Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Said 'Jewish Space Lasers' Caused California Wildfires?
In March 2024,Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia was questioned about her support for fringe conspiracy theories by journalist Emily Maitlis, who asked her to talk about her supposed past comments on "Jewish space lasers." Their interaction went viral on social media as Greene used an expletive and walked away. Marjorie Taylor Greene questioned viral media used BREAKING: Marjorie Taylor Green said it was Jewish space lasers that caused the California wild fires. She loses it when asked about it by British Journalist: She responds "why don't you F**ck off"! The BBC is a discredited legacy media based on lies and deception. pic.twitter.com/vWgiW8b77c pic.twitter.com/vWgiW8b77c  Khalissee (@Kahlissee) March 6, 2024 March 6, 2024  Greene has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and antisemitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires."   Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of antisemitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as a "Mixture."
Claim: A Facebook coupon offering 50% off at Target stores is real.  Example: [Collected via Facebook, November2015]I saw this on Facebook this afternoon. Similar to the Kohl's hoax coupon going around in the last week or so.   Origins: InNovember 2015, a survey scam began circulating on Facebook which promised users 50% off at Target stores in exchange for liking, commenting, and sharing the scam with their friends:    The scam circulated via a variety of images and directed people toseveral different URLs (such as holidayschristmas.com and Coupon-Christmas.com), none of which were associated with Target stores:   Once users commented, shared and liked the coupon  ensuring that the scam reached a wider audience  they were directed to a survey site where they were required to provide personal information, fill out surveys, and make a purchase before they could retrieve their coupons. Even then, however, a 50% off Target coupon was unlikely to materialize, as this promotion wasnotconnected with the store: not   These survey scams are quite popular on Facebook. The customers of Target (previously)Costco,Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, and Walmarthave all been targeted by similar scams. Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Walmart These ruses are so prevalent that theBetter Business Bureauissued a warning about them in 2014:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Better Business Bureau Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.    Last updated: 25 November 2015 Originally published: 25 November 2015 As the Taliban took over Afghanistan, U.S. President Joe Biden pulled American troops out in August 2021, with the last military plane departing at the end of the month, marking the end of a two-decade-long presence in the country.  pulled  Biden has faced plenty of criticism for the rushed departure particularly from right-wing voices, and the internet pulled out an old article he wrote for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), titled "How I Learned to Love the New World Order, to bolster arguments against him. According to numerous posts like this one, the essay was arguing for the destruction of national sovereignty and the establishment of a one world government.  one Some claimed that because of the headline, Biden supported a New World Order, which advocates for one world government. This stems from the New World Order (NWO) conspiracy theory, which claims that a secret group of global elites is seeking to establish an all-powerful, authoritarian, one-world government.  New World Order   The essay was indeed published by The Wall Street Journal on April 23, 1992. We found a copy in the archives of the New York Public Library. The full version can be seen below: New York Public Librar   Biden wrote the essay in response to a Wall Street Journal editorial that claimed he was in favor of neo-isolationism. To be clear, in Biden's essay, he was not talking about the NWO conspiracy theory. He argued that the Pentagons strategy of making America a Globocop would render it a hollow superpower.  The highlights made in the blog post above about his essay do not support the argument that Biden wants to destroy national sovereignty. In the article Biden argues for Americans to pull back on military intervention and build up economic might: Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt. The essay also addresses Americas role as a Globocop, arguing that Power also emanates from [...] the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout, and not from the barrel of a gun. Biden argues in favor of multilateral military action by breathing life into the U.N. Charter. He envisions "a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action  but with a U.S. veto. He concluded: We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.  The blog post makes another claim: that Biden wrote the WSJ article many years before writing the Patriot Act, a counterterrorism bill that increased surveillance capabilities by U.S. law enforcement after 9/11. This is partially true, because Biden did support the Patriot Act and claimed he was responsible for authoring earlier versions of counterterrorism legislation that featured prominently in it. Biden introduced and authored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which he argued provided one source of inspiration for the 2001 Patriot Act.  counterterrorism claimed In October 2001, he said in a Senate speech supporting the Patriot Act: It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are identical or nearly identical to those I previously proposed.  