Yahoo! Mail Petition
Claim:  Yahoo! will begin charging for its previously-free POP e-mail service in April 2002. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I have just read and signed the online petition: "Petition to request  that Yahoo Inc reconsider their decision to charge fees for pop mail, groups, and homepages" hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service, at: https://www.PetitionOnline.com/11213/ https://www.PetitionOnline.com/11213/ I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself as it looks that Yahoo is going to try charging money for email addresses, yahoo groups and other things they currently offer for free. If you are against it, please take the time like I did to sign the petition. Origins:  In mid-March 2002, those who had been availing themselves of Yahoo!'s free POP mail service received a shock in their inboxes, an announcement from the company that as of 24 April 2002 those previously-free services would continue to be available only to those willing to pay for them. Beginning April 24, Yahoo! will charge $29.99 a year for this feature.  Those who sign up before that date can secure continuation of this service for $19.99 per annum. Before anyone becomes overly confused on this point, remember that we're talking strictly about POP (Post Office Protocol) e-mail accounts (a protocol that allows desktop e-mail clients such as Eudora and Microsoft Outlook to download mail messages from  host systems to users' PCs ).  Non-POP e-mail accounts  those accessed by reading e-mail from Yahoo! via a web browser  will still be  free. Advertising income on the Internet fell dramatically in 2001. Previously, Yahoo! could afford to offer its POP mail services free of charge because the revenue needed to support it was coming from the sale of ads displayed on its site.  Since that revenue has dropped due to the tech wreck of 2000-2001, Yahoo! has chosen to begin charging users for some of the more expensive-to-support features. The monies needed to pay for them have to come from somewhere, and if the ad revenue no longer supports them, then individual users must. Although signing an e-petition decrying this state of affairs might make someone momentarily feel a bit better, such action is highly unlikely to alter Yahoo!'s plans. All the e-signatures in the world won't pay the bills for Yahoo!, and that is the overriding factor. Customers always retain the option of "voting with their feet" by taking their business elsewhere, but you have to wonder at how "unfair" the decried treatment is when it amounts to someone's no longer providing something for free. As much as we like to have free stuff, we don't have an inherent right to it. Those who choose to rely upon free services should always keep firmly in mind the possibility that these services may someday go away. The incitement to sign the e-petition asserts that Yahoo! will be charging user fees for POP mail, groups, and homepages. That's only partially true. Although POP mail will be available only to those willing to pay a couple of bucks a month for it after April 24, there do not appear to be immediate plans in the works to institute across-the-board user charges for Yahoo!-based groups or homepages that will turn them into "pay for it or lose it" propositions. However, in the case of free GeoCities web sites that is a distinction without a difference, because Yahoo! has already gutted the free version of this service. Yahoo! has announced that by early April it will no longer support FTP (file transfer protocol) to its unpaid GeoCities subscribers. Without FTP capability, users cannot move HTML files to or from their web sites on their own; they have to maintain their web sites through Yahoo!'s advertising-laden forms. Those determined to host their personal web pages on GeoCities will have to become paid subscribers and cough up $4.95 a month to get that vital FTP capability back. (They'll also get extra storage and ad-free page display for their money, though.) Those who do not wish to pay the $4.95 a month fee can still keep their pages there, but they won't be able to use FTP to maintain them. As for Yahoo!'s discussion groups, if there are plans afoot to begin charging for them, no mention of this is showing up in any of Yahoo!'s statements or in news articles detailing changes to Yahoo!'s services. We suspect this claim might have been tossed in to incite a larger number of folks to support the petition. Last updated:  5 January 2008    Sources:   Mangalindan, Mylene.  "Yahoo Will Charge Users a Yearly Fee for E-Mail Feature."   The Wall Street Journal.  22 March 2002  (p. B5).     Bloomberg News.  "Yahoo to Charge E-Mail Forwarding Fee."   Ventura County Star.  26 March 2002  (p. D2).
