Islamic Justice — Boy Punished for Stealing Bread
The above-displayed photographs have been circulating on the Internet since at least 2004, usually in e-mail forwards that set them in one of several Arab/Muslim areas (e.g., Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestinian territories) and claim that the boy pictured is being punished under a harsh Sharia  law system that imposes a penalty grossly out of proportion to the nature of the crime (i.e., having his arm crushed under a vehicle because he stole a loaf of bread). Sharia These pictures originated with the Iranian news site PeykeIran, who (along with persons who have witnessed similar scenes in other countries) confirmed that what the photographs actually depict is performers hustling money from onlookers by staging a common street act, one in which a subject seemingly allows himself to be run over by a heavy vehicle and then emerges unscathed.  This a common act, variations of which are performed by many magicians and accomplished through a variety of means, with no lasting harm done. That the subject is a small boy who grimaces his way through the stunt is all part of the act, intended to elicit sympathy and extra cash from onlookers.  (Despite his contorted facial expressions, the boy is not seriously or permanently injured by the process.) PeykeIran It's difficult to make any definitive statement about Sharia/Islamic law since customs and enforcement can vary from region to region, but although the cutting off  hands may sometimes be the prescribed maximum penalty for cases of theft under the strictest interpretations of Sharia, Islamic law resources consistently note that such punishments shall not be applied to children who have not yet reached puberty (which is defined as the age of 15 for boys), nor for the theft of small-value items or food by the hungry:   penalty puberty food The maximum sentence of any violation of law is not applied in every case. In the robbery and theft cases for example, the maximum penalty of hand-cutting applies after the consideration of many factors such as track record and whether the theft was made for profit. In some cases, such as stealing food because of severe hunger or to prevent death, there may not be a penalty. A person's hand is not amputated when he steals less than the equivalent of 4.374 grams of gold [or] something that is useless.  The penalty for the one who steals (when the above conditions are met) is that his/her right arm is amputated. The above photographs do not depict any form of amputation, and it is the child's left arm which goes under the wheels.  Moreover, there are no police, judges, religious authorities, or other officials evident in any of the pictures, just a huckster with a hand-held microphone who drums up business and describes the action for the onlookers visible in the background of the first photo. (Also note the blanket placed under the boy's arm: something that is useful for a staged stunt but is unlikely to be provided or allowed by those intent on severely punishing a lawbreaker.) The versions of these photographs circulated via e-mail generally leave out the last pictures of the original series, which show the same boy after the conclusion of the stunt:
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On July 16, 2020, as the U.S. recorded its single highest number of COVID-19 cases since the coronavirus health crisis began, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke at an event held on the South Lawn of the White House, ostensibly on the subject of "Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans." During his talk, according to a meme, Trump allegedly tackled the subject of energy-efficiency standards which have supposedly resulted in home appliances that do not function properly due to requirements aimed at conserving the amount of water and power they consume:  This was an accurate reproduction of a portion of Trump's talk, according to a White House transcript of the event: transcript Were bringing back consumer choice in home appliances so that you can buy washers and dryers, showerheads and faucets. So showerheads  you take a shower, the water doesnt come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesnt come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair  I dont know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect. Dishwashers  you didnt have any water, so you  the people that do the dishes  you press it, and it goes again, and you do it again and again. So you might as well give them the water because youll end up using less water. So we made it so dishwashers now have a lot more water. And in many places  in most places of the country, water is not a problem. They dont know what to do with it. Its called rain. They dont have a problem. This was far from the first time the president had riffed on poorly functioning appliances. In December 2019, as Trump spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House amidst an impeachment inquiry, he digressed into railing about toilets and other bathroom fixtures that allegedly frustrate their users due to the use of low-flow technology. CNN reported: digressed railing about toilets The President claimed Americans are flushing their toilets "10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once" and