Senate speech The Patriot Act was criticized by civil rights advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who said it turned regular citizens into suspects, and resulted in a loss of privacy. While civil rights experts have criticized his support for the law, that criticism does not suggest that Biden is trying to build a one world government.  American Civil Liberties Union While the WSJ did publish this essay by Biden, the article did not make the arguments that critical blog posts on social media are claiming. As such, we rate this claim as False. Sources: Afghanistan: Last US Military Flight Departs Ending Americas Longest War. BBC News, 31 Aug. 2021. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58390085. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. "How I Learned to Love the New World Order." Wall Street Journal (1923-), Apr 23, 1992, pp. 1. ProQuest, https://ezproxy.nypl.org/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.i.ezproxy.nypl.org/historical-newspapers/how-i-learned-love-new-world-order/docview/135656899/se-2?accountid=35635. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Hsu, Hua. 50 Years of Conspiracy Theories - New World Order -- New York Magazine - Nymag. New York Magazine, https://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Senate Approves USA PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism Legislation. https://sgp.fas.org/congress/2001/s102501.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Ungurean, Geri. JOE BIDEN Proclaimed How He Learned to Love the NEW WORLD ORDER in a Wall Street Piece from 1992: Article Is Clearly Shown in This WP Piece. Absolute Truth from the Word of God, 30 Aug. 2021, https://grandmageri422.me/2021/08/30/joe-biden-how-i-learned-to-love-the-new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. Despite lower income-tax rates enacted by lawmakers, Wisconsin workers didnt see the result in their paychecks in 2013 unless they took special action. Taxpayers will see the benefit when they file their tax returns this year and get either a larger refund or a smaller bill. Why? The state did not change the tax withholding tables to reflect the new, lower rates -- following a long tradition in Madison. The state currently has no plan to update the withholding tables in 2014, either. Thats the sum of what we learned as we checked out a claim by state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma, about what the average worker would save from the tax cut approved in 2013 by Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker. Vinehout, who is mulling a run for governor this fall, opposed the tax cut, as did many Democrats. She says the savings for individual families wasnt worth the $650 million in lost revenue to the state over two years. This is what shetold a small audiencein Waukesha on Dec. 5, 2013: Get rid of the tax decrease, Vinehout said. Did you know -- you might not know this -- if you make the average amount of people in Wisconsin, $50,000, you got $1.60 less a week in taxes? You might not have known that because they didnt change the withholding tables, so it didnt show up in your paycheck. She added: But, if you file for your refund, and lets say you file it a little late, and you get that refund sometime in June, youll maybe have a little more money, which might be just about the time the governors is out there on the campaign trail saying, hmm, you got more money in your pocket because of what I gave you. Lets examine the elements of Vinehouts claim. Checks in the mail Wisconsin Revenue Department spokesperson Laurel Patrick confirmed that withholding tables were not updated after the tax cut, and said no decision has been made to do so in 2014 either. The tax cut reduced rates in all five tax brackets. That means the tax-rate changes are not automatically reflected on peoples paychecks. To get the tax savings on their regular paycheck, employees must file a new WT-4 or WT-4A form with their employer. Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the state, with a few exceptions, has long tried to help its immediate cash flow needs by not automatically making tax cuts show up on peoples paychecks. The practice predates Walker. The state is now over-withholding by 20 percent or more because it has typically not adjusted the tables, Berry said. Many taxpayers may prefer getting a lump sum at refund time, Berry said, but they should understand that as a group they essentially are giving state government a billion-dollar annual no-interest loan that adds to the state deficit under generally accepted accounting principles. Politicians know its more politically valuable for people to get a nice refund in 2014, Berry said. Whats the savings? The rest of Vinehouts claim was that if you make the average amount of people in Wisconsin, $50,000, you got $1.60 less a week in taxes under the income tax cut. When we asked for evidence, Vinehouts office pointed to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau analysis of the tax savings from the income-tax changes, and to separate state figures on tax burdens. The average Wisconsin adjusted gross income, across all types of filers, was $47,310 for tax year 2010, according to a Revenue Department analysis. There is 2011 data, the latest available, that puts the figure at $48,537, according to Dale Knapp, research director at the Taxpayers Alliance. Vinehout looked up that average income in the June 2013 memo by the non-partisan Fiscal Bureau, which presents ranges of income along with tax changes estimated for 2014. The Fiscal Bureau is the independent budget scorekeeper in Madison, and its reports on taxes are used by both parties to gauge the impact of proposals. The bureaus analysis said that in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, the average savings is $85 for one year. That works out to $1.63 a week, which Vinehout referred to as $1.60 in her claim. So, Vinehout puts the