-Mart workers pay more than 40 percent. In my interview with Costco CFO Richard Galanti, he mentioned Jim Sinegal every couple of minutes, attributing the company's high wages to the CEO's personal values. CFO Galanti acknowledged having at times argued with his boss, urging him to curb Costco's generosity on health care. (Sinegal eventually agreed with him, reluctantly, in 2003 but insisted that care remain affordable to employees.) Sinegal's kindliness is impressive, but he's also 72 years old and thus won't be around forever. Perhaps he's created a corporate culture strong enough to outlast him, but that's impossible to predict. In a November 2010 report of data gathered by the job site CareerBliss.com, Costco employees gave the company "the highest ratings for salary, benefits and work-life balance." CareerBliss.com According to Yahoo! Finance, in 2011 Jim Sinegal's total yearly compensation as a Costco company executive, including salary and bonuses, was $629,000, and he garnered another $12,300,000 through the exercise of stock options. Yahoo! Finance Last updated: 28 November 2012 Featherstone, Liza. "Wage Against the Machine." Slate. 27 June 2008. Goldwert, Lindsay. "Costco Employees Give company Top Ratings ." New York [Daily News]. 29 November 2010. Greenhouse, Steven. "How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart." The New York Times. 17 July 2005. Schmit, Julie. "Costco Wins Loyalty with Bulky Bargains." USA Today. 23 September 2004.

['profit']

True

In a November 2010 report of data gathered by the job site CareerBliss.com, Costco employees gave the company "the highest ratings for salary, benefits and work-life balance."According to Yahoo! Finance, in 2011 Jim Sinegal's total yearly compensation as a Costco company executive, including salary and bonuses, was $629,000, and he garnered another $12,300,000 through the exercise of stock options.

Did Biden promise to get rid of the 'Stepped-Up' Basis for Capital Gains Tax?

['For once, a viral Facebook post critical of a politician accurately articulated their past pronouncements. ']

In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling a home inherited from their parents. The post, which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan, first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: "Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called 'stepped-up basis'? How does this affect you? When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at its current value. If you were to sell that house, you would only pay taxes on the gain from its current value and what it sells for. If Biden does away with 'stepped-up basis,' you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for it. If you decide to sell, you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like: Current Policy Inherited House at Current Value - $200,000 Sells for $205,000 Taxable income = $5,000 Taxes Due - 20% of $5,000 = $1,000 Profit to you = $204,000 Biden Policy Inherited House at Original Purchase Price - $40,000 Sells for $205,000 Taxable income = $165,000 Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000 Profit to you = $172,000 If your parents had sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence. So much for helping the middle class get ahead. My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans don’t even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of additional tax dollars for the average person after inheritance! Wow, Google 'Biden stepped-up basis' and educate yourself because this is significant! Please share! The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the 'stepped-up' basis for capital gains tax and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax burden for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares or property: When people sell an asset for more than the price they paid for it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the asset's adjusted basis—generally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the asset's fair-market value at the time of the owner's death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the asset's value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the asset's value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heir's basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when inherited, so no income tax is due on the sale, nor ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of the stepped-up basis. During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that the plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt. Biden's policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who enter the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergraduate or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be funded through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told potential donors: "I'm going to get rid of the bulk of Trump's $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that, but I'm going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis." On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): "The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be funded by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the 'Stepped-up Basis Loophole' as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28%." Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only eliminating the stepped-up basis but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains—that is, profits from the sale of an asset owned for more than one year—for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: "As President, Biden will make healthcare a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Biden's capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will ensure those making over $1 million pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy." The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on an individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents before selling it. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.

['investment']

True

The post which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows:Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on:In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works:During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that:In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis.On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated):Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan:

Could Simon Cowell be departing from 'America's Got Talent'?

['An online article that featured the People magazine logo said Cowell "shocked everyone when he announced his departure from the show."']

In June 2023, paid ads were displayed on Facebook and Instagram, claiming that Simon Cowell would be leaving "America's Got Talent," NBC's performance-competition TV show better known as "AGT." However, this was false, and the purpose of these ads was to lure users into a scam that could cost them thousands of dollars a year. The scam claimed that Cowell had endorsed an "amazing miracle gummy product" for weight loss called G6 Keto ACV Gummies, with "ACV" standing for apple cider vinegar. To be clear, none of this was true. Cowell never endorsed any CBD or keto weight loss gummy products, and his image and likeness were used without permission. Furthermore, we do not recommend placing trust in weight loss promises that feature the words "amazing miracle." In this story, we will walk through how this scam worked, including shedding light on the strange return addresses that appeared on packages received by customers who ordered similar gummies in the past. The Facebook and Instagram ads featuring Cowell displayed before-and-after pictures that seemed to show a weight loss transformation. "Simon Cowell Shares How He Dropped 56 In Just Weeks," the ads read. The link in the ads directed users to a specific page on the website brownnature.art. Before clicking on the link, we decided to check out the homepage for brownnature.art. According to our findings, this website appeared to have been created solely for running scams. How did we know this? A fake bookstore served as the facade for the scam operation on the website. This bookstore did not have any payment options enabled, meaning users could not order any of the books the website claimed to offer. Returning to the ads featuring Cowell, we clicked the link that took us to a specific page on brownnature.art. An article loaded in our browser that featured a People magazine logo. "Simon Cowell Confirms He is 'LEAVING' America's Got Talent After His Accidental 'Live' Confession On-Air," the false headline read. The article also falsely claimed that celebrities Kelly Clarkson and Melissa McCarthy had lost weight with G6 Keto ACV Gummies. Both Clarkson and McCarthy have been featured in these scams for years, despite having no connection to any keto weight loss gummies. This was not a story that People magazine had ever published. Scammers had replicated the design of how articles are displayed on people.com, the official website for the magazine, in an attempt to fool users into believing they were reading an authentic story from the publication. After clicking on one of the many links in the fake People magazine article on brownnature.art, we were led to the G6 Keto ACV Gummies website, secure.get6gproducts.com/v1/. The creator or creators of the product's website published several false statements that extended the scam seen in the social media ads and the fake People magazine article. For example, Dr. Mehmet Oz never called the product the "holy grail" of weight loss, nor did the Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism medical journal publish any pieces about the gummies, as the G6 website claimed. The G6 website also included mentions of CBS News, NBC, CNN, Women's Health, Woman's World, and Honolulu Magazine, even though these publications never featured, mentioned, or endorsed anything about the product. Perhaps worst of all was the fact that no phone number was available on the G6 website, not even in its privacy policy or terms and conditions documentation. In fact, part of the terms and conditions left two spaces after "TOLL FREE" where the phone number belonged: "Please contact Customer service at TOLL FREE between the hours of 9am EST - 9pm EST Mon - Sat with any questions regarding your product, payment or return." We have seen phone numbers omitted like this on CBD and keto weight loss gummies websites for more than a year. This was not a one-time issue. For many months, we have been observing comments from purported customers who complained about being victims of CBD and keto weight loss gummies scams. Many of these comments were posted on YouTube and contained detailed accounts of how they were scammed. These customers often stated in their comments that they were charged around $200 after believing they would only be paying about $40. They also expressed surprise that making a purchase enrolled them in a subscription that would charge their credit card hundreds of dollars per month, resulting in charges totaling thousands of dollars per year. Additionally, customers reported that when the gummy packages arrived at their doorstep, they contained no real identifying information about a parent company or anything about the people behind the products. According to the customers, the packages only included the two words "fulfillment center" along with a P.O. Box physical mailing address for Tampa, Florida, or Las Vegas, Nevada. Customers often reported a return address with the city of Smyrna, Tennessee. If any readers ordered CBD or keto gummies that promised an "amazing miracle" involving weight loss, we recommend they contact their credit card company to inform them of the scam. Again, these scams sign customers up for subscriptions. Unless action is taken, a new charge for hundreds of dollars will be placed on customers' credit cards every month. As for how Cowell truly lost weight, he once credited dropping pounds to his vegan diet. We found no credible reporting that indicated he ever consumed gummies. To be completely clear, we have never found even one real example of a celebrity who endorsed CBD or keto weight loss gummies.