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.  Here's a screenshot supposedly showing a post from McDaniel on March 15 and a snippet from his obituary a month later:   McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media.  died The New York Daily News wrote:  wrote An Ohio man has tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his states coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWines stay-at-home order madness. If what Im hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesnt have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post circulated widely on social media. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize McDaniel, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.  McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media, but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him.  In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same.  Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our believed husband, father, soon to be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook have turned into national news. The news has opened the flood gates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.  As each day passes, we all are learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have all learned that the early actions taken by our National and State government were indeed the right action to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John was still here with us he would acknowledge the national crisis we're are in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly he is not with us and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Further, we will never be able to erase from our hears and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share. While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. rampant We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax."  bad medical advice conspiracy theories. fake news said Brown, Bruce.  "Its Dangerous for Public Officials to Cry Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic."
  Miami Herald.  27 March 2020. Egan, Lauren.  "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax.'"
  NBC News.  28 February 2020. Carter, Andrew.  "Marion Man Dies After Contracting Coronavirus; Local Cases Climb to 276."
  Marion Star.  16 April 2020. Dillon, Nancy.  "Ohio Man Dies From COVID-19 After Criticizing Governors Coronavirus Lockdown as 'Madness.'"
  New York Daily News.  21 April 2020. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.,held a press event in Portland last week to promote a tax reform bill hesco-authored with a Republican from Indiana. Wyden said that taxpayers now have to go through bureaucratic water torture to do their taxes. The rules are such a complicated mish-mash that many people need professional help to file their returns. It simply doesn't have to be this way. I serve on the Senate Finance Committee. I've authored the first bipartisan tax reform bill in a quarter-century. This is with Sen. Dan Coats, the Republican from Indiana, Wyden said. The first bipartisan tax reform bill in 25 years? PolitiFact Oregon thought the statement a pretty bold claim to make. Dont people elected to Congress like to write up laws? We started digging. The context: The last time the federal government overhauled the tax code wasin 1986, when Republican Ronald Reagan was in office and the parties split control of Congress, much like today. Wyden, who was elected to Congress in 1980 and to the Senate in 1996, hastalked often about the need to revisit the bipartisan spirit of that time. Wyden wants to simplify and streamline the tax code. He says he also wants to lower the burden on families and small businesses. Wydenfirst proposed an overhaul in 2010, pairing with Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. After Gregg left office, Wyden partnered with Coats in 2011 and plans to introduce the legislation again this year. The analysis: We asked Tom Towslee, a Wyden spokesman, to back up the senators assertion. Towslee said the office had checked with theCongressional Research Service, the bodys nonpartisan research arm, and was told of a1995 plan sponsored by Sens. Sam Nunn, D-Ga, and Pete Domenici, R-N.M. That plan would have replaced the income tax with a consumption tax, which Towslee said is not the same as a comprehensive reform plan. I think youll agree that reforming the current income tax code to make it fairer, simpler and more efficient is very different from replacing it outright with something else, he said. We turned to theTax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank. President Scott Hodge checked with his staff and they also came upon the Domenici-Nunn USA Tax Act of 1995. (Tax bills in 1990, 1997, 2001, 2002 and 2003 may have had some crossover appeal, but these were bills to raise and lower tax rates, and not to address the tax code in a comprehensive way.) It may be a stretch, but not a big one, Hodge said of Wydens claim. What Wyden cares about is re-creating the bipartisanship that brought about the 1986 bill. He may not be the first, but he is in small company. We checked a database of Congressional bills. We found numerous bills, often introduced over multiple sessions, for a flat tax or for a fair share tax, sponsored by Democrats or Republicans, but not both. We also found several efforts to do away with the Internal Revenue Service, some with a Democrat or two on board with