average income into the slot, and with a bit of rounding her figure for the average tax change is on target. Theres some imprecision built in here, though, because the Fiscal Bureau memo uses income ranges rather than one particular income. So while Vinehout mentions $50,000, she gets the $1.60 average tax change from an income range of $40,000 to $50,000. And because the average state income is above the midpoint of that range, its likely the average tax change would differ slightly from the $1.60. There are other ways to illustrate the impact of the tax cut. One is to look at the types of filers rather than just the composite income brackets as in the Fiscal Bureau memo. Depending on the example used, one approach yields a smaller tax change figure than Vinehouts approach, the other a larger one. The average single person who filed taxes had $26,556 in income, while married couples had an average of $83,480, said Knapp. Walker, for his part,chooses the married couple example. Such a couple with two children would save about $173 a year, or $3.33 per week over the two years. On the lower end, the average single would see a weekly savings of about 73 cents. The overall state average that Vinehout cites is a middle ground between those two numbers. Our rating Vinehout said that if you make the average amount of people in Wisconsin, $50,000, you got $1.60 less a week in taxes under the $650 million state income-tax cut, but it didnt show up in your paycheck. The average income she cites is slightly high but within reasonable rounding range. She uses a reliable source for her tax-change numbers, and they are on target or very close, with the caveat that the analysis is set up for income ranges rather than a precise income. Shes right that the tax cut did not just show up in workers paychecks, due to inaction by the state. With the clarifications noted, we rate her claim Mostly True. If you wish to comment on this item, please clickhereto go to JSOnline.com. On 18 January 2017, web site GotNews posted an article reporting that U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is perhaps most famous for participating in the Civil Rights Movement at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pay property taxes on a $1 million townhouse located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C.: article Trump-hating Democratic Georgia congressman John Lewis didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse on Capitol Hill, despite being in Congress for decades, where the salary for a Representative starts at $174,000 per year. Lewis was in the news recently for saying he doesnt see President-elect Donald J. Trump as a legitimate president because of the #RussianHackers Democratic conspiracy theory. The article displayed a table showing annual property tax payments for the home in question and a legal notice from 2010 alerting Lewis of a court action against him (the case was later dismissed). It's unclear how this table supposedly documents that Lewis "didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse," given that it lists tax payments due on the property for each of the last several years and shows nothing owing other than the most recent payment (for the last half of 2016):  Moreover, a different view from the same D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue web site shows that the taxes on Lewis' property have indeed been collected, as due, for each of the last several years:  We contacted Lewis's spokeswoman, Brenda Jones, who told us that he bought the home years before property values soared, that he still owns it, and that he is not behind on his taxes: He pays property taxes annually, just as all homeowners in DC do, and his taxes are paid and up to date. Any report that he avoids paying taxes grasps at straws and is a desperate and unnecessary attempt to tarnish his credibility, instead of debating the substance of issues he has raised. Neither the home in question, nor any properties under Lewis' name, appearedon a database search of properties seized and placed on sale for failure to pay property taxes. database A second item of alleged proof offered by GotNews.com was a 2010 "notice of pendency of action," a legal notice ofcourt actions relating to real property. The document appears to be a notice of a foreclosure hearing. That case, however, was dismissed on 11 February 2011: notice  According to current public records available as of 19 January 2017, Lewis still owns the property, confirming that the case was dropped. It was purchased in 1988 (for an unknown price) and is currently valued at $865,790. An explanation offered by Lewis's office states that in 2010 he nearly lost his home to foreclosure but was able to stop the process: explanation Rep. Lewiss Washington, DC property was purchased decades ago for a fraction of its current value today. As most Washingtonians and any real property expert know, property values in the city have risen exponentially in the last 10 to15 years. Rep. Lewis is delighted that he made a wise investment years ago, and that his propertys value has skyrocketed. He also realizes he likely could not afford to purchase his own home were he seeking to buy it today. In 2010, he was subjected to attempts to foreclose upon his home, like many Americans during that period. He is fortunate that he was able to stop that process, though many Americans, including many hundreds of his constituents, were not as successful. His property taxes are paid and currently up to date. GotNews.  "Trump-Hating Democratic @RepJohnLewis DIDNT PAY TAXES On His Nearly $1 Million Fancy DC Townhouse."
18 January 2017. Seipel, Brooke."Rep. John Lewis: Trump Isn't a 'Legitimate President.'"
The Hill.13 January 2017. Wootson, Cleve R. "In Feud With John Lewis, Donald Trump Attacked 'One of the Most Respected People in America.'"