argued that they are having difficulty with washing their hands in what appeared to be a tangent about low-flow sinks and toilets. "We have a situation where we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on -- and in areas where there's tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don't get any water," the President said during a roundtable with small business leaders about deregulatory actions. "You turn on the faucet and you don't get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. Just dripping out, very quietly dripping out," the President continued, lowering his voice as he spoke about the drips. "People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once." It wasn't entirely clear what he was talking about, but it appeared to have to do with bathroom fixtures with low-flow appliances. He said the Environmental Protection Agency was looking into the issue on his suggestion. "They end up using more water. So (the) EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion," Trump said, though he did not give details on what suggestions, if any, he made. NPR quoted the Pacific Institute, a non-profit research institute with a focus on global and regional freshwater issues, as asserting that Trump's statements did not comport with reality: quoted asserting Peter Gleick with the Pacific Institute in Oakland considers this all to be Trumpian nostalgia for a time when showers were strong, toilets used 4 gallons a flush and lightbulbs burned your hands when you touched them. Gleick said these newer household items are part of an "efficiency revolution," doing the same tasks with less and halting the upward trajectory of water and energy consumption in America. And, yes, a dishwasher cycle takes longer, and incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy upfront. But in the long run, "They're much more expensive, because they use a huge amount of energy, which we pay for over time and they burn out 20 times faster," Gleick said. Based on the way Trump talks about efficient lightbulbs, it seems his complaint is with compact fluorescent bulbs, which were the only low-energy bulbs widely available 10 years ago. But today, store shelves are full of LED bulbs with warmer-looking light and even longer life spans. Gleick suspects Trump's toilet complaints are outdated as well, because low-flow toilet technology has come a long way in recent years. "Some people got bad toilets, but that was 15 and 20 years ago," Gleick said. "And now the new toilets not only use a tiny fraction of the water the old toilets used to use, but the truth is they flush better  and if you have a bad toilet that doesn't flush, well, that's because you have a bad toilet." A video of the portion of the speech reproduced in the above meme can be viewed here:  Picheta, Rob et al.  "Trump Claims Americans Have to Flush the Toilet '10 Times, 15 Times, As Opposed to Once.'"
  CNN.  7 December 2019. Keith, Tamara.  "Trump vs. Toilets (And Showers, Dishwashers and Lightbulbs)."
  NPR.  27 December 2019. WhiteHouse.gov.  "Remarks by President Trump on Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans."
  16 July 2020. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: In January 2020, a photograph supposedly showing a group of KKK members marching behind a presidential campaign sign for Donald Trump and Mike Pence was circulated on social media, along with a message saying "This is all you need to know about why you should vote Blue in 2020":   This is not a genuine photograph of KKK members holding a Trump-Pence sign. This a digitally manipulated image created from a photograph that originally featured a "Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" sign. The original photograph was taken in July 2009 and showed members of the Klan marching through Pulaski, Tennessee, in honor of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate army general who led the KKK in the 1860s:   The original picture was taken by Spencer Platt and is available via Getty Images with the following caption: Getty Images Members of the Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan participate in the 11th Annual Nathan Bedford Forrest Birthday march July 11, 2009 in Pulaski, Tennessee. With a poor economy and the first African-American president in office, there has been a rise in extremist activity in many parts of America. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2008 the number of hate groups rose to 926, up 4 percent from 2007, and 54 percent since 2000. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War and played a role in the postwar establishment of the first Ku Klux Klan organization opposing the reconstruction era in the South. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) While the photograph of the KKK holding a Trump-Pence sign is fake, Trump did receive some support from the infamous group during the 2016 election. The official newspaper of the KKK, The Crusader, endorsed Trump for president. But the Trump campaign publicly rejected the Crusader's endorsement: "Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form. This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign. rejected Sakuma, Amanda.  "KKK Paper 'The Crusader' Backs Trump; Campaign Rejects It."