['loss']

False

After clicking on one of the many links in the fake People magazine article on brownnature.art, we were led to the G6 Keto ACV Gummies website,secure.get6gproducts.com/v1/. The creator or creators of the product's website published several false statements that were an extension of the scam seen in the social media ads and the fake People magazine article.For example, Dr. Mehmet Oz never called the product the "holy grail" of weight loss, nor did the Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism medical journal publish any pieces about the gummies, as the G6 website claimed.As for how Cowell truly lost weight, he once credited dropping pounds to hisvegan diet. We found no credible reporting that said anything about him ever consuming gummies.

CHEERS Study

['Does an EPA study propose paying families to allow their children to be exposed to pesticides?']

Claim: An EPA study proposed paying families to allow their children to be exposed to pesticides. Multiple: The EPA planned to deliberately expose youngsters to pesticides in order to study what effects those chemical compounds may have on children: False. The EPA planned to study children who live in an area where pesticides are used year-round: True. The proposed study was canceled in April 2005: True. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] EPA Will Use Poor Kids as Guinea Pigs to Test Toxic Chemicals Dear friend, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to launch an outrageous new study in which participating low income families will have their children exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two years. For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation. The study entitled CHEERS (Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old. Please take a moment to follow this link and join tens of thousands of citizens in petitioning the EPA to terminate this study prior to its proposed launch in early 2005. More information, related newspaper headlines and petition here: https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm Please also forward this message. Origins: Yet again an interesting mix of truth and scare has been loosed upon us all. While the November 2004 e-mail quoted above was relatively factual, its wording left those who received it with an impression far removed from the truth. While the proposed investigation was real, the nature of the test subjects was misunderstood, leading to those who heard of to arrive at some erroneous conclusions. Through a research project known as the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS), the United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to gather data about pesticide and household chemical exposure in very young children. The study was set to begin in the summer of 2005 in Jacksonville, Florida, and would have entailed monitoring 60 infants (newborn to just shy of 13 months old) for a period of two years. However, while the e-mail left readers with the impression that poverty-stricken families were for the price of a camcorder and $970 heartlessly offering up their tots as lab rats, the little ones to be deliberately sickened by cruel scientists intent upon advancing human knowledge even at the price of 60 babies potentially dealt life-long serious physical ailments by exposure to dreadful chemicals, the truth was quite different. One of the reasons the EPA chose Duval County, Florida, as the site of this research had to do with year-round pesticide use in that area. The children who would have been the subjects of the study live there. In other words, if all the clipboard-wielding EPA people stayed home and the project were canceled before it began, these same children would be exposed to these same pesticides and in the same amounts, due to nothing more sinister than where their parents chose to settle and raise their families. The EPA would not have been administering pesticides to children. Children who were already exposed to pesticides due to where they lived would have been studied by the EPA. Given that these youngsters were coming into contact with noxious chemicals because of where they lived, the EPA saw a good opportunity to examine the effects of such compounds on small children by studying subjects drawn from this particular group. CHEERS would have tracked 60 of these little ones over the course of two years, measuring not only their exposure to pesticides but also to ordinary household chemicals (cleaning products and the like). The parents of kids taking part in the study would have had to keep very careful logs on which products were used and in which amounts in their homes. They would also have been required to videotape their tykes being studied and maintain logs of the little ones' activities. For this, and for allowing researchers into the family domicile every few months to assess the children being observed and to examine the homes, these parents would have received a $970 stipend and would have been allowed at the end of the two years to keep the video cameras. Update: On 8 April 2005, the proposed study was canceled. As to why, Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said: Last fall, in light of questions about the study design, I directed that all work on the study stop immediately and requested an independent review. Since that time, many misrepresentations about the study have been made. EPA senior scientists have briefed me on the impact these misrepresentations have had on the ability to proceed with the study. I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy. Additional information: Overview of Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (EPA) CHEERS Fact Sheet (EPA) Last updated: 31 August 2005 Sources: Allison, Wes. "Nelson Vows EPA Delay Over Pesticide Study." St. Petersburg Times. 8 April 2005 (p. A6). Eilperin, Juliet. "Chemical Industry Funds Aid EPA Study." The Washington Post. 26 October 2004 (p. A3). Kirkpatrick, David D. "E.P.A. Halts Florida Test on Pesticides." The New York Times. 9 April 2005 (p. A15). Associated Press. "Pesticide Study with Children Delayed." CNN. 12 November 2004.

['income']

True

https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm Overview of Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (EPA) CHEERS Fact Sheet (EPA)

Are Michigan farmers being compelled to dispose of perfectly good cherries in order to support imported products?

['A viral Facebook post about surplus U.S. cherry crops destroyed to "make room for imports" appeals to locavores but contains some inaccuracies.']