The Washington Post.15 January 2017. In early-to-mid-March 2019, photographs of President Donald Trump and members of his family posing with Li Yang, a political donor and spa entrepreneur, circulated on social media. The images were used to link the Trumps with a sting operation in Florida. link Yang, who posted a widely seen selfie taken at Trump's 2019 Super Bowl party to her Facebook account, once owned what is now the Orchids of Asia massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was one of 25 men arrested in February 2019, accused of soliciting sex there in a sweeping, human-trafficking sting that targeted that site and others. selfie sting Kraft, a self-described friend of Trump, faces two counts of misdemeanor solicitation, to which he has pleaded not guilty. friend not guilty Yang no longer owns the establishment in which police say Kraft was caught on camera paying for sex. She has not been charged with a crime. camera Nevertheless, the images of Yang, Trump and members of his family were picked up and used to create an inaccurate meme claiming she is the spa's owner, which was shared with the nearly 8 million followers on the Facebook page belonging to Occupy Democrats on 8 March 2019.Although the Occupy Democrats Facebook page sarcastically discourages followers to share the meme, its administrators also added a "correction" in the post above the image: Occupy Democrats   Yang was swept into the lurid story after images of her with Trump and his family members surfaced on her Facebook page, which, as the Miami Herald reported, "raised questions about who can gain access to the president at his resorts and other private businesses, as well at official venues like fundraisers." reported Some news stories linked Yang to the day spa raided by police by describing her as the "founder," although when the site changed ownership in 2012, its name also changed. Yang sold the business, which at the time was called the Tokyo Day Spa, to Hua Zhang, who changed the name of the establishment to Orchids of Asia upon incorporation in 2012, according to Florida state business records. Zhang, 58, has been charged with prostitution-related counts and has pleaded not guilty. As the Associated Press reported: incorporation not guilty Yang, who goes by Cindy, wasnt charged in the multiagency anti-human trafficking operation that resulted in 25 arrests and shut down 10 Asian day spas in south Florida. None of the spas are registered to Yang or her family. She sold the Jupiter spa around 2013 to Hua Zhang, who has pleaded not guilty to racketeering and running a house of prostitution. Yangs family still owns several south Florida spas. The familys Tokyo Day Spa branches have attracted the attention of at least two police agencies, the Herald reported. Yang told the Herald, which published the photo of her with Trump on Friday (March 8), that she and her family havent broken the law. She said she is out of the business, would soon be relocating to Washington and didnt want any negative news media attention. published the photo of her with Trump Occupy Democrats (OD) Co-Founder Omar Rivero told us in an email he felt he had no choice but to leave the meme live with the correction added to the post. Once an image is posted on Facebook, it can't be replaced or edited. If the image were to continue to circulate with the error even after after OD had deleted it from their page, and if Facebook were to flag the image as false, the deletion would result in a penalty for the page.  "Its a really weird thing that doesn't make sense to me either," he explained. "Normally I would just delete it but I can't risk another hit to our reach [due to a Facebook penalty] over a minor mistake." Blaskey, Sarah, etal."Trump Cheered Patriots to Super Bowl Victory With Founder of Spa Where Kraft Was Busted."
Miami Herald.8 March 2019. Greenlee, Will."Details in Spa Sex, Human Trafficking Released; Neighbor Says Case 'Like a Movie.'"
Treasury Coast Newspapers.20 February 2019. Winter, Tom, and Kesslen, Ben."Patriots Owner Robert Kraft Charged With Soliciting Prostitution."
NBC News.22 February 2019. Nehamas, Nicole, etal."Massage Parlor Magnate Helped Steer Chinese to Trump NYC Fundraiser, Attendee Says."
Miami Herald.9 March 2019. Associated Press."Report: Spa Founder Attended Trumps Super Bowl Party."