  NBC News.  2 November 2016. In early October 2019, readers searched the Snopes.com website for a story that, were it not for the internet, might otherwise have been long forgotten. "Guatemala Sinkhole Created by Humans, Not Nature," the supposed headline of interest read: read  The article underlying that headline, as published by National Geographic, was true -- but the event took place in 2010, shortly before that article was written. Accompanied by a dramatic photograph of a massive chasm in an urban center, the Geographic article reported: Human activity, not nature, was the likely cause of the gaping sinkhole that opened up in the streets of Guatemala City on Sunday, a geologist says. A burst sewer pipe or storm drain probably hollowed out the underground cavity that allowed the chasm to form, according to Sam Bonis, a geologist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, who is currently living in Guatemala City (map). The Guatemala City sinkhole, estimated to be 60 feet (18 meters) wide and 300 feet (100 meters) deep, appears to have been triggered by the deluge from tropical storm Agatha. But the cavity formed in the first place because the cityand its underground infrastructurewere built in a region where the first few hundred meters of ground are mostly made up of a material called pumice fill, deposited during past volcanic eruptions. The crater formed in the center of an intersection, and perhaps because aerial photographs are so visually striking, they have been shared throughout the years since the event occurred: This 30-story sinkhole appeared smack in the middle of Guatemala City. https://t.co/QlIPV4EVZi pic.twitter.com/hglMjoKJYT https://t.co/QlIPV4EVZi pic.twitter.com/hglMjoKJYT  David Plotz (@davidplotz) May 26, 2017 May 26, 2017  That wasn't the first time a massive sinkhole opened up in Guatemala City. A similar, deadly event took place in 2007, resulting from a combination of geography, nature, and poor regulation according to National Geographic. took place Guatemala City is situated on volcanic material that is relatively loosely-composed. That placement, combined with swift-running water from unfixed underground leaks, contributed to formation of the craters "In Guatemala City [the pumice is] unconsolidated, it's loose," Dartmouth geologist Sam Bonis told the Geographic in 2010. "It hasn't been hardened into a rock yet, so it's easily eroded, especially by swift running water." Tropical storm Agatha, coupled with leaking sewage pipes, likely triggered the collapse in 2010. Bonis added that because the event wasn't driven by natural forces, it technically shouldn't be called a "sinkhole." There was no scientific term, he said, to describe this type of collapse. Than, Ker.  "Guatemala Sinkhole Created by Humans, Not Nature."
  National Geographic.  5 June 2010. Associated Press.  "Third Body Pulled from Giant Sinkhole."
  NBC News.  24 February 2007. U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted on May 31, 2020, that the United States would be designating "ANTIFA" as a "Terrorist Organization." Trump's tweet appeared in response to growing protests after the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck on May 25:   Trump and several top officials, including U.S. Attorney General William Barr, have been blaming, without evidence, antifa and other groups they call "agitators" for the protests that have taken over cities across the United States. Barr also said in a statement that "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly." blaming statement But the United States currently does not have a process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations, which makes Trump's ability to enforce such a designation highly unlikely. Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is an amorphous movement of people who are opposed to fascism. They do not comprise an organized group, do not have a visible leadership, and acknowledge that they are secretive, so it is impossible to know how many people even count themselves as members. Anti-fascists lean strongly toward the left of the political spectrum, and many of them refer to themselves as socialists, anarchists, communists, or anti-capitalists. The positions of various antifa groups can also be difficult to define, but many of them support oppressed community members and protest against amassing of wealth by corporations. anti-fascist,  comprise refer positions Some antifa movements date their origins to the battle against European fascism in the 1920s and '30s. The BBC cited Mark Bray, the author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook," as an authority in noting that "[Bray] says the modern American Antifa movement began in the 1980s with a group called Anti-Racist Action. Its members confronted neo-Nazi skinheads at punk gigs in the American Midwest and elsewhere. By the early 2000s the Antifa movement was mostly dormant -- until the rise of Donald Trump and the alt-right." Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook Antifa groups are not monolithic and employ a range of tactics. Many condemn the use of violence, but according to BBC News, some groups engage in aggressive confrontations, especially with far-right groups on the streets. Extreme factions have carried pepper spray, bricks, knives, and chains with them. BBC News Trump claimed members of the movement were responsible for acts of vandalism during the May and June 2020 protests against police brutality in the U.S., but in at least one case a white supremacist group was found to have posed as antifa on Twitter. Groups associated with both right and left, not just antifa, are being accused of inciting violence and looting during the protests. In most cases it is difficult to ascertain that antifa is solely responsible for the lawless activities occurring at some protests, and the culprits are still being investigated, as Keith Ellison, Minnesota's attorney general, observed on NBC's "Meet the Press": posed as antifa associated "The truth is, nobody really knows ...Theres been a lot of videotape taken by demonstrators of people who are very suspicious, who really did start breaking windows ... There have been other photographs of cars with no license plates. Very suspicious behavior. It would all have to be investigated, he said. Without any official structure to the group, or much evidence linking antifa to specific acts of violence, it would be difficult to prove that that body of activists is behind anything, Faiza Patel, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security program, said: "As far as we know, antifa doesnt have bank accounts or assets or infrastructure ... Also there havent been any deaths attributed to anti-fascist violence, and one of the hallmarks of foreign terrorist organizations  a designation the U.S. government does make  is the acknowledgement of attacks that involve many fatalities." said Trump's ability to designate anti-fascists as a terrorist group is also highly suspect given that only foreign groups can be labeled as "terrorist" organizations under U.S. law, and "domestic terrorism" is not currently a federal crime in the U.S., according to the New York Times: foreign groups domestic terrorism A federal law defines terrorism as crimes of violence that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government policy. But it distinguishes between international terrorism, which must have a foreign or transnational nexus, and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily on American soil. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries is a federal crime, giving the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors jurisdiction to take the lead. There is no equivalent crime of domestic terrorism, so law enforcement officials deal with such offenses using other laws that do not have terrorism in their labels, such as the state-level crime of murder. A 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on domestic terrorism similarly stated that: 2017 report The federal government does not generate an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations or individuals. The development of such a list may be precluded by civil liberties concerns (i.e., inclusion in a publicly available list may impinge on a groups exercise of free speech or its other constitutionally protected activities). However, a lack of official lists or processes to designate groups or individuals as domestic terrorists makes it difficult to assess domestic terrorism trends and evaluate federal efforts to counter such threats. In 2011, an unnamed [Department of Homeland Security] official cited in a news report stated that unlike international terrorism, there are no designated domestic terrorist groups. Subsequently, all the legal actions of an identified extremist group leading up to an act of violence are constitutionally protected and not reported on by DHS. The CRS report also noted that although the U.S. does not officially designate domestic terror organizations, it does record individual terrorists and threats in its Terrorist Screening Database: While the government does not provide an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations, it does include domestic terrorists (along with international terrorists) in its Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the Terrorist Watchlist ... While not naming specific groups, DOJ and the FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats. DOJ has identified domestic terrorism threats to include criminal activity by animal rights extremists, ecoterrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as sovereign citizens and unauthorized militias, black separatists, white supremacists, and abortion extremists. In an interview with Snopes, Patel said that a number of different crimes can be designated as acts of terrorism: There is no single crime of either domestic or international terrorism. But both types of terrorism can be prosecuted under a number of statutes which constitute crimes of terrorism. The crime of hijacking an airplane, for example, is an act of terrorism. In fact, the government has available 51 different criminal statutes which can be applied domestic terrorism. It does not  and should not  have the ability to designate a domestic organization. This would allow the government to target political activity as terrorism, which is exactly what the White House and the Justice Department are trying to do by threatening to go after protestors under the guise of targeting Antifa. The State Department makes a list of designated "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (FTO) available on their website. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), enforcing the terrorist designation for FTOs involves blocking assets, prosecuting individuals, and imposing immigration restrictions on FTOs, their members, and their supporters. Foreign Terrorist Organizations Government Accountability Office Patel added that the Secretary of State can designate foreign terrorist groups, but this triggers a range of consequences: "most important of which is the ability to prosecute anyone who provides the group with material support, no matter how minimal. In addition property and assets of persons linked to terrorism can be blocked, but only under a law that requires a connection to a mainly foreign threat." Thus, as a large, decentralized entity with no infrastructure or assets that we know of, designating and targeting antifa as a domestic terrorist organization could, according to some experts, create a dangerous scenario, as Patel told us: If persons who identified as 'Antifa' suspected of committing crimes that violate any of the federal crimes of terrorism or other criminal they could of course be properly investigated and prosecuted. The FBI has more than ample authority to investigate individuals they suspect of being engaged in criminal activity. The problem is the FBI's rules are so loose they can also investigate people who are not suspected of criminal activity, so these powers are easily abused. The FBI has a long history of investigating environmentalists and anti-war activists and recently fabricated a new terrorist threat of black identity extremists and it would be altogether surprising if they didnt spy on the protestors. The paucity of evidence directly connecting antifa to acts violence during protests, combined with the structureless nature of the group and the fact that the U.S. currently has no legal process for designating domestic terrorist organizations, leads us to rate this claim as  Al Jazeera.  "Trump Says US Will Designate Antifa 'Terrorist Organisation.'"
  31 May 2020. BBC Radio 4.  "Seven Things You Need to Know About Antifa."
  26 October 2017. Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas and Sandra E. Garcia.  "What Is Antifa, The Movement Trump Wants to Declare a Terror Group?"
  The New York Times.  2 June 2020. Congressional Research Service.  "Domestic Terrorism: An Overview."
  21 August 2017. Hoffman, Jason, and Evan Perez.  "Trump Tweets Antifa Will Be Labeled a Terrorist Organization But Experts Believe That's Unconstitutional."
  CNN.  31 May 2020. MacFarquhar, Neil.  "Many Claim Extremists Are Sparking Protest Violence. But Which Extremists?"
  The New York Times.  31 May 2020. Robertson, Lori.  "Trump Cant Designate Antifa  Or Any Movement  Domestic Terrorist Organization."
  FactCheck.org.  1 June 2020. Savage, Charlie.  "What Could a Domestic Terrorism Law Do?"
 &nbsp ;The New York Times.  7 August 2019. The United States Department of Justice.  "Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism."
  31 May 2020. United States Government Accountability Office.  "COMBATING TERRORISM: Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation Process and U.S. Agency Enforcement Actions."
  June 2015. U.S. Department of State.  "Foreign Terrorist Organizations."
  Accessed 02 June 2020. One prominent class of rumor associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign was the notion that various prominent people had foretold the unlikely political ascendancy of Donald Trump decades in advance, everyone from President Ronald Reagan to Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain.   Ronald Reagan Kurt Cobain In early 2017, another example of this class of rumor hit social media, holding that former Beatle John Lennon had opined in 1981 that "the only way we are going to get ourselves out of the messes we've created for ourselves is to find strong and independent leaders ... perhaps a businessman":  The implication of this item was obvious: Lennon had presciently discerned, some thirty-five years in advance, the surprising rise of Donald Trump (a businessman who had never held any public office) to the Republican Party nomination and, ultimately, the White House. The notion that John Lennon actually said anything like the statement attributed to him above in 1981 (or at any other time) has several questionable aspects, however: 1)  John Lennon was shot to death in December 1980, so he couldn't have said anything in 1981. 2)  Nearly every word of every interview and public statement John Lennon gave during his adult lifetime has been documented and analyzed, yet we found no evidence that this putative quotation of his had been recorded and reproduced anywhere prior to its online appearance in 2017. 3)  This statement doesn't even sound like something John Lennon would have said  if there was one group he held greater disdain for than politicians, it was businessmen.  When the Beatles were attempting to gain a controlling interest in their publishing company, Northern Songs, in 1969, Lennon famously derailed negotiations at one point by reportedly proclaiming that he was sick of "being fucked around by men in suits sitting on their fat arses in the City."   