On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas: shared These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14% of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn't seem right. What do you think? Please share this on your Facebook page???. Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries. I have people who would buy them if I could sell them. Also these are tart cherries with a very short shelf life Santucci's post slowly circulated on the social network, attracting the attention of blogs and health-conscious social media users through September 2016. As presented, Santucci's tale sounded like an unbelievable level of bureaucratic interference with the farm industry and left readers wondering whether his report about having to destroy 40,000 pounds of edible cherries in order to "make room" for imported cherries (and was "not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries") was accurate. Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995. pinned blame article regulated The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate "orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce" for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers' income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers: introduced At issue is a marketing order imposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. But that law only applies to the tart cherry industry because growers and processors opted into the order in 1995. "It was created at the industry's behest. It was voted in by growers and processors. It's not an imposition from outside," said Perry Hedin, executive director of the DeWitt-based Cherry Industry Administrative Board [CIAB], which oversees the marketing order not only in Michigan but in all states across the country that produce commercial crops of red tart cherries, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tart cherries are one of the most volatile crops grown in the U.S., with yields that can vary dramatically year to year, Hedin said. "This whole concept of the marketing order has two goals: to inject a better stability into our markets and improve grower returns," he said. "The growers have been paid far better prices under the marketing order over the past 20 years than they were before the order was in place." A 29 July 2016 editorial published in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci's viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations: addressed In a classic example of what happens on social media when people form opinions based on emotion instead of fact, a Northwestern Michigan tart cherry grower's Facebook posting has gone viral, but with faulty information to back up the posting's claims ... The problem, however, said Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, is that the information posted shows either shallow understanding of the federal marketing order or a deliberate attempt to change the order because of political disagreement. "It's also enforced by the growers themselves," he said. "It is for the betterment of the industry as a whole, and a great number of cherry growers have benefited, even those who voted against it." Administered by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB), the order this year required tart cherry processors to keep 29 percent (the farmer's posting said he was ordered to dump only 14 percent) of the crop they handle off traditional markets (pies, sweetened desserts, etc.) in an attempt to stabilize both prices and supply, which in cherries has been notoriously volatile. "For example," Reposing said, "in 1988, when the entity was called the Cherry Administrative Board, growers voted to eliminate the marketing order. Prices began to follow a rollercoaster that led, within 10 years, to tart cherry prices that fell into single figures. Some growers went out of business." In response to prices that were below costs of production, tart cherry growers in seven states petitioned the USDA to put a new order and administrative board in place, and prices began to stabilize. Still, some growers, such as the one who posted the photo of a small pile of cherries, took exception to the order. Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market. However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to "rot in the sun": visited farms Processors' options in times of surplus include holding the restricted cherries in surplus frozen, dried or concentrated for a later slow year. Farmers also can attempt to sell the surplus cherries in overseas markets or sell them domestically in a newly created market, either as a new product or by convincing a supermarket chain or other end user currently supplied by imported cherries to switch to U.S.-grown, he said. Hedin said Santucci could have worked with the [Cherry Industry Administrative] board to find a place to donate the surplus cherries, which typically aren't eaten raw like sweet cherries because of their very short shelf-life, but are instead used in products such as pie filling and jams. Likewise, the Michigan Farm News piece stated that: Another misstatement on the Facebook posting, [horticulture specialist Kevin] Robson said, is that growers are not allowed to donate or use the dumped cherries "in any way." "That's just not true," Robson said. "Farmers can use the cherries for research and development, and they could make thousands of cherry pies and donate them to charity if they want. Remember these are tart cherries. They need to be processed and quickly to make a viable product. They aren't sweets that you just eat by the handful." The Facebook posting wrongly puts the blame for cherry dumping on the marketing order, Robson said, when it is the processor who makes the decision to ask farmers to dump cherries. Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn't expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them: told "I was just notified when we started shaking the trees that 14 percent would have to be kept off the market, so it didn't give me time to find any alternative action," he said, adding that tart cherries only have a two-day shelf life. It was true that Santucci's 2016 crop was (as with that of all other cherry growers) subject to a growers' agreement barring surplus cherries from the marketplace, and Santucci asserted he had insufficient time to properly divert his surplus cherries to other uses or markets. But the agreement under which the tart cherry market is regulated doesn't mandate surplus cherries be destroyed, nor does the protocol exist to protect foreign imports. Cherry growers in several states voluntarily opted in to a USDA marketing agreement (rather than being forcibly regulated) following a period of instability in the cherry industry, and agriculture experts widely agree the provision provides more protection than harm to cherry growers. Jackson, Paul W. "Social Media Post Botches Cherry Program Reality." Michigan Farm News. 29 July 2016. Matheny, Keith. "Traverse City Farmer: Dumping Perfectly Good Cherries Is Rotten." Detroit Free Press. 29 July 2016. Pagan, Gabriella. "Cherry Dumping Photo Goes Viral, Grower Calls for Change." WPBN. 27 July 2016. Shesky, Ty. "Farmer Explains Why Cherries Were Left to Waste." WXMI. 29 July 2016.

['returns']

NEI

On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas:Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995. The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate "orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce" for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers' income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers:A 29 July 2016 editorial published in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci's viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations:Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market. However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to "rot in the sun":Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn't expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them:

Has the state of Massachusetts stopped sending out notices for renewing driver's licenses by mail?

["Massachusetts is no longer mailing notifications for driver's license renewals?"]

Massachusetts is no longer mailing notifications for driver's license renewals. Effective immediately, the Registry of Motor Vehicles will no longer be mailing out license renewal applications or reminders to renew your driver's license. It is now the driver's responsibility to know when their license is expiring and to renew it on their own. This may come as a surprise to many, as there has been no public information sent out about these changes. Fortunately, we received the information in one of our trade publications. This policy could change in the future, but for now, it's a significant cost-saving measure, and they plan to continue with it. Below is a blurb from the publication. Mailings Eliminated The RMV will no longer mail out the following materials to customers: - License renewal notices - Mass ID renewal notices - License reinstatement letters: Letter sent to a licensed customer when his/her license is reinstated, provided that the license is still active; Letter sent to an unlicensed customer when his/her right to operate is reinstated - Registration reinstatement letters: Letter sent to a person or corporation whose suspended registration has been reinstated; Letter sent to a person or corporation whose revoked registration has been reinstated - Vehicle Inspection reminder letters for vehicles that are overdue for inspection - Inspector license renewal notices - 7D license renewal notices - Driver's Education Certificates - Junior Operator Brochures for parents (still available in branches) - Change of address labels (customers can create their own) I am just passing this along; my suggestion is to pull out your license and somehow set a reminder for yourself to ensure you renew it. This is just a heads up so that no one gets pulled over and has their car impounded because they didn't realize they hadn't renewed their license. Origins: We're used to seeing certain types of notices arrive in our mailboxes regularly. Aside from monthly credit card statements and utility bills, every year or two, the mail brings us income tax forms, voter materials for upcoming elections, automobile registration renewals, etc. One common type of mailing will no longer arrive in the mailboxes of Massachusetts residents: renewal notifications for about-to-expire driver's licenses. As of November 3, 2008, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) will no longer be sending out notices to residents reminding them to renew their driver's licenses. Statewide cuts and spending controls announced by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in October 2008 slashed $2 million from the RMV's budget, leading to the elimination of mailing license renewal reminders and other courtesy notices in an effort to save money (in this case, an estimated $800,000). Governor Deval Patrick stated that he would eliminate 1,000 jobs from state government and slash the budget by more than $1 billion, reacting to the national economic crisis with sweeping cuts that his administration called the worst single round of midyear budget rollbacks in state history. The reductions will affect almost all sectors of state government, significantly impacting state university campuses and community colleges, the state's health insurance programs, and dozens of social service programs, from assistance for at-risk teens to services for the mentally ill and the elderly. The cuts range from nearly $300 million on healthcare spending to the elimination of letters to residents simply reminding them to renew their driver's licenses. As noted in a "Message from Registrar Kaprielian on RMV Budget Cuts" displayed on the Massachusetts RMV website: "Like many businesses across the Commonwealth, the RMV is working to squeeze every penny of savings from our budget in the wake of a drastic downturn in the state's economy. To weather this financial storm, the RMV is adopting operational changes that we believe will minimize the impact on customer service in our branches." For now, at least, it's incumbent upon residents of that commonwealth to be aware when their licenses are due to expire and to initiate the renewal process on their own in a timely fashion. Last updated: November 4, 2008 Sources: Viser, Matt. "Patrick to Cut 1,000 Jobs from State Payroll." The Boston Globe. October 16, 2008.