8 March 2019. On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign: Jeremy Diamond INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  Diamond's tweet sparked a number of articles and blog posts stating it was "impossible" to cancel recurring Trump campaign donations, based solely or primarily on the anecdotal, secondhand claim made  in that tweet. Among the comments prompted by original tweet sent by Diamond were those left by other purported donors asserting that the claim wasn't exactly accurate:  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016 August 6, 2016   A large number of commenters expressed skepticism about the report, given that the claim was anonymously  sourced from a single individual: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP  Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  We were unable to turn up any reports about the issue that antedated Diamond's tweet. If any Trump donors had previously encountered difficulties canceling their recurring donations, they didn't seem to chatter very much about it on social media prior to 3 August 2016 (and ceasing to support Trump as a candidate is only one reason someone might seek to cancel a recurring payment). Diamond appeared to pass the baton on the story overall, updating followers later with a link to an article published by Mic: The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 @mic https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016  Diamond did not provide any further information about the claim, the claimant, or how he verified it before sharing it to Twitter. But Mic attempted to reproduce the problem on 4 August 2016 and gathered more information on the difficulty level of canceling recurring Trump donations. In a series of screenshots the site illustrated their findings, stating it was not possible to delete a stored credit card without replacing it with a separate valid credit card:  After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system  either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email. Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card  only "update" it. Then, when you click on "update card," you see a page that allows you to alter your payment information  but you cannot completely delete your credit card. You are forced to replace it with another valid card: Invalid numbers are rejected. One responder to the original tweet then objected to that claim, stating it was impossible to set up a recurring $1 donation:  .@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE  ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation: enter  Mic confirmed that if a putative donor set up an account, then it would be possible for that person to cancel a recurring donation made via Trump's web site: It turns out that there is a way to delete your card from the Trump campaign's system, but it seems you must have first registered an account and created a password: If you did not do so, there is no clear way to cancel your payment. Assuming you did create an account and have logged in, to stop your payment you must click the small gray question mark icon in the upper right corner of the donations page. Then you will see [a separate] screen. In order to delete your card, you must click "manage." Then will you be redirected to the website of the Trump campaign's vendor. There you must click "recurring plans," and only then can you cancel your monthly payment; notably, even after you cancel, there is still no obvious way to delete your card number without replacing it with another valid number. Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way.  Revv However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments: notes If you have regular, automatic deductions from your checking account (to pay for expenses such as insurance premiums or utility bills), the EFTA allows you to stop those payments. First, notify the vendor. Next, tell your bank about your request at least three business days before the money is scheduled to be transferred. Your notice to the bank may be oral, but the institution may require you to provide a written follow-up within 14 days to ensure that no additional payments are made. If you fail to provide a written follow-up, the bank is no longer responsible for stopping future payments. Stopping an automatic, recurring payment on a credit card is different. Start by putting in your request with the vendor. But if the vendor continues to charge your credit card, contact your card issuer. You'll have 60 days to dispute the charge, starting when the card issuer sends you the statement with the charges. While it appears to be atypically difficult to cancel a recurring donation to the Trump campaign, it is certainly not impossible, as individuals who create an account can do so via the web interface. Overall, it seemed the problem related more to the interface of a third-party vendor (Revv) to whom the Trump campaign had outsourced donations and not to the campaign itself.  Dennin, James.  "Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations."
  Mic.  4 August 2016. 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 the weeks that followed the U.S. federal government's March 2020 approval of a $2.2 trillion stimulus package  the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  to jumpstart a pandemic-broken economy, journalists and economists combed through the legislation's 247-page PDF document outlining who would receive the financial help. CARES 247-page PDF document Early news reports on the bill had highlighted its funding boosts to help newly unemployed Americans, small businesses facing diminished profits, health care facilities on the frontlines of fighting the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, and qualifying taxpayers by giving them one-time checks of about $1,200 (or more depending on how they filed taxes and their number of children). Then, in mid-April, more headlines focused on the intricacies of the multi-faceted policy package  including the claim that U.S. citizens married to immigrants wouldn't qualify for the one-time payments like other taxpayers. intricacies the claim The implication was that if spouses of immigrants had different marriages, they'd be richer with the federal government's help. Numerous readers contacted Snopes to investigate the truth behind the claim. For our examination, we first looked at where the claim originated. On April 20, the Los Angeles Times published a news story headlined, "These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants," featuring stories of four couples, each of which includes an immigrant and will not be receiving the payments, as well as commentary from immigrant-rights advocates. The following day, CBS News published a story that cited the LA Times' reporting. Then, on April 22, Yahoo!'s lifestyle section republished an article from the so-called ScaryMommy website, a self-proclaimed source of "entertainment and information for millennial moms online." The post included editorialized phrasing, such as: These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants story Yahoo!'s lifestyle an article ScaryMommy "They just hate immigrants, and now, by default, American citizens who associate with them," the Scary Mommy post read, referring to the federal administration under U.S. President Donald Trump. "The government is leaving those people (and their families) out of help, and its heartbreaking." A rush of tweets, some lacking important context, followed. Among sharers of the LA Times story was U.S. Sen. Claire Celsi, a Democrat from Iowa, who said on Twitter:   Responding to her tweet, however, one user wrote: "I'm an immigrant. My wife is a US citizen. We got $2,400 as a direct deposit on April 15th. This is no less misleading than posting 'immigrants commit crimes.' It's technically true, but there is no causal link." one user Cue this fact check on who is and isn't eligible for the stimulus checks, called Economic Impact Payments, based on 2019 or 2018 tax returns. For those who are eligible, the CARES Act authorized the federal government to send: Additionally, for single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the payments by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families).  But to qualify, a recipient must be a "U.S. citizen, permanent resident or qualifying resident alien" under guidelines established by the Internal Revenue Service. The latter two categorizations cover foreign-born residents who have obtained green cards to prove their legal status to work and live in the country and Social Security Numbers (SSN). The provision in the CARES Act outlining the payments states: Internal Revenue Service   That means immigrants who do not have legal status are excluded from the stimulus payments, even if they have work visas or use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (which the IRS issues to workers without SSN) to pay annual taxes. Additionally, if they file joint tax returns with their spouses, both parties are ineligible for the checks; the CARES Act's provisions require both parties on a couple's return to have SSN and will not accept joint returns with one or more Individual Taxpayer ID numbers. (Different standards apply to military couples, however: "If either spouse is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces at any time during the taxable year, then only one spouse needs to have a valid SSN," according to the IRS.) According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research center, roughly 1.2 million immigrants without green cards are married to a U.S. citizen. Of that amount, the spouses who are U.S. citizens and filed single tax returns  regardless of their partner's immigration status  qualify to receive an individualized payment amount based on their income. Migration Policy Institute Given that significant caveat, as well as the fact that immigrants with green cards are eligible for the checks, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and false  U.S. citizens who filed joint tax returns with spouses who are immigrants without Social Security Numbers won't receive the payments, but spouses to immigrants with legal status will. H.R.748 CARES Act.  All ActionsH.R.748 116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov. Accessed 20 April 2020. Marfice, Christina. "U.S. Citizens Married To Immigrants Are Blocked From Getting Stimulus Checks".
 Yahoo!life. 22 April 2020. Marfice, Christina. "U.S. Citizens Married To Immigrants Are Blocked From Getting Stimulus Checks".
 ScaryMommy. 22 April 2020. Jarvie, Jenny. "These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants".
 Los Angeles Times. 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic Impact Payment Information Center".
 Accessed 24 April 2020. Migration Policy Institute. "Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States".
 Accessed 24 April 2020. The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback According to some posts on X (formerly known as Twitter), a Reddit account supposedly used by Aaron Bushnell, the U.S. Air Force member who died in February 2024 after lighting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., contained blatantly antisemitic comments. some posts on X These posts used a supposed screenshot ofa comment attributed to Bushnell, which read "Palestine will be free when all the jews are dead," to question his motives for carrying out his protest. These posts  (@TheHarrisSultan / X) This was not a real comment posted by "acebush1," the handle Bushnell allegedly used on Reddit, and cannot be attributed to Bushnell. On Feb. 25, 2024, just before 1 p.m. Eastern time, Bushnell went live on the video streaming platform Twitch. Dressed incombat fatigues, he walked up to the gate of the Israeli embassy, set his phone down so it would capture his actions, poured a liquid accelerant over his head out of a metal thermos, put on his cap and lit himself on fire. lit himself on fire While walking toward the embassy, Bushnell did provide a brief explanation for his action. "I will no longer be complicit in genocide," he explained to the camera. "I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal." As Bushnell lit himself on fire, he began repeatedly shouting "Free Palestine," interrupted by loud screams of pain. A censored version of the video, posted to X by independent journalist Talia Jane with permission from Bushnell's loved ones, can be viewed here. (Because the video, even censored, is very disturbing, Snopes has elected to only provide a link in lieu of embedding the footage.) Talia Jane here As the news of the act spread, various news outlets and individuals began investigating Bushnell's online presence. By using a since-deleted post on Bushnell's Facebook page that linked to his Twitch account, The Intercept was able to identify one of Bushnell's long-term usernames online: "acebush1." This is the username Bushnell supposedly used to post the antisemitic comment to Reddit. The Intercept We started by investigating who owns/owned the "acebush1" Reddit account, and we came to the same conclusion: It does appear to be owned by Bushnell. The posting history of the now-suspended account contains plenty of references to the Air Force and a confirmation that the user was an active-duty member. It also contains a lot of posts supporting leftist, mainly anarchist, viewpoints. The presence of those political views further solidifies the connection between the account and Bushnell, who, according to the BBC, sent emails to left-wing and anarchist news sites earlier that day alerting them to his planned protest. Finally, we cross-checked the "acebush1" username across other platforms and discovered that the Instagram account with that username, which was created in April 2018, also belonged to Aaron Bushnell. posting history BBC Instagram Next, we attempted to verify whether there was a comment made on Bushnell's Reddit account that matched the screenshots we saw on X. This process was complicated by the fact that many of Bushnell's Reddit posts had been deleted. However, by going to the "acebush1" user profile directly, Bushnell's comment history was still visible. According to the screenshots on X, the post in question was made "2 months ago." acebush1 We looked at all comments from the account that were posted between one month and three months ago just to be sure we would catch the comment in question. It wasn't there. We double-checked this using PullPush, a website that allows you to view the contents of deleted Reddit comments. Nothing matched the screenshot. We reverse image searched the photo of the supposed post on TinEye and Google and looked through those links to see if anyone could provide a link to the original comment. Again, nothing. PullPush TinEye Google In fact, according to athread posted to X(archived) by Talia Jane, the screenshot's original poster "got it from a friend." In conclusion, there is absolutely zero evidence for the claim besides the one screenshot of the supposed post shared on X. As such, we rate this claim "Fake." posted to X archived Some online have claimed that to rationalize his actions, Bushnell must have been mentally unstable. The history of self-immolation does not necessarily support that claim. According to Time magazine, self-immolation as an act of protest dates back centuries, as far back as an old Hindu practice of ritual suicide called sati and Catholic persecution during the Roman Empire. It was brought to international attention when photojournalist Malcolm Browne captured the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc while he was actively burning in 1963. In the years that followed, several American citizens set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War. Some Time sati Thich Quang Duc several American citizens More recently, Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in 2010 directly started the Tunisian Revolution and is credited as one of the main causes of the Arab Spring. In the United States, multiple people have self-immolated to protest inaction against climate change, first in 2018, then in2020, then in2022. Bushnell became the second American to do so in protest of Israeli military action in Gaza, following an unidentified personwho self-immolated outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta on Dec. 1, 2023. Mohamed Bouazizi's 2018 2020 2022 unidentified person Donald Trump Jr.claimedin a widespread tweet that former Vice President Joe Biden wants to raise taxes on 82% of all Americans. The eldest son of President Donald Trump wasrepeatingarefrainfrom the Republican National Convention, where Republican National Committee ChairRonna McDanielandEric Trumpmade similar claims. But the claim is misleading. Joe Biden wants to raise taxes on 82% of all Americans. Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, has pledged not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 per year,aswevereported. Independent tax analysts have found that his plan does not call for direct tax increases on anyone below that threshold. Tax analysts say the indirect effects of Bidens proposal to raise the corporate tax rate could mean slightly lower after-tax incomes for some lower earners. By one analysis, about 82% of Americans would feel these effects  though for many, the hit would be small. But thatdoesnt mean82% of Americans will have higher tax rates or owe more to the Internal Revenue Service, as the phrase raise taxes suggests. To the extent that the Trump campaign is using this figure to imply that individual income and payroll taxes will rise for 82% of Americans, the claim is misleading, said John Ricco, a senior analyst at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which is the basis for the 82% figure. Bidens tax plan aims to raise up to $4 trillion in revenues over a decade, according to theTax Policy Center. It would do so in part byrolling backsome of the tax cuts for corporations and people with taxable incomes over $400,000 that Trump signed into law in 2017. Among Bidens proposed changes, he would: Increase the top corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. Raise the top federal marginal income tax rate for individuals to 39.6%. Place a 12.4% Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $400,000. Tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for very high earners. Other independent groups have also examined Bidens tax plan, including theTax Foundation, thePenn Wharton Budget Model, theAmerican Enterprise Instituteand theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The groups havegenerally agreedthat Bidens plan largely targets corporations and the nations biggest earners. The Tax Policy Center, for example,estimatedthat more than 90% of the tax increases from Bidens plan would be borne by the top 20% of earners. No direct taxes are imposed on any household making less than $400,000 per year, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budgetwrotein its analysis. Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said there aresome specific scenarioswhere Bidens proposals related to itemized deductions, retirement benefits and payroll taxes could result in potential direct tax hikes for some households under $400,000. For example, in a scenario where one spouse makes more than $400,000 but the other incurs a loss that brings the adjusted gross income for their two-income household below $400,000, they could be hit by the Biden payroll tax, Watson said. In interviews, economic advisers to the Biden campaign said any final tax law would have mechanisms written in to prevent anybody making less than $400,000 from being inadvertently affected. Its not hard to have a hold harmless provision to deal with any oddball cases that seem unlikely to even ever arise, said Gene Sperling, a campaign adviser who was director of the National Economic Council under Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. The groups that examined Bidens tax plan also estimated that over time, some of the burden of Bidens tax increases would fall to people making less than $400,000 in the form of lower wages or investment returns  indirect effects of the proposed corporate tax rate increase. These effects would berelatively small, and tax analysts say they make up the bulk of the hits dealt to lower earners under Bidens tax plan. But they form the basis for Donald Trump Jr.s claim that 82% of Americans would see their taxes raised. A Trump campaign spokesperson argued that the impact of the corporate tax rate increase is effectively a tax increase on individuals. The Biden campaign, on the other hand, said the two are not equal. Nobody filling out their 1040 is going to see a tax increase, and nobody would consider that type of economic impact as a tax increase, even if it happened, said Sperling. (AP Photo) According to theTax Policy Center, the lowest 20% of earners would see their 2021 incomes drop by an average of $30 under Biden; the next would see an average loss of $110; the middle would see an average drop of $260; and the second-highest would see an average loss of $590. ThePenn Wharton Budget Modelprojects smaller average declines for 2021: $15 for the bottom 20%; $90 for the second quintile; $180 for the third quintile; and $360 for the fourth quintile. Trump Jr.s 82% figure comes from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which estimated what share of each income group would experience a tax change as a result of Bidens proposals. A little math gets to 82% of people affected. But the concept of indirect effects is distinct from how most normal people think about taxes, said Ricco, the Penn Wharton analyst. Only families with adjusted gross incomes of more than $400,000 would be sending a larger check to the IRS, or having more federal taxes withheld from their paychecks, Ricco said. Those taxpayers were between the top 1% and 2% of filers in 2017, said Watson, the Tax Foundation analyst, citing the IRS. The Penn Wharton Budget Model also shows how Bidens tax plan would affect Americans if the indirect effects of the corporate tax are excluded. With the corporate tax plan removed from the analysis, the average tax change drops to zero for the bottom 90% of earners. We expect that between 1% and 2% of American families would see increases in individual income and payroll taxes, Ricco said. There are other aspects of Bidens plans that arent reflected in independent tax analyses. The Trump campaign, for example, said Bidens plan to reinstate the penalty for not complying with the Affordable Care Actsindividual mandateshould be thought of as a tax  which is in line with theSupreme Courts reasoningwhen it upheld the mandate in 2012. The Biden campaign said its a fee, pointing to the Health and Human Services Departmentslanguage. Economic advisers to the Biden campaign, meanwhile, said the tax analysesdont account forBidens proposed tax credits and spending programs aimed at middle-class and lower earners. Those and other Biden proposals will substantially boost middle-class incomes for families across the country, said Biden campaign spokesperson Andrew Bates. Gordon Mermin, a senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center, said Biden has proposed many tax credits, including recent proposals for a refundable child- and dependent-care tax credit, a refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers, and a low-income renters credit. If the Penn Wharton Budget Model factored in Bidens tax credits  and it did not  then the 82% figure representing the percent of Americans who would experience changes to their after-tax incomes would be substantially lower, Mermin said. Ricco said the Penn Wharton analysis focused only on revenue-raising provisions. Donald Trump Jr. said, Joe Biden wants to raise taxes on 82% of all Americans. Trump inaccurately described an analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The 82% is a calculation made using the models estimates that represents the percentage of people whose after-tax incomes would change under Bidens plan. But theres a difference between a tax increase and the share of corporate tax increases borne by individual taxpayers in the form or lower investment returns or incomes. Biden has pledged not to directly raise taxes on people earning less than $400,000 per year. Some Biden tax credits not included in Penn Wharton analysis could potentially offset some of the indirect hits posed to lower earners as a result of Bidens proposed corporate tax hike. We rate this statement False.