If the former Beatle had proposed looking to someone other than politicians for leadership, his suggested alternative likely would have been anyone other than businessmen. While the debate over the compromise tax agreement proposed by President Barack Obama has focused mostly on Bush's income tax cuts and whether they ought to be extended to wealthy Americans, the issue of estate taxes has also become a sticking point for some legislators.Under the plan, the estate tax rate would be set at 35 percent, with an effective exemption of $5 million.Many Republicans had hoped to do away with the estate tax altogether, and Democrats last year had proposed a higher rate: 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million.The compromise has ruffled feathers on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., for example, said he would not support the plan because he considered the estate tax compromise a tax increase. We ruled that claimBarely True.Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and a self-described democratic socialist, sent out amessage via Twitteron Dec. 13, 2010, saying that under the estate tax plan, 99.7% of American families will not pay 1 nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.According to ananalysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Sanders is correct.The Tax Policy Center estimated that about 99.7 percent of estates were exempt from the estate tax in 2009 when the first $3.5 million of an estate was exempt. Even fewer people would be subject to the tax if the threshold is increased to $5 million, as proposed in the compromise tax plan.Under the compromise plan, less than 2/10 of 1 percent of estates would be subject to the estate tax next year, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. That means more than 99.8 percent would be completely exempt.The Tax Policy Center estimates that about 3,600 estates would be subject to the tax under the $5 million threshold. Those 3,600 estates would have to pay an estimated $11.4 billion in estate taxes under the compromise tax plan.Estate tax rates have fluctuated through modern history. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed a plan to gradually reduce the estate tax from 55 percent to 45 percent, while at the same time increasing the exemption value from $1 million in 2002 to $3.5 million in 2009. The estate tax disappeared altogether in 2010.But the Bush plan only had a 10-year window because Republicans didn't have the votes at the time to permanently abolish the estate tax. It passed the Senate under budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes but which also limited it to a 10-year shelf life. Barring a new tax agreement, the rate was set to revert next year to a 55 percent rate with an effective exemption of $1 million.Last year, Democrats proposed a plan to permanently set the estate tax rate at 2009 levels -- 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million. But the plan never reached a vote in the Senate. Had that plan gone through, the Tax Policy Center estimates it would have subjected 6,460 estates to a tax (bring in an estimated $18.2 billion). If no tax plan passes, and the rate goes back to 55 percent on the value of estates over $1 million, an 43,540 estates would have to pay (bringing in an estimated $34.4 billion next year).Sanders was correct that in 2009, when the effective exemption was $3.5 million, about 99.7 percent of all estates were exempt and didn't pay anything. The compromise plan -- which would set effective exemption at $5 million -- would push the number of exempted estates even higher, so that more than 99.8 percent of estates would not pay anything. We rate Sanders' comment True. Democrat Timothy M. Kaine launched his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign on April 5 by touting his record as Virginias governor.Kaine said Virginia was named the best-managed state, best state for business and best state in which to raise a child during his term from 2006 to 2010. (Virginia law bars governors from serving consecutive terms).We wondered if Kaine had his facts right.We turned to Governing magazine. Since 1999, it has been publishing a report by the non-partisan Pew Center on the States that grades each state on the strength of its management.Under Kaine in 2008, Virginia was one of three states to earn an A- grade, topping the rankings alongside Utah and Washington.The Pew report does not assign one-to-50 rankings to the states, meaning Utah and Washington can also claim to be best managed.Virginias reputation for well-managed government hardly begins with Kaine, however. Each of the four governors who preceded Kaine also claim credit for having run the best-managed state. That includes Republican George Allen, who is also running for Senate in 2012.The state earned the best grades in Governing  in 2005 when Democrat Mark Warner was governor and in 1999 under Republican Jim Gilmore.Financial World magazine researched and published similar ratings -- independent of Pew -- in the 1990s. Virginia received the top management grade in 1995 and 1996 under Allen, and in 1992 and 1993 under the governorship of Democrat Doug Wilder.The Pew report looks at a states performance and resources in four major categories: money, infrastructure, people and information. The diverse topics means a states record is dependant on many people, including elected officials and state employees. The states 2008 mark under Kaine was unchanged from the A- grade received in 2005 under Warner.Virginias ranking as the top state for doing business comes from Forbes, the financial magazine. The state took first place each year from 2006 to 2009. In 2009 the publication said Virginia earned the top spot thanks to a highly-trained workforce, a favorable regulatory environment and high quality of life.As governor, Kaine had only indirect control over most of these factors. Although he certainly had a say in tax rates and regulations, he had little sway over how many Virginians earned college degrees during his term and many quality-of-life issues.But the facts match Kaines claim about the state being rated best for business during his tenure.Last year the state surrendered the top spot to Utah and placed second in the Forbes survey. Despite the drop, the magazine still had high praise for Virginias business climate. Utah had narrowly trailed Virginia in 2009.The claim about Virginia being the best state to raise a child comes from a 2007 report by Education Weekand the Pew Center on the States. The survey examined education test scores, high school graduation rates, family income and even the education level of Virginia parents. Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Maryland rounded out the top five.Like the other categories, Kaine cant claim credit for all of these successes. He certainly didnt play a role in how many Virginians went to college during the years or decades before he became governor.Lets review our findings.Virginia has long-earned top marks for state management, finishing at or near the top of virtually every survey in that category for 20 years. Kaine built upon a strong legacy of management established by his predecessors from both parties. He deserves credit, however, for keeping the state near the top. He was handed a Cadillac and drove it well.We rate his statements True. On Jan. 4, 2022, a strange Facebook ad appeared that claimed: "The Sudden Loss That Hit 'Little People, Big World.'" It led to a lengthy article that claimed to reveal news of a death, "shocking truth," or some sort of sad development about the Roloff family. claimed However, this was all very misleading. For readers unfamiliar with "Little People, Big World," it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of the Roloff family. reality TV show "Matt and Amy Roloff, both 4 feet tall, face a variety of challenges in raising their four children: twins Jeremy and Zach, who is 2-feet shorter than his brother, and younger siblings Molly and Jacob, who like Jeremy are average height," a synopsis on TheTVDB.com reads. "The family's 34-acre Oregon farm serves as part playground and part moneymaker. As the series ages, Matt and Amy deal with personal strife, embrace their kids getting older and leading lives of their own, become grandparents, and attempt to keep Roloff Farms operational." synopsis The show began airing on TLC in 2006 and is often referred to by the acronym, "LPBW." Matt and Amy divorced in 2015. airing on TLC divorced In the Facebook ad about the Roloff family's "sudden loss," the caption contained several grammatical errors. It said: "Since the allegation were confirmed to the public, the cast of 'Little People, Big World' has ask for some privacy. Here is all the information given to the public so far." In other words, the ad appeared to imply that there were recent developments about a death that involved someone on "LPBW" or in the Roloff family.  This strange Facebook ad came from a page named P-15897-2.  The ad was posted on a Facebook page with a strange name: P-15897-2. It was described as a "clothing store." However, the truth was that this was nothing more than a quickly-created page that was being used to profit off of tragic and outdated news. It was likely managed from outside of the U.S. One of the photos showed a young Zach Roloff in a hospital bed. The picture was a screenshot from a 2006 episode of "LPBW" named "Zach's Emergency" where he experienced a "mysterious illness." episode The ad led to a lengthy slideshow-style article on foodisinthehouse.com. Its headline read: "Little People, Big World: Learn the Shocking Truth About the Roloff Family." article However, the Facebook ad and this article were both misleading. The story was nothing more than an extremely long history of the Roloff family. It mentioned several tragic developments. Matt had a brother named Josh who died at the age of 34 in 1999. He had experienced multiple medical problems since his birth, according to a report. Additionally, the story mentioned the August 2021 death of Felix, who was Amy's dog. She posted about his passing on Instagram. This news, which was reported by People.com and others, was around four months old by the time the misleading article was published and the Facebook ad went live. There's no evidence that the family asked "for privacy" about either of these two past deaths, as the Facebook ad claimed. report posted reported by People.com The lengthy article also