['income']

True

As noted in a "Message from Registrar Kaprielian on RMV Budget Cuts" displayed on the Massachusetts RMV web site:

Will 2014 Tax Refunds Be Delayed Until October 2015?

['Will the payment of federal tax refunds for 2014 be delayed until October 2015?']

Claim: The payment of federal tax refunds for 2014 will be delayed until October 2015. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Is this true that refunds for 2014 will be delayed until October of 2015? Origins: On 29 September 2014, the National Report published an article positing that the payment of federal tax refunds for 2014 would be delayed until October 2015: article Normally when you file your taxes whatever money is owed back to you is quickly repaid. The process of getting your money back has been made even quicker in recent years through the use of E-file and direct deposit of Federal tax rebates. But starting in 2015 Federal tax refunds for the 2014 fiscal year are going to take longer for Americans to receive. A lot longer. The deadline to have your Federal taxes filed will remain April 15th, but under new directives issued to the IRS no refunds are to be issued before October 15th, 2015. This means that early filers who normally receive their refunds around the beginning of February will have to wait an additional 7 months longer than normal to get the money owed to them. The National Report article used fabricated quotes from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and politician Rand Paul to make it appear like an authentic news story. Although there is no truth to the claim that 2014 tax refunds will be delayed until 2015, nearly 10,000 people had shared the article on Facebook within days of its publication. The National Report is a fake news site whose (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. In addition to the IRS tax refund delay article, the site has published posts like "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." Last updated: 1 October 2014

['taxes']

False

Origins: On 29 September 2014, the National Report published an article positing that the payment of federal tax refunds for 2014 would be delayed until October 2015:The National Report is a fake news site whose (since removed) disclaimer page notes that:

Government Officials Versus Celebrities

['Essay compares education and career experience of government officials and celebrities.']

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American. So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them: President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America. Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly reelected six times. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C. So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background: Barbra Streisand: Completed high schoolCareer: Singing and acting Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.Career: Singing and acting Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.Career: Acting Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year.Career: Acting Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandalCareer: Acting Julia Roberts: Completed high schoolCareer: Acting Sean Penn: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.Career: Acting Ed Asner: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting George Clooney: Dropped out of University of KentuckyCareer: Acting Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan.Career: Movie Director Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High SchoolCareer: Acting Jennifer Anniston: Completed High SchoolCareer: Acting Mike Farrell: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College.Career: Stand up comedienne Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year.Career: Acting While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders. These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House. Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities. So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout? The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom! It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them. Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH. Origins: Thefactual information presented here is not difficult to verify, as biographies detailing the educational and professional qualifications of our high-ranking government officials are readily available from a number of on-line sources: President George W. Bush President George W. Bush Vice-President Dick Cheney Vice-President Dick Cheney Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice Verifying the educational accomplishments of film stars is less easy: Barbra Streisand had already embarked on a show business career by the time she was a teenager and did not attend college. Barbra Streisand Cher left home at age sixteen to pursue an acting career and did not finish high school. Cher Martin Sheen did fail his college entrance exam for the University of Dayton but maintains that he did so on purpose so that he could pursue an acting career over the objections of his disapproving father. Martin Sheen Jessica Lange studied art at the University of Minnesota but left school before the completion of her freshman year. Jessica Lange Alec Baldwin spent three years studying political science at George Washington University before switching to New York University's drama department to pursue an acting career, and he eventually returned to NYU and received a BFA degree in Drama in 1993. (Could not find any information about a "scandal" prompting his departure from George Washington University.) Alec Baldwin Julia Roberts moved to New York after finishing high school to pursue an acting career and did not attend college. Julia Roberts Sean Penn joined the Los Angeles Repertory Theater after finishing high school and did not attend college. Sean Penn Susan Sarandon graduated from Catholic University in Washington, DC, with a degree in Drama. Susan Sarandon Ed Asner enrolled at the University of Chicago, but his education was interrupted by an Army hitch; after his discharge he embarked on an acting career and did not return to college to complete a degree. Ed Asner George Clooney studied Broadcast Journalism at Northern Kentucky University but left school before completing a degree. George Clooney Michael Moore briefly attended the University of Michigan at Flint before leaving school. Michael Moore Sarah Jessica Parker was already a professional performer before starting high school and did not attend college after graduating. Sarah Jessica Parker Jennifer Aniston graduated from New York's High School of Performing Arts and pursued an acting career without attending college Jennifer Aniston Mike Farrell joined the Marines after finishing high school and afterwards embarked upon an acting career without attending college. Mike Farrell Janeane Garofalo studied history at Providence College in Rhode Island. There is conflicting information about whether she completed her degree or left school during her senior year; most biographies indicate the former. Janeane Garofalo Larry Hagman attended Bard College in Anandale-on-the-Hudson for one year before leaving school and pursuing an acting career. Larry Hagman As to the point of this piece, it's safe to say that those who hold high positions in federal government generally have more formal education and more on-the-job experience in politics and government than film actors do, that they are privy to a large amount of information the general public does not have access to, and that they are therefore better qualified to make important policy decisions than the average actor. The question posed by the title "Who's smarter?" isn't so easily answered. Graduating college or holding elected office exposes people to new ideas and concepts and imbues them with practical experience, but those paths don't necessarily make people "smarter," nor is treading those paths necessary for one to become a competent politician or political analyst. Some very highly regarded U.S. presidents had little or no formal education (Abraham Lincoln), did not attend college (Harry Truman), or had no previous experience holding elective office (Dwight Eisenhower), and one (Ronald Reagan) even began his career as a film actor. On the other hand, some very well-educated and intelligent men with experience in governmental administration who served as chief executive of the U.S. (Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter) frequently show up on rosters of "worst U.S. presidents." Last updated: 14 October 2007 <!-- Sources: Dowdell, Kitty. "Seniors Should Be Ashamed." The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer. 24 September 1996 (p. B8).-->