Republicans. For example,H.R. 352, introduced in January, is a four-page document that terminates the IRS Code of 1986 in Section 2 and calls for a new federal tax system in Section 3. It is skimpy on details. We also caught up with Jane Gravelle, the senior specialist at Congressional Research Service who assisted Wydens office. Shes been there 40 years, done tons of research in the area and could not locate legislation similar to the 1986 effort other than Wydens. She does not consider the Nunn-Domenici effort a general income tax reform bill on par with Wydens bill. I would also add that formulating and actually putting a major tax reform bill into legislative language is a major undertaking, not something that can be done easily and quickly, she said in an email. Indeed, Wydens bill runs 120 pages. Apparently we were mistaken in thinking that lawmakers like to draft lengthy, complicated legislation on the tax code. The bills are rare. The ruling: Some politicians call the tinkering of tax rates tax reform. We dont buy that. Some people consider the Nunn-Domenici bill of 1995 a bipartisan tax reform bill. We can see why Wydens office, with back-up from the research service, would differentiate his plan from their plan. Still, the 1995 effort merits a mention as additional information missing from an otherwise accurate statement. We rule the statement Mostly True. A day after a Florida man landed a gyrocopter on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to demand campaign finance reform, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson talked up his own efforts to focus on small donations and his potential U.S. Senate bid. Grayson, an Orlando Democrat, told a reporter forDemocracy Nowon April 16 that he will probably run in a primary againstU.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, for Marco Rubios Senate seat in 2016. As Democratic Party activists and leaders consider their best path to winning that seat, Grayson wants to remind them of his populist fundraising: Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200, he said. We decided to check if Grayson holds a record in the House for contributions of less than $200. (A spokesman for Grayson told PolitiFact Florida that he is likely a few weeks away from making his decision but reiterated that he has said he willprobably run.) Counting small donations The Federal Election Commission considers donations of less than $200 as small donations, which dont have to be individually reported. Instead, candidates report a total amount of money from small donors. In the House for the 2013-14 election cycle, those who received the largest share of their campaign revenue from small contributions were Democrats -- andGraysonwas indeed No. 1, according to a November 2014analysisby the Center for Responsive Politics. Graysons small donations totaled about $1.8 million and equaled 57 percent of his $3.1 million donations. The House member who raised the next highest amount in small donations was FloridasDebbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, and head of the Democratic National Committee. She raised $1.2 million in small donations, which equaled 47 percent of her contributions. (Wasserman Schultz recently ruled out running for Senate in 2016.) The third place House finisher wasU.S. Rep. Keith Ellisonof Minnesota who raised about $850,000 in small donations, or 41 percent of his pot. On theSenate sidefor the 2013-14 cycle, Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota topped the list with $11.7 million in small donations, equaling about 40 percent of his donations. (During his Democracy Now interview, Grayson mentioned U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a leader in the Senate in raising small donations. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and was re-elected in 2012, raised almost $5 million in small donations, or about61 percent.) Who racks up small donations and why? So why are some member of Congress small donor leaders? In the case of Franken, a formerSaturday Night Livestar, the Center for Responsive Politics noted that name recognition in combination with hailing from a state with a strong grassroots tradition doesnt hurt. Graysons persona as a Democratic firebrand likely contributes to his fundraising abilities. The most successful small-money fundraisers mix media exposure with partisan taunting and ideological appeals,Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, wrote in 2011. Graysonis famous for his provocative taunts against Republicans, such asdescribing the GOPhealth care plan as if you do get sick, die quickly, orcomparing Dick Cheney to a vampire. Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute and a political science professor at the University at Albany,saidpolarization alone wont get candidates a lot of money in small donations. In many cases, candidates are tapping into political organizations with an existing network of small donors. Grayson, for example, has received money bundled through ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising group that focuses on competitive races. Candidates got their boost from national organizations that created support for the candidates by recommending them to donors who trusted the bundling organization(s) and who probably would not otherwise have known who the candidates were, Malbin wrote. Our ruling Grayson said, Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200. Graysons small donations equaled 57 percent of his donations during the most recent cycle, putting him ahead of second-place finisher Wasserman Schultz at 47 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. We rate this claim True. Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. In November 2015, the biography of Frederick Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, was condensed into two paragraphs and then passed around the internet via a meme. While some of the information included in the meme is accurate, much of it is either over-exaggerated or incomplete:  This particular rumor centers on the idea that Frederich Trump made his fortune via brothels and opium dens. While there is anecdotal evidence that Trump dabbled in prostitution, there is no proof that this made up the bulk of his fortune. In Gwenda Blair's 2000 book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, she described how Frederick Trump opened a series of restaurants and hotels during the Klondike Gold Rush in the 1890s. One of those hotels, The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel, was described as decadent and far superior to other restaurants in the area: book In the larder was salmon and an extraordinary variety of meats, including duck, ptarmigan, grouse, goose, and swan, as well as caribou, moose, goat, sheep, rabbit, and squirrel. Incredibly, the New Arctic served fresh fruit: red currants, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, even cranberries. A small oasis of luxury, the Arctics menu was a vast improvement over what the two restaurateurs had been able to offer on the trail. An anonymous letter to the Yukon, however, claimed that The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel was also known for prostitution: I would advise respectable women traveling alone, or with an escort, to be careful in their selection of hotels at Bennett, he wrote. For single men the Arctic has excellent accommodations as well as the best restaurant in Bennett, but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings  and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex. While it's unclear if Frederich Trump directly profited from prostitution at his hotel (or whether it even occurred there), it should be noted that the world's oldest profession was relatively commonplace during the Gold Rush. The meme also claims that Frederick Trump decided to go back to Germany when police started cracking down on "his criminal rackets." Again, this is based on little more than a morsel of truth, and does not tell the whole story. In 1901, Trump sold his assets and returned to Germany. While one could argue that Trump made the decision because he believed that police were going to start enforcing prostitution laws, that is only one factor that led to Trump's departure for Germany: Frederick Trump saw that it was time to leave. If Major Wood actually enforced the laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and liquor, hotels and restaurants would be far less profitable. Not only that, the economic boom was bound to be short lived. There was not nearly enough solid economic development to absorb these newcomers in any long-term way; when the placer deposits were emptied, they would go back home. Without the umbrella of gold, other local industries would not be strong enough to keep going on their own and compete with cheaper sources farther south. The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized... ... Frederick Trump left just in time. He avoided the uproar when his erstwhile partner hit the skids, and he avoided the economic decline that would soon sweep over White Horse. Once again, in a situation that created many losers, he managed to emerge a winner. He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed from White Horse with a substantial nest egg. He had accomplished this goal of making and saving enough money to marry. But he had no intention of doing so in America. For this important moment, he would have to return to Germany. While the meme exaggerated Trump's involvement in "criminal rackets," it did correctly state that Trump returned to the United States after the German government determined that he had originally left Germany in 1885 to avoid taxes and the army. returned In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. Grier, Peter.  "Donald Trump: The Son of an Immigrant."
  The Christian Science Monitor.  24 August 2015. Blair, Gwenda.  The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate.
  Simon and Schuster, 2000.  ISBN 0-684-80849-8. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 In May 2022, a website purporting to be a local news site for the western portion of Illinois' Cook County, the state's most populous county that covers the Chicago metro, published an article falsely claiming that Oak Park and River Forest High School (OPRF) officials were set to implement a "race-based grading system." The article alleged that administrators would make it mandatory for "teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students." published an article  The website was called "West Cook News," and the article featured a cropped version of OPRF Administrator Laurie Fiorenza's Twitter profile photo. The contents of the article stemmed from a presentation that she gave during a recent school board meeting (a video of it posted on May 26 and is displayed below). In the presentation, she discussed research around grading students more fairly, known as "equitable grading," and shared findings with school board members for their consideration. Neither she nor any other member of the board announced policy changes that would require teachers to change how they grade students, much less make it mandatory for them to assess students based on their race or ethnicity. For these reasons, we're marking this claim  Twitter profile photo The school said in a statement published to its website: said in a statement The article contains a variety of misleading and inaccurate statements. The articles mischaracterization of the Board meeting is unfortunate and has caused unnecessary confusion [...] At no time were any statements made recommending that OPRF implement a race-based grading approach. At the above-mentioned school board meeting, Fiorenza gave a brief presentation about the progress of a board committee that researches professional development strategies for teachers, called the Transformative Education Leadership Team (TELT). Fiorenza noted that during the school year, teachers had read several books about "equitable grading," or strategies to assess students on a non-biased basis. That said, Fiorenza did not say that teachers were required to implement equitable grading (which is not "race-based grading"). Here's a video of the meeting:  We reached out to Karin Sullivan, the executive director of communications at OPRF, who told us that "there are no changes being proposed. This was a report on the committees research of best practices." The rumor that OPRF was implementing a race-based grading system appeared to largely stem from a misunderstanding of the term "equitable grading." Ralph Matire, secretary of the OPRF School Board, said during the meeting: OPRF School OK, equitable grading. People are going to hear that, and they are not going to understand that. So I want to be very clear that equitable grading practice [is] the objective assessment of academic mastery. It is not a dumbing down. It is not making concessions for this, that, or the third thing. It's finding a way to be objective about determining whether a student has mastered the academic content, because too often, subjective evaluation can be off and that's where inequity comes in. So it's getting to an objective measurement of student mastery of academic content. The community needs to hear that. It's an important thing. Margaret Sullivan, an associate director at EAB, a consulting firm specializing in education institutions, wrote about equitable grading in November 2021: wrote Course failure rates more than doubled during the pandemic, reducing student confidence in school and their chances of pursuing postsecondary education. But lack of learning isnt the only driver of course failures. Up to 40% of traditional student grades include non-academic criteria that do not reflect student learning gains  including participation and on-time homework submission. As a result, traditional grading may inadvertently penalize underprivileged students who struggle to meet non-academic expectations. One of the goals of equable grading is to focus on whether students understand course material, no matter their timeline for doing so, as opposed to testing them for points on specific dates. For example, supporters say, to achieve more equitable grades, teachers should drop zeroes on assignments from grade books when students demonstrate that they know the material from those assignments. During the presentation, Matire talked about how the latter change could give teachers a better assessment of a student's performance, saying: So, a kid scores zero points on a quiz, then three weeks later demonstrates complete mastery of the material that was in that quiz, why should that zero points hold down that kid's grade when the kid has demonstrated mastery of the academic content? That's what moving to an equitable grading system is. It's understanding that students grow at different paces. And it's teachers interacting with and assessing their students in a manner that allows them to objectively determine that the student has inf act mastered the content. Karin Sullivan told us that there had been "no school-wide recommendation or implementation" of equitable grading at OPRF, and that this presentation was just a "discussion of research-based best practices." If a teacher does implement equitable grading into their instruction plan, Sullivan said, "any teachers using such practices would have to use them across the board for all students, regardless of race." West Cook News' article carried the sensational and false title "OPRF to implement race-based grading system in 2022-23 school year." As noted above, the school simply was not implementing a new grading system, and the grading strategies that officials discussed at a recent school board meeting (equitable grading) had nothing to do with students' race or ethnicity. Despite (or perhaps because of) the inaccuracy of this headline, screenshots of West Cook News' article spread widely on social media. When Libs of Tiktok, a social media account that has gained a massive following thanks to its ability to stir up conservative outrage with claims that are often misleading, false, or stripped of context (no, litter boxes haven't been installed at schools because kids "identify" as cats), spread this rumor, they added screenshots from the presentation that highlighted specific passages: Libs of Tiktok litter boxes haven't been installed at schools   Neither of these highlighted passages stated that OPRF officials were implementing a race-based grading system. What these passages refer to, again, is equitable grading, or an attempt to remove bias from the classroom so that teachers can grade students purely on their mastery of a given subject.  The school explained in their statement:  explained in their statement As part of the Board of Educations strategic plan, the OPRFHS Grading and Assessment Committee was formed to examine national research on objective, unbiased practices for determining whether students have mastered academic content. Again, the presentation slides do not state that teachers at OPRF will implement a race-based grading system. Rather, the slides note that teachers had read books about how take non-academic factors (such as attendance) out of the equation could give them a more objective view of a student's mastery of a subject.  West Cook News is part of a so-called "pink slime news" network, a network of websites purporting to be local news outlets (despite having few or no local reporters) that publish politically biased content. The website is run by Local Government Information Services (LGIS), which is part of the Metric Media Foundation, a pink slime network that operates more than 1,200 "local news" outlets. A 2019 investigation by the New York Times found that these networks received "at least $1.7 million from Republican political campaigns and conservative groups." "pink slime news" network pink slime network that operates more than 1,200 "local news" outlets 2019 investigation by the New York Times A disclaimer on the site about its funding read: "Funding for this news site is provided, in part, by advocacy groups who share our beliefs in limited government." While West Cook News presented itself as a local news outlet covering the suburban area west of Chicago, the majority of the stories published by this website were written with an algorithm, according to co-founder Brian Timpone. The Columbia Journalism Review reported in 2018: Columbia Journalism Review reported Most of the stories published on LGIS news sites are written by algorithm, co-founder Brian Timpone says in an interview with CJR, using software that analyzes data (school test scores, for instance) and splices it by region to deliver to local publications around the state. [...] When stories are written, their authors are usually freelancers, many of whom report their stories from well beyond the Illinois state line. The story about "race-based grading" carried no author byline. Instead, the article stated it came from the "LGIS News Service." The Times reported that this network also publishes "pay-for-play" content. Or, in other words, clients can pay to have stories written and published on this network of sites. While reputable news websites would either label this type of content as "paid content" (or, more likely, simply avoid it altogether), these paid advertisements were published by the Metric Media Foundation as if they were regular news stories. The New York Times reported: New York Times reported Internal documents show how much influence the clients have. "The clients pay us to produce a certain amount of copy each day for their websites," said one tool kit for new writers. "In some cases, the clients will provide their own copy." No.  This rumor can be traced back to an article published on a pink slime news network in May 2022 that mischaracterized a presentation slide about equitable grading. School officials did not say they were preparing to implement any changes to their grading system, much less adjustments that would force teachers to account for a student's race or ethnicity. Furthermore, any potential future changes to how students are graded would apply to all students, not just students of a specific race.  OPRF said in a statement: "OPRFHS does not, nor has it ever had a plan to, grade any students differently based on race." OPRF said in a statement We reached out to West Cook News with questions about the article, but did not receive a reply by publication time. [From the Snopes archives: Did Oregon Officials Say Showing Work in Math Class Is White Supremacism?] Did Oregon Officials Say Showing Work in Math Class Is White Supremacism Advocacy Groups and Metric Media Collaborate on Local Community News. Columbia Journalism Review, https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/community-newsmaker-metric-media-local-news.php/. Accessed 1 June 2022. Alba, Davey, and Jack Nicas. As Local News Dies, a Pay-for-Play Network Rises in Its Place. The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2020. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/technology/timpone-local-news-metric-media.html. Editor, Henry Scott |. for and Publisher. Exploiting the Local News Desert: Are Political and Foreign Interests Profiting from the Locals Loss? Editor and Publisher, https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/exploiting-the-local-news-desert,207894. Accessed 1 June 2022. Follow The Money: Right-Wing Funding Of Pink Slime Websites Tracked In New Study. News, 4 Nov. 2021, https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2021/11/03/follow-the-money-right-wing-funding-of-pink-slime-websites-tracked-in-new-study. Gabbatt, Adam. The Fake News Sites Pushing Republicans Critical Race Theory Scare. The Guardian, 17 Nov. 2021. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/17/fake-news-sites-republicans-critical-race-theory-scare. Hundreds of Pink Slime Local News Outlets Are Distributing Algorithmic Stories and Conservative Talking Points. Columbia Journalism Review, https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/hundreds-of-pink-slime-local-news-outlets-are-distributing-algorithmic-stories-conservative-talking-points.php/. Accessed 1 June 2022. Press, Associated. Republican Retracts False Claim Schools Placing Litter Boxes for Furry Students. The Guardian, 29 Mar. 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/29/nebraska-lawmaker-litter-boxes-claim-debunked. Romain, Michael. Conservative Site Seeking to Fill News Void Invites Suspicion. Oak Park, 27 Apr. 2021, https://www.oakpark.com/2021/04/27/conservative-site-seeking-to-fill-news-void-invites-suspicion/. D97 Updates Board on Racial Equity Analysis Tool. Oak Park, 20 May 2020, https://www.oakpark.com/2020/05/20/d97-updates-board-on-racial-equity-analysis-tool/. Statement Regarding Grading Practices. https://www.oprfhs.org/news/1742090/statement-regarding-grading-practices. Accessed 1 June 2022. The Metric Media Network Runs More than 1,200 Local News Sites. Here Are Some of the Non-Profits Funding Them. Columbia Journalism Review, https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/metric-media-lobbyists-funding.php/. Accessed 1 June 2022. Tugade, F. Amanda. Building out Equity Projects Goal of OPRFs Equity Chief. Oak Park, 1 Feb. 2022, https://www.oakpark.com/2022/02/01/building-out-equity-projects-goal-of-oprfs-equity-chief/. Why Equitable Grading Policies Matter. 15 Nov. 2021, https://eab.com/insights/expert-insight/district-leadership/why-equitable-grading-policies-matter/. On Jan. 9, 2023, we reviewed an Ulta Beauty email scam that claimed recipients had won a $500 gift card. This was a phishing scam, and it did not come from Ulta Beauty. The Ulta Beauty email scam claimed to come from "Ulta Department 74130" via an email address that ended with the domain name, climatekids.net. "Answer and win a brand new $500 Ulta Beauty gift card," the email read.  We scanned the link in the scam email with IPQualityScore.com's helpful malicious URL scanner, which readers can use for free. The scan found that the link was "very risky" and contained "suspicious activity." malicious URL scanner We visited the link in a safe way and noted that it began on cosmosis.org, then redirected to quinyspike.com. The browser then redirected once more to resonatorbang.com, where we were presented with the fake survey. The fake survey began, "Congratulations! You've been chosen to receive a brand new $500 Ulta Beauty Gift Card! To claim, simply answer a few quick questions regarding your experience with us.Attention: This survey offer expires today, January 9, 2023." After the fake survey, we were redirected for the final time togillydealdays.com, where we were asked to provide our personal information and a credit card number. The credit card number was supposedly needed to pay shipping costs for the $500 gift card. We strongly advise against providing any such details to websites that readers are unfamiliar with. Always safeguard your personal and financial data when browsing online. Remember that if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. We checked the Whois domain information for the registration ofgillydealdays.com. According to the details we found, the website had been registered for the first time ever just four days before on Jan. 5. Brand new websites can often be a sign of a scam, and that's exactly what was happening here. "Malicious URL Scanner | Scan URLs for Malware | Malware URL Checker." IP Quality Score, https://www.ipqualityscore.com/threat-feeds/malicious-url-scanner. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. "WHOIS Domain Lookup." GoDaddy, https://www.godaddy.com/whois. If you havent heard U.S. Rep.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, say she is fighting for the middle class in her bid for the U.S. Senate, you havent been listening.But you can be forgiven. The gubernatorial recall all but filled Wisconsins political bandwidth until the election was held June 5, 2012.Now, more attention will turn to Baldwin and the four Republicans seeking to succeed Democrat Herb Kohl in the November 2012 Senate election.Baldwin sounded the middle class theme in attacking the best known GOP candidate, former governorTommy Thompson, in amemoreleasedto the media May 30, 2012.She declared:Thompsons tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.The 1 percent are people with incomes over $343,000, according to the memo.Sounds like a good deal for them. But is Baldwin on target?Baldwins evidenceBaldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin's is based on a flat tax provision in a tax reformplanthat Thompsonreleasedin April 2012.Two paragraphs in the four-page document are devoted to the flat tax.For two years, individual taxpayers could opt to file a tax return with a 15 percent rate, or file a return using existing exemptions. After two years, Thompson would move to an across-the board flat tax with provisions to encourage savings, investment, home ownership and support for charities, the plan says.Heres the Baldwin math:In 2009,accordingto the latest figures available from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of federal income tax returns amounts to nearly 1.38 million people. They all earned more than $343,927.That group generated just over $1.32 trillion in adjusted gross income, which resulted in a total of just over $318 billion in income taxes paid.Had a 15 percent flat rate been in effect, the 1 percent would have paid $198.7 billion in taxes or $119.3 billion less, under Thompsons plan.That means those taxpayers would have paid an average of $86,502 less in income taxes.Thompson campaign spokesman Brian Nemoir noted that tax rates ranged from 10 percent to 35 percent in 2009 (as they do now). He said Thompsons plan better balances the nearly half of all Americans that dont pay income taxes against the nations top 1 percent of earners, who pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected.As for Baldwins figures, he said her analysis seems sufficient.While Thompson's proposal lacks enough detail for analysis, the Tax Policy Centerevaluatedthe more detailed 15 percent flat tax plan advanced by Newt Gingrich during his 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination. The center concluded that no one, regardless of income, would see a tax increase under Gingrich's plan. Under onescenario, which divided all taxpayers into five groups based on income, all five groups would get a tax cut under Gingrich's plan.So, its likely Thompsons plan would benefit many more groups than the 1 percent cited by Baldwin, who is using that approach to bolster her underlying point.As for the specifics of Baldwin's claim, we ran her numbers by three tax experts: Tax Policy Center senior fellowRoberton Williamsand Tax Foundation economistMark Robyn, both in Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance presidentTodd Berryin Madison.All three said Baldwin is generally on target, but that Thompsons plan is too short on details to know for sure whether Baldwins $87,000 figure is on the money.Williams said Baldwins numbers, on their face, are accurate.Its a back-of-the-envelope calculation, thats what it is, said Robyn.Robyn and Berry agreed the 1 percent would almost certainly get a tax break under Thompsons plan, but they couldnt say whether Baldwins figure is accurate because Thompsons plan doesnt specify what deductions and exemptions might remain under his flat tax and who would qualify for them.Her calculations are probably overstated a little, but we dont know how much, said Berry.Our ratingBaldwin said Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent and Thompson didnt refute the figure.Tax experts said Baldwins figure is in the ballpark, at least as an estimate, but that Thompsons flat tax proposal lacks too much detail to know for sure.Baldwins claim is accurate but needs additional information -- our definition of Mostly True. An image purportedly showing a billboard advertisement for Trump Tower Mumbai  which shows a photograph of the American businessman and President-elect alongside the slogan "There is only one way to live" with a group of apparently homeless people sitting and sleeping in the street beneath it  was circulated on social media in December 2016:     Embed from Getty Images A billboard for the upcoming luxury residential apartment complex Trump Tower Mumbai, which bears the name of billionaire real estate tycoon and US presidential hopeful Donald Trump, is seen next to a busy road in Mumbai on June 3, 2016. Trump, the Republican frontrunner in the US presidential elections, to his fans, is the definition of American success, the cut-throat tycoon who can magically fix all that ails a nation no longer sure of its place in the world, and home to an increasingly frustrated white working and middle class. But there is barely a corner of Manhattan that the Trump Organization hasn't conquered with luxury buildings. Its portfolio of hotels, golf courses, casinos and luxury estates straddles the world, from California to Mumbai. A photograph published by India news outlet Mid-Day in May 2016 also shows that a similar billboard in the same area displayed the slogan "Trump is back" rather than "There is only one way to live": Mid-Day    We uncovered an image that was posted on 21 December 2016 by Muhammad Sabir, the founder of Slumabad (an organization that works to give homeless children access to education and economic opportunities) along with a message about income inequality: posted Muhammad Sabir Slumabad This photo tells a story of poverty, inequality and deprivation of basic human dignity and rights. It puts all human development in question and asks basic simple questions from us: Can we call ourselves civilized, while we see our fellow human beings living on footpath like animals? Is there only one way to live left for millions of deprived souls? Let us hope sun also rises for marginalized souls, I mean sun of equality, development and justice. While many people who viewed the image were initially skeptical about its authenticity (including us), the image is real. It was originally posted to Facebook on 27 August 2014 by Paul Needham, who took the photograph: Needham also sent us a high-resolution, uncropped version of the photograph to prove its authenticity:   He also sent us different photographs of the same scene:     Note: The original version of this article said that the image was not real, based on our initial inability to track down its photographer or source. We have now heard from him and updated our article accordingly. Singh, Varun.  "Donald Trump Is Mumbai builder's Latest Poster Boy."
  Mid-Day.  31 May 2016.