documented two unrelated, sad developments about Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the star of the former TLC series, "The Little Couple." According to Chron.com, the show provided a "deeper look into the married life of Dr. Jen Arnold and Bill Klein, who happen to be dwarfs." According to Chron.com In 2013, Today.com reported that Dr. Arnold was "diagnosed with stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare cancer that began with a September pregnancy loss." reported In sum, an unknown person was paying Facebook to display an ad about "Little People, Big World" that seemed to indicate there were new and tragic developments. It said that the Roloff family asked "for privacy" and hinted with the words "so far" that more information was coming about a recent "loss" or death. However, this was misleading and appeared to be little more than an attempt to profit from past tragedies from two TLC TV shows. For these reasons, we have rated this claim as "Outdated." attempt to profit 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 Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin says recent Democratic governors have pushed Virginia into economic decline and people are moving out. Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states, he said during aMay 21 interviewon WRVA radio in Richmond. Youngkin holds two Democrats responsible: Current Gov. Ralph Northam and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who led the state from 2014-2018 and is Youngkins opponent this year. Virginia is the only state that bars governors from serving successive terms. We fact-checked Youngkins talking-point claim that more people are leaving Virginia than coming in and found it to be correct, although the reasons for the outward migration go far beyond any governors control. The numbers The Internal Revenue Service publishes annual statistics on the number of households that moved and filed federal tax returns from a different state than the one in which they lived the previous year. Demographers and economists use these figures to track the net migration of families in the U.S. from year to year. Thedatashow that from 1991 through 2012, Virginia always had more households coming in than going out. That changed in 2013, when there was a net loss of 4,270 households. Virginia had fewer filing households in each of the next five years - an average annual loss of 5,600 families. In 2018, the last year for which figures are available, Virginia lost a net of 4,707 households. This doesnt mean theres been a massive flow out of Virginia. To give some perspective, about4 millionVirginia households annually file federal taxes. The net losses to other states in 2018 came to less than one-eighth of 1% of households. The U.S. Census Bureau also tracks net migration. Itestimatesthat Virginia lost a net 11,994 people through domestic migration during the 12-month period that ended July 1, 2019. The reasons Jobs were the main reason people left Virginia for other states at the start of the last decade. That switched to the rising cost of living at the end of the decade, according to economic and demographic studies. Virginia is home to large military bases, and a fleet of defense and government contractors and federal workers that drive the states economic engine in Northern Virginia. The region was hurt by sequestration programs beginning in 2013 that automatically cut defense and domestic spending when Congress could not agree on a budget. The result was that many Virginians whose paychecks were dependent on federal spending, particularly for defense, left the state to find new jobs, according to a2016 reportby Old Dominion University. More recently, the migration has been mainly triggered by people escaping the high cost of living in Northern Virginia, according to Hamilton Lombard, a demographer at the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia. They are largely young professionals seeking to buy first homes and raise families. Many are heading South to growing regions in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Texas. Lombard also said that Virginia is losing retirees, mostly to Southern states. Youngkin blames the migration losses on McAuliffe and Northam.He prefaced his claim by saying he is frustrated with what the Democratic leadership had done to Virginia over eight years. But Lombard said the governors have had little control over the economic trends that have caused losses. Think of the cost of housing; the state has little control of that, he said. If you could point to anything that could have been done on the state level over the years, maybe it could have focused on making more of Virginia (economically) competitive outside Northern Virginia, Lombard said. Our ruling Youngkin said, Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states. IRS data backs him up. But Youngkin wraps the data in a questionable political context. He blames the last two Democratic governors for the net migration loss when research shows most of the drop has been caused by problems largely beyond any governor's control: federal budget cuts and high prices for buying a home in Northern Virginia. Youngkins statement is accurate but needs clarification. So, we rate it Mostly True.