['economy']

NEI

President George W. Bush Vice-President Dick Cheney Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice Barbra Streisand had already embarked on a show business career by the time she was a teenager and did not attend college. Cher left home at age sixteen to pursue an acting career and did not finish high school.Martin Sheen did fail his college entrance exam for the University of Dayton but maintains that he did so on purpose so that he could pursue an acting career over the objections of his disapproving father.Jessica Lange studied art at the University of Minnesota but left school before the completion of her freshman year.Alec Baldwin spent three years studying political science at George Washington University before switching to New York University's drama department to pursue an acting career, and he eventually returned to NYU and received a BFA degree in Drama in 1993. (Could not find any information about a "scandal" prompting his departure from George Washington University.)Julia Roberts moved to New York after finishing high school to pursue an acting career and did not attend college.Sean Penn joined the Los Angeles Repertory Theater after finishing high school and did not attend college.Susan Sarandon graduated from Catholic University in Washington, DC, with a degree in Drama.Ed Asner enrolled at the University of Chicago, but his education was interrupted by an Army hitch; after his discharge he embarked on an acting career and did not return to college to complete a degree.George Clooney studied Broadcast Journalism at Northern Kentucky University but left school before completing a degree.Michael Moore briefly attended the University of Michigan at Flint before leaving school.Sarah Jessica Parker was already a professional performer before starting high school and did not attend college after graduating.Jennifer Aniston graduated from New York's High School of Performing Arts and pursued an acting career without attending collegeMike Farrell joined the Marines after finishing high school and afterwards embarked upon an acting career without attending college.Janeane Garofalo studied history at Providence College in Rhode Island. There is conflicting information about whether she completed her degree or left school during her senior year; most biographies indicate the former.Larry Hagman attended Bard College in Anandale-on-the-Hudson for one year before leaving school and pursuing an acting career.

Did ICJ Say Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza?

['The court handed down a provisional order but stopped short of calling for a cease-fire.']

The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback On Jan. 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a ruling on emergency measures requested by South Africa over Israels ongoing military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Many online erroneously claimed South Africa had therefore won the case and that Israel had been declared a genocidal state by the court. For example: delivered online erroneously claimed (Screenshot via X) However, South Africa has not officially won the case, even though the ICJ ordered nearly all of South Africas requested provisional measures to be carried out, with the exception of a cease-fire. The judges have not ruled on the merits of the genocide allegations and it could take years before they reach a decision. ordered As such, we rate the above claim as False, with the caveat that the judges agreed with some of South Africas arguments in their provisional ruling that the ICJ had jurisdiction and that South Africa had standing to bring the case and did not accept Israels request to dismiss the case, as there were plausible claims of possible genocidal acts. agreed plausible The ICJ did not, however, order a cease-fire in Gaza, which was the key request in South Africas list of emergency measures. however Earlier in January 2024, South Africa argued that Israels actions amounted to genocide against the Palestinian people, noting that more than 23,000 Palestinians had been killed in Israeli operations since October 2023, and asked the court to halt the operations. Israel rejected South Africas claims and argued it had the right of self-defense after Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, attack, which resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 Israelis, most of whom were civilians. argued noting rejected deaths Stopping short of ordering a cease-fire, the ICJs interim ruling was a series of provisional measures that effectively ordered Israel to comply with the 1948 Genocide Convention. The provisions outlined by ICJ President Joan Donoghue are as follows (summarized by Al Jazeera): Al Jazeera The full order can be read on the ICJ's website. the ICJ's website David Simon, director of the genocide studies program at Yale University, told Snopes over email that the court stopping short of ordering a cease-fire could be some unspoken deference to Israel's self-defense argument. What [the court] is trying to say is we would be overstepping our bounds if we called for the cessation of all military activities, but you have to make sure that nothing you do [constitutes] genocide, or is comprised of acts of genocide. Simon added that the ruling was consistent with provisional measures issued in Gambia v. Myanmar, referring to the 2019 case in which Gambia took Myanmar to the ICJ, accusing it of committing genocide against the Rohingya. In 2020, the court directed Myanmar to "take all measures within its power" to prevent the commission of acts defined in the Genocide Convention. The case is still ongoing. provisional measures 2019 case 2020 In both cases, the ICJ is aware that its jurisdiction is over state compliance with the Genocide Convention, not matters of the criminal liability of individuals, he said. Donoghue noted that while the court could not at present make a final determination on whether Israel is guilty of genocide, given the deteriorating situation in Gaza the court had jurisdiction to order measures to protect Gaza's population from further risk of genocide. noted Before announcing the decision, Donoghue read statements from Israeli officials that she said made South Africas case plausible and gave an assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The order called attention to a series of statements made by Israeli leadership described variously as incitements to genocide and as "dehumanizing" Palestinians by scholars in particular Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, President Isaac Herzog and Foreign Affairs Minister Israel Katz (then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure when he made the statement). For example, the order stated: read order described then example [...] the Court has taken note of a number of statements made by senior Israeli officials. It calls attention, in particular, to the following examples. 52. On 9 October 2023, Mr Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister of Israel, announced that he had ordered a complete siege of Gaza City and that there would be no electricity, no food, no fuel and that everything [was] closed. On the following day, Minister Gallant stated, speaking to Israeli troops on the Gaza border: I have released all restraints . You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against . Gaza wont return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesnt take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places. Simon told us that the court taking notice of those statements gives credence to South Africas arguments of genocidal incitement that we discussed in more detail in our past coverage. coverage He noted: That Israel has already announced that it would crack down on incitement suggests that it is aware of its vulnerability to [findings] against it on this matter. A court need not find 'intent to destroy' when asking whether a state has taken sufficient measures to prevent genocide incitement, only that it has been essentially negligent with respect to others within its jurisdiction who may be articulating such intent. Crucially, the court found that a number of South Africas arguments were plausible, stating: stating In the Court's view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention. Ultimately, the ICJ cannot force Israel to do anything, as we previously outlined. However, international scrutiny on how Israel characterizes its actions in Gaza will be higher, Simon pointed out. outlined Israel will presumably calculate that there is a reputational loss (beyond what it has already absorbed) to making tenuous arguments, so it will want to be able to claim it has taken real measures, he added. Because Israel already has argued that it is in compliance with the Genocide Convention, it is unlikely to drastically change course, according to Simon, and South Africas right of rebuttal will become the forum to adjudicate further genocide claims. South Africas minister for international relations, Naledi Pandor, said that without a cease-fire Israel could not effectively implement the court-ordered measures. said Mahmood Mamdani, professor of government at Columbia University, told Democracy Now!: Democracy Now! It is clear to me that [the ICJ] couldnt have called directly for a ceasefire without preempting their future deliberations. At the same time, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then its a duck. Everything they ordered in terms of preventive measures leads to only one conclusion, which is ceasefire. How do you stop killing people? Ceasefire. How do you ensure that supplies for human life get in? Ceasefire. And so on and so forth. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the ICJs willingness to consider the genocide charges was a mark of shame that will not be erased for generations. He vowed to continue the war. said vowed We will continue to do what is necessary to defend our country and defend our people, he said. Like every country, Israel has the basic right to defend itself. The court in the Hague rightfully rejected the outrageous request to take that away from us. said Al Jazeera reported frustration and resentment on the part of Palestinians in Gaza in response to a ruling that did not include a cease-fire. People wanted an end to the madness and were waiting for that one statement that could have relieved an entire population largely displaced and, more profoundly, traumatised as the bombing continues across the Gaza Strip, the news outlet wrote. Al Jazeera Up until the order was announced, bombing continued in the city of Khan Younis and the northern part of the region, according to Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera In sum, the ICJ did not made a final judgment, but issued a number of provisional rulings while finding many of South Africas arguments were plausible and warranted a case. It did not call for a cease-fire. A definitive judgment will likely take years to come. Al-Kassab, Fatima. U.N. Court Says Gaza Genocide Is plausible, but Does Not Order Cease-Fire. NPR, 26 Jan. 2024. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Berg, Stephanie van den, and Anthony Deutsch. World Court Says Israel Must Take Steps to Prevent Acts of Genocide in Gaza. Reuters, 26 Jan. 2024. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-court-rule-urgent-measures-gaza-genocide-case-2024-01-26/.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Day One of the ICJ Genocide Hearing against Israel: Key Takeaways. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/11/day-one-of-the-icj-genocide-hearing-against-israel-key-takeaways. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Frayer, Lauren. Israel Revises down Its Death Toll from the Oct. 7 Hamas Attacks to about 1,200. NPR, 11 Nov. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/11/1212458974/israel-revises-death-toll-hamas-attacks-oct-7.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Ibrahim, Nur. Israel-Hamas Explainer: What Constitutes a Genocide? Snopes, 22 Jan. 2024, https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/01/22/israel-hamas-what-is-genocide/.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. ICJ Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide in Gaza But Doesnt Demand Ceasefire. Democracy Now!, https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/26/icj_provisional_ruling_israel_genocide_gaza. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Milisic, Alma and Nils Adler. ICJ Updates: Court Orders Israel to Prevent Acts of Genocide in Gaza. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/26/live-icj-to-issue-preliminary-ruling-in-south-africa-genocide-case-against-i. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures: Order." International Court of Justice , 26 Jan. 2024, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Salhani, Justin. What the ICJs Interim Ruling Means for Israels War on Gaza. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/26/what-the-icjs-interim-ruling-means-for-israels-war-on-gaza. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Simon, David. "Interview with David Simon." Email, 26 Jan. 2024. Top UN Court Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide in Gaza but Stops Short of Ordering Cease-Fire. AP News, 26 Jan. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024.

['liability']

False

The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback.On Jan. 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a ruling on emergency measures requested by South Africa over Israels ongoing military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Many online erroneously claimed South Africa had therefore won the case and that Israel had been declared a genocidal state by the court. For example:However, South Africa has not officially won the case, even though the ICJ ordered nearly all of South Africas requested provisional measures to be carried out, with the exception of a cease-fire. The judges have not ruled on the merits of the genocide allegations and it could take years before they reach a decision.As such, we rate the above claim as False, with the caveat that the judges agreed with some of South Africas arguments in their provisional ruling that the ICJ had jurisdiction and that South Africa had standing to bring the case and did not accept Israels request to dismiss the case, as there were plausible claims of possible genocidal acts.The ICJ did not, however, order a cease-fire in Gaza, which was the key request in South Africas list of emergency measures. Earlier in January 2024, South Africa argued that Israels actions amounted to genocide against the Palestinian people, noting that more than 23,000 Palestinians had been killed in Israeli operations since October 2023, and asked the court to halt the operations. Israel rejected South Africas claims and argued it had the right of self-defense after Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, attack, which resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 Israelis, most of whom were civilians.Stopping short of ordering a cease-fire, the ICJs interim ruling was a series of provisional measures that effectively ordered Israel to comply with the 1948 Genocide Convention. The provisions outlined by ICJ President Joan Donoghue are as follows (summarized by Al Jazeera):The full order can be read on the ICJ's website.Simon added that the ruling was consistent with provisional measures issued in Gambia v. Myanmar, referring to the 2019 case in which Gambia took Myanmar to the ICJ, accusing it of committing genocide against the Rohingya. In 2020, the court directed Myanmar to "take all measures within its power" to prevent the commission of acts defined in the Genocide Convention. The case is still ongoing.Donoghue noted that while the court could not at present make a final determination on whether Israel is guilty of genocide, given the deteriorating situation in Gaza the court had jurisdiction to order measures to protect Gaza's population from further risk of genocide.Before announcing the decision, Donoghue read statements from Israeli officials that she said made South Africas case plausible and gave an assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The order called attention to a series of statements made by Israeli leadership described variously as incitements to genocide and as "dehumanizing" Palestinians by scholars in particular Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, President Isaac Herzog and Foreign Affairs Minister Israel Katz (then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure when he made the statement). For example, the order stated:Simon told us that the court taking notice of those statements gives credence to South Africas arguments of genocidal incitement that we discussed in more detail in our past coverage.Crucially, the court found that a number of South Africas arguments were plausible, stating:Ultimately, the ICJ cannot force Israel to do anything, as we previously outlined. However, international scrutiny on how Israel characterizes its actions in Gaza will be higher, Simon pointed out.South Africas minister for international relations, Naledi Pandor, said that without a cease-fire Israel could not effectively implement the court-ordered measures.Mahmood Mamdani, professor of government at Columbia University, told Democracy Now!:Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the ICJs willingness to consider the genocide charges was a mark of shame that will not be erased for generations. He vowed to continue the war.We will continue to do what is necessary to defend our country and defend our people, he said. Like every country, Israel has the basic right to defend itself. The court in the Hague rightfully rejected the outrageous request to take that away from us.Al Jazeera reported frustration and resentment on the part of Palestinians in Gaza in response to a ruling that did not include a cease-fire. People wanted an end to the madness and were waiting for that one statement that could have relieved an entire population largely displaced and, more profoundly, traumatised as the bombing continues across the Gaza Strip, the news outlet wrote.Up until the order was announced, bombing continued in the city of Khan Younis and the northern part of the region, according to Al Jazeera.

Was it against the law to make money from healthcare before the introduction of the HMO Act of 1973?

['While there are myriad arguments to be made that the legislation contributed to expansion of for-profit insurance companies, the HMO Act of 1973 is misrepresented in memes.']

A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMOs and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, passed by Nixon, changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which allowed medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics, and even doctors to begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very negative implications. Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939, and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals—and the charitable religious groups that funded them—afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model. For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. They produced different types of policies for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of providing high-quality, affordable health care for all. In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned, noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care, as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing. In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations), the money follows the "member," whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or "own") selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration, the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed. They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives because they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs. With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the conservative appropriation of liberal reform. Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. In ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized. While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his health maintenance organization vision in Kaiser Permanente. Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973, it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the first taste of federal subsidies incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make. Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ... President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: ... the less care they give them, the more money they make. President Nixon: Fine. [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] ... and the incentives run the right way. President Nixon: Not bad. Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs. Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called health maintenance an important part of a new national health strategy. He continued: If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents, Nixon said, fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true health system—and not a sickness system alone. Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy. All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after the passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Insurance Policy: How an Industry Shifted from Protecting Patients to Seeking Profit." Stanford Medicine. Spring 2017. Sekhri, Neelam K. "Managed Care: The U.S. Experience." WHO Bulletin. 2000. Altman, Stuart and David Shactman. Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: The Inside Story of a Century-Long Battle. Prometheus Books, 2011. ISBN 1616144564. Markovich, Martin. "The Rise of HMOs." RAND Graduate School Dissertation. 7 August 2003. Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. Basic Books, 2017 (2nd edition). ISBN 0465093027. Kaiser Permanente. "Kaiser Permanente's Prominent Role in American Health Care Reform." 22 June 2007. Wikisource. "Transcript of Taped Conversation Between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) That Led to the HMO Act of 1973." 17 February 1971.

['stock market']

False

The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine:Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing:The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care:Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs:Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the conservative appropriation of liberal reform:The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixons who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixons aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaisers plan to be recognized:Such a truth also makes the memes claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the first taste of federal subsidies incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make:Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixons later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs:

Did Nancy Pelosi Invest Up to $1M in Tesla?

['The U.S. House Speaker came under scrutiny for the contents of a financial disclosure in January 2021.']

In January and February 2021, Snopes readers asked us to examine reports that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had invested as much as $1 million in the electric vehicle company Tesla, prompting concerns over a potential conflict of interest on her part. On Jan. 25, Business Insider published an article with the headline "Nancy Pelosi Has Plowed Up to $1 Million Into Bullish Bets on Tesla Stock." The article reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had placed up to $1 million worth of bullish bets on Tesla stock, as revealed in a financial disclosure form the previous week. Pelosi bought 25 call options on Tesla stock with a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of March 18, 2022. Similar articles were published by the San Francisco Chronicle, Jalopnik, Benzinga, and Refinery29. On Facebook, users promoted a meme that claimed Pelosi had invested in Tesla on Jan. 24, 2021, just one day before President Joe Biden announced his intention to replace the federal government's fleet with electric vehicles, suggesting she had advance knowledge of Biden's plan and acted with that in mind. However, Pelosi did not personally invest in Tesla, so reports and social media posts to that effect were inaccurate in that respect. Her husband, Paul, did invest, leaving open ethical considerations similar to those that would have arisen if the stock options had been purchased in her name. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Mixture" regarding the claim that the House Speaker invested up to $1 million in Tesla. The Facebook meme highlighted above was doubly inaccurate, as it falsely stated not only that Pelosi herself had conducted the Tesla transaction, but also that it took place just one day before Biden made his electric vehicle announcement, and that the amount in question was $1.25 million. In fact, Paul Pelosi bought the Tesla options on Dec. 22, 2020, more than a month before Biden's announcement, and the amount in question was between $500,000 and $1 million. The details of Paul Pelosi's investments were contained in Speaker Pelosi's periodic transaction report, filed on Jan. 21, 2021. Under federal law and the Code of Federal Regulations, public officials (including members of Congress) are required to submit a report every time they, their spouse, or their dependent children conduct any "purchase, sale, or exchange of stocks, bonds, commodity futures, and other forms of securities," where the amount of the transaction is greater than $1,000. The official is required to file the report within 30 days of becoming aware of it. Officials are not required to report the exact amount of the investment or purchase, but rather they must specify a "valuation category," divided into various bands including $15,000 to $50,000; $250,000 to $500,000; $500,000 to $1 million; and $5 million to $25 million, among others. Paul Pelosi's investment in Tesla amounted to somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million and was described as "25 call options with a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of 3/18/22." The "SP" under the "Owner" column makes it clear that the transaction was conducted not by the congresswoman herself, but by her spouse. The federal Office of Government Ethics describes a "call option" as a contract that provides the buyer the right to purchase a security. The buyer has the right, but not the obligation, to exercise the option at a specified price (i.e., the strike price) until the contract's expiration date. Some put and call options may be purchased on the open market. As an alternative to exercising put and call options, investors can resell these options on the open market before their expiration. The Jan. 21 transaction report states that Paul Pelosi also bought call options in Disney and Apple and purchased shares in AllianceBernstein, an investment management firm. Concerns around Paul Pelosi's investment in Tesla are based on the fact that Speaker Pelosi is likely to play a prominent role in congressional negotiations over clean energy policy during the Biden administration, and that her family could stand to gain financially if Biden's plan to move the entire federal fleet to electric vehicles leads to a significant appreciation in the value of Tesla stock. Snopes asked a spokesperson for Speaker Pelosi for her response to such concerns over the potential appearance of a conflict of interest on her part. We also asked whether she or her husband were aware of Biden's intention to transition the federal fleet to electric vehicles at the time the investment was made, and whether Paul Pelosi now intended to sell his Tesla options in light of the president's electric vehicle announcement, in order to minimize any appearance of a conflict of interest. We did not receive a response to those questions in time for publication, but we will update this story if we hear back.

['interest']

NEI

On Jan. 25, Business Insider published an article with the headline "Nancy Pelosi Has Plowed Up to $1 Million Into Bullish Bets on Tesla Stock." The article reported that:Similar articles were published by the San Francisco Chronicle, Jalopnik, Benzinga, and Refinery29.On Facebook, users promoted a meme that claimed Pelosi had invested in Tesla on Jan. 24, 2021, just one day before President Joe Biden announced his intention to replace the federal government's fleet with electric vehicles suggesting she had advance knowledge of Biden's plan and acted with that in mind.The details of Paul Pelosi's investments were contained in Speaker Pelosi's periodic transaction report, filed on Jan. 21, 2021. Under federal law and the Code of Federal Regulations, public officials (including members of Congress) are required to submit a report every time they, their spouse, or their dependent children conduct any "purchase, sale, or exchange of stocks, bonds, commodity futures, and other forms of securities," where the amount of the transaction is greater than $1,000. The official is required to file the report within 30 days of becoming aware of it.Paul Pelosi's investment in Tesla amounted to somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million, and was described as "25 call options with a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of 3/18/22." The "SP" under the "Owner" column makes it clear that the transaction was conducted not by the congresswoman herself, but by her spouse:The federal Office of Government Ethics describes a "call option" as follows:A call option is a contract that provides the buyer the right to purchase a security... The buyer has the right, but not the obligation, to exercise the option at a specified price (i.e., the strike price) until the contracts expiration date. Some put and call options may be purchased on the open market. As an alternative to exercising put and call options, investors can resell these options on the open market before their expiration.

Ronald Reagan: 'If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism'

['The former California governor and future U.S. president made the comment during a 1975 interview with "60 Minutes" over a discussion of his economic philosophy.']

On 21 August 2017, the conservative non-profit organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) posted a meme juxtaposing a 42-year-old quote by then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan with a 2016 photograph of anti-fascist protesters in Dover, England. The intention was to create the impression that "antifa" demonstrators represented fascism coming to the United States in the same way that Reagan had predicted decades earlier. That quote was taken from a December 1975 interview of Reagan conducted by Mike Wallace for the 60 Minutes news magazine television program. We have found no record of anyone, other than Reagan himself, having made the "profound" statement that "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." Most likely, the future President was recalling a variant of a maxim (commonly misattributed to author Sinclair Lewis) that holds that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." TPUSA shared the Reagan meme on their official Facebook feed at a time when anti-fascist activists, or "antifa," had garnered both notoriety and heightened media scrutiny following violent incidents at white supremacist rallies in Berkeley, California, and Charlottesville, Virginia (in April and August 2017, respectively). After white supremacists (who have adopted the moniker "alt-right") were widely condemned for an outbreak of deadly violence at a protest in Charlottesville, some conservatives responded by claiming "antifa" protesters deserved equal condemnation. The bottom image in the TPUSA meme (which has been shared thousands of times) wasn't taken in the United States, despite the implication created by its inclusion here. The photograph was taken in Dover, England, on 30 January 2016, by Press Association photographer Gareth Fuller and depicts anti-fascists who clashed with nationalists during an anti-immigration rally in the Kent County town. The connection between "liberals" and the "antifas" suggested by this meme isn't quite so apt, as most "antifa" activists are anarchists and/or subscribe to political philosophies that are much further left on the political spectrum than those of mainstream "liberals." Likewise, although the Reagan quote sought to draw a connection between liberalism and fascism, the latter is generally considered to be a form of extreme right-wing ideology.

['profit']

True

We've found no record of anyone, other than Reagan himself, having made the "profound" statement that "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." Most likely the future President was recalling a variant of a maxim (commonly misattributed to author Sinclair Lewis) holding that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."TPUSA shared the Reagan meme on their official Facebook feed at a time when anti-fascist activists, or "antifa," had garnered both notoriety and heightened media scrutiny following violent incidents at white supremacist rallies in Berkeley, California, and Charlottesvile, Virginia (in April and August 2017, respectively). After white supremacists (who have adopted the moniker "alt-right") were widely condemned for an outbreak of deadly violence at a protest in Charlottesville, some conservatives responded by claiming "antifa" protesters deserved equal condemnation.The bottom image in the TPUSA meme (which has been shared thousands of times) wasn't taken in the United States, despite the implication created by its inclusion here. The photograph was taken in Dover, England, on 30 January 2016 by Press Association photographer Gareth Fuller and depicts anti-fascists who clashed with nationalists during an anti-immigration rally in the Kent County town.The connection between "liberals" and the "antifas" suggested by this meme isn't quite so apt, as most "antifa" activists are anarchists and/or subscribe to political philosophies that are much further left on the political spectrum than those of mainstream "liberals." Likewise, although the Reagan quote sought to draw a connection between liberalism and fascism, the latter is generally considered to be a form of extreme right-wing ideology.

Did Virginia's Governor Legalize Marijuana?

['A prank news article led to widespread rumors that Governor Terry McAuliffe had passed a law legalizing marijuana across Virginia.']

In October 2017, what appears to be a legitimate news article appeared on Facebook, claiming that Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana in the state of Virginia: An error-laden article automatically displayed the date on which it was opened, misleading readers into thinking it represented a brand-new development: article Govenor Terry McAuliffe passed a law legalizing the use of recreational and medicinal marijuana for the state of VirginiaAs of November, first 2017 marijuana will be legalOverall support for legalize marijuana has hit 64 30 states in the district of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuanaI knew Gallup poll released earlier this month shows that a record high percentage of Americans now support legalizing marijuana For the first time immaturity of Republicans are in favor of legalizing marijuana as well Update coming soon The claim is completely false, originating with prank-generating fake news site React365. Although the ostensible purpose of the site is to allow people to "prank" one another with phony articles, overly broad general interest topics such as statewide marijuana legalization often rapidly spreads outside its creator's circle of Facebook followers. prank-generating fake news React365

['interest']

False

An error-laden article automatically displayed the date on which it was opened, misleading readers into thinking it represented a brand-new development:The claim is completely false, originating with prank-generating fake news site React365. Although the ostensible purpose of the site is to allow people to "prank" one another with phony articles, overly broad general interest topics such as statewide marijuana legalization often rapidly spreads outside its creator's circle of Facebook followers.

Did George Washington Want Citizens Armed Against the Government?

['Founding Father George Washington supposedly said that a free people need "sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence" from their own government.']

In January 2016, a quote attributed to first U.S. president George Washington, about the importance of an armed citizenry, started recirculating on the internet: This statement had been making the online rounds for several years, but it regained popularity in January 2016 after President Obama announced new measures on gun control. announced George Washington never uttered the phrase in question. The first ten words ("a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined") are taken from the former president's annual address to theSenate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war: annual address Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy. A page dedicated to fake quotes attributed to George Washington on theMount Vernon web site addressed this passage as follows: addressed This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Although this meme does include a portion of Washington's first annual addressto members of theSenate and House of Representatives in1790, the majority of the quotewas never utteredby the Founding Father, and does not accurately represent his views on gun control. Nonetheless, its apocryphal nature doesn't hinder its continued reproduction as a genuine expression from George Washington:

['interest']

False

This statement had been making the online rounds for several years, but it regained popularity in January 2016 after President Obama announced new measures on gun control.George Washington never uttered the phrase in question. The first ten words ("a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined") are taken from the former president's annual address to theSenate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war:A page dedicated to fake quotes attributed to George Washington on theMount Vernon web site addressed this passage as follows: