Is Martial Law 'Imminent' Before Biden's Inauguration?
As U.S. President Donald Trump faced impeachment following the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, a video of a Texas pastor circulated widely online alleging that anonymous sources told him Trump would soon declare "martial law"  the temporary military takeover of civil functions such as policing and courts. faced deadly Capitol Rev. Wade McKinney, who leads a ministry in rural eastern Texas, used Facebook Live to stream himself talking in a vehicle for roughly 22 minutes on Jan. 9, and that video spread rapidly on YouTube and other platforms in the following days. In the footage, which Snopes obtained via McKinney's Facebook page before it was permanently removed, he said: other platforms I have got a lot of contacts the lord has helped me build over the last few years, and those contacts are people who have given me intelligence and given me information that has to do with our nation and it's future, so I could use it for Bible prophecy teaching. [...] We are looking imminently  and when I say imminently, I'm talking about the next two or three days  we're looking at a martial law being declared. This is coming straight from my contacts in D.C., ya'll. We are going to see martial law declared. What level, what degree of martial law? Whatever they have to do to bring things under a corrective mode. So, basically, what I'm trying to tell you is, you need to be prepared for there to be a martial law declaration. McKinney also claimed Trump's opponents in government "are going to be brought down" in some "house cleaning" and that the rest of America needed to prepare for that event. He urged viewers to secure cash, food, and supplies, such as fuel tanks for vehicles and bullets for gun owners, and develop communication plans should cell service supposedly stop. supposedly stop "It's the president's last effort," McKinney said of the alleged event, while making several other baseless claims regarding military efforts, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol insurrection. "We are in a battle for everything that God intended for this country." 2020 presidential election the Capitol insurrection   In short, the pastor alleged that Trump was preparing to invoke martial law and use military force to arrest his political opponents before Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. use military force First, to investigate those claims, Snopes reached out to McKinney to learn more about his alleged sources in Washington, D.C., and unidentified military bases  people he did not name but said told him about the president's purported plans. The pastor did not respond to us. We will update this report when, or if, he returns our message. It is common practice for reputable news organizations to report information from credible people who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions for speaking publicly and that journalists have cross-referenced with other sources. McKinney did not explain why, or under what circumstances, his alleged sources asked not to be named, nor did he outline any efforts to investigate their truthfulness. Now, let us explain the nature of the pastor's allegations. No federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law. However, other executive authorities  such as those provided in the Insurrection Act  give presidents the power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other safety issues. Over the course of history, presidents have relied on martial law to order military forces to take the place of civilian governments, like in Hawaii during World War II. Insurrection Act like in Hawaii during World War II The Brennan Center for Justice said of martial law: said It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. [...] To some observers, a deployment of troops under the Insurrection Act might look and feel very much like martial law. Given the degree of confusion over the term, some within the media or the government itself might even call it martial law. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act before or after he encouraged his supporters to try to block a ceremonial vote to affirm Biden's presidency and an angry mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6. Insurrection Act encouraged Additionally, he had not declared martial law as of this writing, and no credible evidence showed that he was preparing to do so. If, like McKinney alleged, people within the White House or Department of Defense wanted Americans to know that Trump was preparing to make the declaration, history shows they would not turn to one pastor living in rural Texas to spread the important announcement. Instead, they would use official communication methods, such as a news conference or public statement, to broadcast it widely. Also, Americans should rely on emergency management departments for trusted information on when, and how, they must prepare for natural or human-caused emergencies. None supported McKinney's recommendations to stock up on food and supplies prior to Biden's inauguration. Nonetheless, thousands of National Guard members were patrolling Washington, D.C., in the days between the Jan. 6 insurrection and Biden's swearing-in ceremony, and the FBI warned law enforcement agencies nationwide of armed protests at all 50 state capitols. warned But all of those efforts by military forces and law enforcement agencies were unrelated to martial law and the Insurrection Act, and they were not a scheme by Trump to arrest his political opponents during the final days of his term. Rather, they were strategies to try to preserve government properties and safety in the event of more election violence. In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim
Claim:  Atari buried millions of unsold E.T. game cartridges in a New Mexico desert landfill. LEGEND Origins:  In 1982, Warner Communications could honestly claim to own a goose that laid golden eggs. Its money-producing fowl was called Atari, a video game company it purchased for $28 million in 1976  which had since burgeoned into a $2 billion concern.  In the early 1980s Atari owned 80% of the video game market, it accounted for 70% of Warner's operating profits, and in the fourth quarter of 1982 the Wall Street "whisper number" concerning Atari's expected   earnings predicted a 50% increase over the previous year. The goose died at 3:04 P.M. EST on 7 December 1982, when Atari reported only a 10% to 15% increase in expected earnings, not the 50% figure so many people had been counting on.  By the end of the following day Warner stock had plummeted to two-thirds of  its previous value, and Warner closed out the quarter with its profits down a mind-boggling 56%.  (Even worse, a minor scandal erupted when it was revealed that Atari's president and CEO had sold 5,000 shares of Warner stock a mere 23 minutes before announcing Atari's disappointing sales figures.)  Atari racked up over half a billion dollars ($536 million) in losses in 1983, and by the end of 1984 Warner had sold the company. What accounted for the sudden death of Warner's prized goose?  A number of interrelated factors brought about its fatal illness:  Most of Atari's top programmers, disenchanted with the lack of respect, compensation, and freedom they were afforded under Warner management, left to work elsewhere.  Atari was selling its game consoles as cheaply as possible and expecting to make its profits from sales of game cartridges, but other companies such as Imagic and Activision (founded by some of the disenchanted Atari programmers mentioned above) cut into Atari's sales by creating their own cartridges for Atari consoles (and their games were far superior to what Atari itself was producing).  Atari's VCS game console was several years old by 1982, and its established customer base was being eroded by newer, better systems such as Mattel's Intellivision and Coleco's ColecoVision (especially when those systems started offering adapters that allowed customers to play VCS game cartridges without needing to own Atari consoles).  Even worse, the "next generation" system Atari finally unveiled in late 1982 ,the Atari 5200, was a huge disappointment (in part because its joysticks were poorly designed and difficult to use, and because it was incompatible with the huge existing base of VCS cartridges).  Atari's home consumer division had garnered huge profits by producing home versions of popular arcade games created by its own coin-op division (Asteroids) or licensed from other manufacturers (Taito's Space Invaders and Namco's Pac-Man), but let the licensing of that year's smash arcade hit, Donkey Kong, slip away from them.  (The license for Donkey Kong was instead snapped up by Coleco, who probably could not have successfully launched its competing ColecoVision game system without it.) The first signs of the goose's fatal illness came with Atari's Pac-Man cartridge.  Atari was so sure its home version of the world's most popular arcade game would reach new sales heights that it manufactured 12 million Pac-Man cartridges in 1982 (even though at the time only about 10 million people owned and used Atari VCS consoles), counting on the game's popularity to spur additional sales of the VCS.  With most of Atari's best in-house programmers long since having fled the company, the result was a colossal disappointment.  Pac-Man's animation was jerky, its moving images flickered annoyingly, and the Pac-Man character produced only a grating "bong" sound that was nothing like the arcade version's amusing sound effects.  Atari did eventually sell 7.7 million copies of Pac-Man, earning almost $200 million in gross profit sales for the company, but Atari was still stuck with millions of unsold Pac-Man game cartridges, and the poor quality of the game in comparison to the arcade version seriously tarnished Atari's image among consumers. As Goldberg and Vendel noted of the Pac-Man issue in their history of the company, Atari, Inc.: Business Is Fun: The result backfired on Atari by causing consumers to behave differently when purchasing games. There was already a growing mass of new low quality third party 'spam' titles on the market, and now with the experience of from rushing to buy Pac-Man for a premium and getting disappointed at its look, the tipping point for a new buyer environment was created. An environment where people would no longer blindly rush out to buy a newly released game, but would cautiously wait for reviews or feedback from others who'd bought the game. As a result, games purchases appeared to be curtailed in the second half of 1982, causing another new complication that sales and marketing would have to grasp and account for. If one game cartridge could be selected as the symbol of the sudden demise of Atari's golden goose, however, it would have to be the ill-fated E.T.: The Extraterrestrial game. Steve Ross, the head of Warner Communications, made a deal with Steven Spielberg to produce a home video game version of Spielberg's blockbuster E.T. film. Basing a video game on a movie rather than an established arcade hit or a tested game premise and expecting it to sell simply because of the popularity of the film might have been a questionable enough decision on its own (although Atari did enjoy moderate success with its video game version of Spielberg's previous   blockbuster, Raiders of the Lost Ark), but on top of that Ross forked over a whopping $21 million to acquire the rights to the title, committing Atari to sell a whopping 4 million cartridges just to recoup their costs.  Moreover, Ross made the deal in late July 1982 and insisted the game be ready in time for the Christmas sales season, leaving only a five week timeframe (rather than a more typical six months) for the E.T. game to be conceived, programmed, debugged, and put into production.  The sheer awfulness of the finished product was unprecedented.  Atari rushed E.T. through development in a matter of weeks to get it onto the market in time for Christmas, and the result was something many consumers found to be a virtually unplayable game with a dull plot and crummy graphics in which frustrated players spent most of their time leading the E.T. character around in circles to prevent him from falling into pits.  Atari produced 5 million E.T. cartridges, and according to Atari's then-president and CEO, "nearly all of them came back."  That statement was a bit of an exaggeration, but Atari was once again stuck with millions of unsold cartridges for a game that moved far fewer units than were produced: In total, five million copies of  E.T. were produced. Initially, only 500,000 games were sold, with another million eventually joining the sales. Out of the five million E.T. carts that would ship out to distributors, a staggering three and a half million games would be returned in total, many still in the distributor boxes; the retailers hadn't even sold enough to break open additional distributor shipping boxes to require a restock. [T]here were three and a half million unsold games and in the end, the  E.T. licensing deal was a complete loss for Atari. In a bout of hubris at the end of 1981, Atari had told its distributors to place their orders for 1982 all at once.  The distributors, anticipating another strong sales year, ordered aggressively, but when 1982 sales didn't meet expectations, those distributors were stuck with a lot of unsold Atari game cartridge inventory, which they returned to Atari in droves.  When ordinary distributor returns were added to the millions of unsold Pac-Man  cartridges and more millions of useless E.T. cartridges, Atari found itself with tons of unsellable merchandise to dispose of, which led to the rumor that Atari buried millions of E.T. cartridges in a landfill in the New Mexico desert. There is no question that Atari dumped and buried a whole lot of stuff in Alamogordo, New Mexico, in September 1983, as the New York Times (and other sources) reported at the time: With the video game business gone sour, some manufacturers have been dumping their excess game cartridges on the market at depressed prices. Now Atari Inc., the leading video game manufacturer, has taken dumping one step farther. The company has dumped 14 truckloads of discarded game cartridges and other computer equipment at the city landfill in Alamogordo, N.M. Guards kept reporters and spectators away from the area as workers poured concrete over the dumped merchandise. An Atari spokesman said the equipment came from Atari's plant in El Paso, Tex., which used to make videogame cartridges but has now been converted to recycling scrap. Atari lost $310.5 million in the second quarter, largely because of a sharp drop in video game sales. Due to the all the bad publicity over Atari's recent negative experiences with its Pac-Man and E.T. games, when news of the company's New Mexico landfill disposal became public knowledge many people assumed that those truckloads of discarded material included nothing but millions and millions of unsold E.T. cartridges (with perhaps some of those millions of unsold Pac-Man carts thrown in as well), all shamefully and furtively buried by Atari in an attempt to keep those embarrassingly colossal failures out of sight.  Exactly what Atari buried in that New Mexico landfill remains a subject of dispute, and in recent years various sources have challenged the notion that what Atari dumped there was millions of unsold E.T. game cartridges (or other unsold game titles).  According Goldberg and Vendel, the New Mexico site was actually used for disposal of a relatively small amount of unused and faulty stock and parts for cartridges, consoles, and computers from the company's El Paso plant, which was being retooled and automated to focus on the of manufacture of game consoles and home computers rather than the production of game cartridges (the latter operation being shifted to Asia).  While Atari did bury some millions of units of unsold game cartridge overstock, that (unpublicized) action took place near the company's headquarters in California, not in New Mexico: Manufacturing game cartridges had been a large part of the El Paso plant, but the new retooling left no room for them in this time of overstock ... The resulting clearance of truckloads of faulty and unused stock starting on September 22nd [1983] resulted in anything but positive press for the company, though, as it seemed Atari just couldn't catch a break from the media. Under cover of the night, several semi-trailers convoyed out of the [El Paso] plant to drive about an hour and a half south west. They were bound for a city dump in Alamogordo, New Mexico, chosen because New Mexico had a state law forbidding scavenging of landfills. The landfill was run by Browning Ferris  Industries (BFI), who contracted with the city and was making $300-$500 a truckload from Atari, all to cover their dumped contents with garbage and dirt and then steamroll them. [Three days later] Atari had already dumped eight truckloads when promising BFI only three a week, and still more were on the way. But that wasn't the worst of it; the public had found out. First it was the locals, who when word got out that Atari was dumping lots of cartridges, consoles and computers in their backyard, started sneaking into the dump to pilfer what they could. The hardware may have been crushed beyond use, but many of the games were still salvageable. It was when those games started showing up around town, titles like E.T., Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, that the local media picked up on the story.  Atari had brought in a security guard to watch over the site to stop the pilfering, but it did little to stop the prying eyes of the media, and by [September 26th] the national press was all over the story. This innocent dumping, a miniscule amount when compared to the entire size of Atari's actual overstock across the country, was done as an afterthought. However, thanks to article titles like UPI's "City dump gobbles Pacman," the dumping was fast becoming a symbol of the industry's problems. [Y]ou don't pour concrete over unusable scrap, [but] that's exactly what Atari did on September 29th, which only further fueled the interest over the dumping. Around 14 truckloads had been dumped before the PR nightmare was over. Yes, this is the very happening that gave rise to the myth of the supposed dumping of almost 3.5 million E.T. cartridges in the Alamogordo dump. Most of the overstock of game cartridges languishing in warehouses around the U.S., comprised of a wide breadth of Atari's home titles, were indeed disposed of  that's where myth meets reality. But this occurred in a dump in Sunnyvale [California]. In May 2013 Alamogordo's City Commission approved a deal for a Canada-based film production company (Fuel Industries) to excavate the Atari landfill site and produce a documentary about the legend of the buried E.T. cartridges.  That excavation was scheduled to take place on 26 April 2014 and to be open to the public: excavation Become a part of gamer history. Unearth the truth behind the ultimate urban legend. We're excited to announce that the excavation of the long-rumored "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" video game burial site will occur on April 26, 2014 and will be open to the public. Spectators are invited to watch the team uncover the infamous Atari game cartridge grave.  The Atari Corporation  faced with overwhelmingly negative response to the "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" video game  allegedly disposed of millions of unsold game cartridges by burying them in the small town of Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1983. Fuel Entertainment took an interest in the legend, and in December 2013, with help from local garbage contractor Joe Lewandowski, acquired the exclusive rights to excavate the Alamogordo landfill. Fuel Entertainment brought the opportunity to Xbox Entertainment Studios, and now, as part of a documentary series, the team will excavate the legendary New Mexico landfill to reveal the true story of Atari's bizarre burial.  Director Zak Penn will be documenting the dig and the events around it. In addition to fans and media, a variety of people tied to the dig, video game, and film will be in attendance  including "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" video game designer Howard Scott Warshaw, a team of archeologists, and representatives from Xbox Entertainment Studios. We hope you'll join us as we get to the bottom of one of gaming's biggest mysteries. A lucky handful of fans could even be interviewed for the film. See you in Alamogordo! On that date, news accounts reported the recovery of "hundreds" (not millions) of E.T. game cartridges from the Alamagordo landfill: A documentary film production company has found buried in a New Mexico landfill hundreds of the Atari "E.T." game cartridges that some call the worst video game ever made. Film director Zak Penn showed one "E.T." cartridge retrieved from the site and said that hundreds more were found in the mounds of trash and dirt scooped by a backhoe. About 200 residents and game enthusiasts gathered in southeastern New Mexico to watch backhoes and bulldozers dig through the concrete-covered landfill in search of up to a million discarded copies of "E.T. The Extraterrestrial" that the game's maker wanted to hide forever. "I feel pretty relieved and psyched that they actually got to see something," said Penn as members of the production team sifted through the mounds of trash, pulling out boxes, games and other Atari products.  Whatever the answer, it seems Atari sent its goose away not with the traditional gold watch, but with a pair of cement overshoes. Additional information:       Atari's E.T.: The Extraterrestrial  (AtariAge)   Last updated:  26 April 2014    Goldberg, Marty and Curt Vendel.  Atari Inc.: Business Is Fun.   Carmel, NY: Syzygy Company Press, 2012.  ISBN 978-0-9855974-0-5.    Kent, Steven L.  The First Quarter: A 25-Year History of Video Games.   Bothell, WA: BWD Press, 2000.  ISBN 0-9704755-0-0.    Llorca, Juan Carlos.  Diggers Find Atari's E.T. Games in Landfill.   Associated Press.  26 April 2014.    The New York Times.  "Atari Parts Are Dumped."    28 September 1983  (p. D4). Claim:  The U.S. dollar will officially collapse after 1 July 2014 due to the implementation of H.R. 2847. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2014] On this date, U.S. House of Representatives Bill "H.R. 2847" goes into effect. It will usher in the true collapse of the U.S. dollar, and will make millions of Americans poorer, overnight. You now have just several months to prepare ... Origins:  This item about the passage of H.R. 2847 causing the U.S. dollar to collapse as of 1 July 2014 is another example financial scarelore put out in conjunction with an investment come-on, in this case an ominous sales pitch put out by the folks at Stansberry & Associates Investment Research LLC. come-on This latest panic piece is offered in a Stansberry & Associates presentation featuring a number of scary-sounding statements about how we in the U.S. are soon to experience a "near-complete shutdown of the American economy," will see "the savings of millions wiped out," will be living under the imposition of martial law by the federal government, and will be struggling in the aftermath of a number of other apocalyptic financial scenarios. presentation And according to Stansberry & Associates, this remarkable, radical collapse of the United States monetary system and "our normal way of life" is going into effect in a mere matter of months (just like a similar recent conspiracy scare about the federal government's plan to eliminate 16 states from the U.S. in the very near future). 16 states But wait ... all one needs in order to avoid suffering from this devastating national calamity, one that will collapse our entire monetary system and spell doom for the American way of life, is a little information. Information that can be yours if you'll just shell out $149 for a one-year subscription to Stansberry's Investment Advisory newsletter. Or, as one wry commentator put it: subscription In other words, if a financial company spews a bunch of stuff that sounds sufficiently alarming, and then promotes its product as something that will help protect people against this horribly scary thing, it might be able to lure gullible folks into believing that a "fairly easy and inexpensive to protect themselves" against losing their money is for them to send their money to that company instead. And, unfortunately, such schemes work often enough to keep these types of schemers in business. So what is this all really about? H.R. 2847, also known as the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (or HIRE), was a Congressional bill passed into law in March 2010 that sought to provide payroll tax breaks and incentives for businesses to hire unemployed workers. A section of that bill, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (known as FATCA), sought to eliminate the non-compliance of U.S. taxpayers who hold foreign accounts by requiring those taxpayers (including those living outside the U.S.) to report certain foreign accounts and offshore assets to the government, and by requiring foreign financial institutions to report information about the ownership of overseas assets held by U.S. taxpayers to the government: HIRE FATCA   The problem originates in U.S. government efforts to prevent future offshore-banking tax scams like the UBS one in 2009. To keep better track of the flow of assets owned by U.S. citizens, Fatca requires bankers in other countries to send the IRS information about transactions by any of their customers who are Americans. Similarly, U.S. banks have to report to the IRS info on their non-U.S.-citizen customers, so the IRS can send it on to their home countries.   You can understand the motivation behind the rule. It's a big connected world economy, huge sums can be transferred anywhere in an instant, and much as INTERPOL or the World Health Organization have a legitimate interest in sharing data, so too might taxing authorities. In principle, everyone should pay his or her fair share, somewhere. As noted on the American Citizens Abroad web site: American Citizens Abroad   Starting July 1, 2014, FATCA will require FFIs to provide annual reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the name and address of each U.S. client, as well as the largest account balance in the year and total debits and credits of any account owned by a U.S. person.   If an institution does not comply, the U.S. will impose a 30% withholding tax on all its transactions concerning U.S. securities, including the proceeds of sale of securities.   In addition, FATCA requires any foreign company not listed on a stock exchange or any foreign partnership which has 10% U.S. ownership to report to the IRS the names and tax I.D. number (TIN) of any U.S. owner.   FATCA also requires U.S. citizens and green card holders who have foreign financial assets in excess of $50,000 (higher for those who are bona-fide residents abroad) to complete a new Form 8938 to be filed with the 1040 tax return, starting with fiscal year 2011. FATCA has been the subject of criticisms on a number of fronts (which the Treasury Department has attempted to counter in its own "Myth vs. FACTA" write-up), among them that the costs of implementing it may outstrip the additional revenues it will bring in, that it may prompt "capital flight" in the form of foreign financial institutions divesting themselves of U.S. assets, that foreign relations may be strained by the U.S. requiring foreign governments to gather and report (at their own expense) information on U.S. citizens, and that the law may make it difficult or impossible for U.S. citizens living and/or working abroad to open accounts in foreign banks: criticisms Myth vs. FACTA   But casting such a wide net is producing unintended consequences for some Americans who faithfully pay their taxes from afar.   Banks around the world are suddenly rejecting Americans as clients or customers, because they don't want the reporting and bureaucratic hassles, plus the potential exposure to draconian penalties. Non-Americans are pulling their assets out of U.S. banks. I get emails every day from American expats who say they are facing all kinds of problems bringing their long-standing foreign-based banking life into compliance with this new law. Some of them say they're getting ready to renounce their citizenship. Over the years I've had accounts with banks in England, Japan, Malaysia, China, and now Australia when living or working in those places, and I'm wondering what I have to worry about to make sure the remaining ones "comply."   "I have always filed my U.S. taxes just as I am supposed to," says Brian Dublin, 47, an American businessman now based in Zug, Switzerland, who has lived overseas for many years, including stints in Russia.   "However, as a result of FATCA, in the past year I have been kicked out of a Swiss bank that said, 'Hey, we love you, but we won't work with Americans.' I have also been kicked out of a Swiss pension fund. They told me they don't want any Americans in the fund. They don't want to work on behalf of the IRS," he says.   "And on top of that, I spend many hours and many dollars each year filing U.S. taxes when I sometimes turn out to have zero liability for that year because I have paid a lot of tax somewhere else," Dublin adds.   Dublin, a New York City native, says he will be eligible for Swiss nationality in the next few years and that if the situation has not dramatically changed he will give serious consideration to renouncing his U.S. citizenship. Writing in the New American, Alex Newman argued the more dire side of FATCA, speculating that it could potentially result in a large-scale movement by foreign investors to pull out of U.S. assets and markets:   Estimates suggest there is currently more than $21 trillion of foreign capital invested in American assets and markets, with about $10 trillion of that in the stock market. However, that could change as FATCA enforcement begins later this year  possibly quickly. The Japanese Bankers Association, the European Banking Federation, the Institute of International Bankers, and others, for example, have all openly warned in recent years that some of their members could decide to ditch U.S. assets and markets in response to FATCA.   Luxembourg Bankers' Association CEO Jean-Jacques Rommes, speaking to Democrats Abroad, warned that the best way for banks to lower compliance risks was simply to reduce the amount of American assets they hold. "In other words, divest from the US market, in general," he explained, as summarized by the Luxembourg Bankers' Association.   Multiple reports have suggested that small and medium-sized firms, unable to bear the compliance costs or the crippling withholding taxes, would be especially likely to ditch American markets. "On the institutional side, the cost of becoming FATCA compliant may be prohibitive for some foreign institutions, and therefore they will divest from their American holdings," explained Douglas Goldstein, author of The Expatriate's Guide to Handling Money and Taxes and director of Profile Investment Services Ltd. Indeed, compliance costs borne by the private sector are expected to dwarf the amount of additional U.S. tax revenue  perhaps by hundreds of times.   Goldstein explained: "Faced with the choice between paying to implement the new rules or divesting from U.S.-based assets, smaller foreign banks that can't afford to shoulder these costs may choose the latter," Goldstein added. "After all, there are plenty of promising new markets in which to invest."   Needless to say, if foreign institutions started fleeing U.S. markets, the economic damage would be massive  potentially apocalyptic, especially considering U.S. trade deficits and Americas outsized reliance on foreign investment and outside credit just to function. The full implementation of FATCA may, as some critics have maintained, ultimately prove more harmful to U.S. business interests and U.S. citizens living and working abroad than its benefits will merit. But no credible source that isn't an investment firm trying to scare potential customers into forking over money for a newsletter subscription is seriously maintaining that a law passed five years ago will collapse the entire U.S. economic system, destroy the American way of life, and lead to the imposition of martial law. Last updated:  23 March 2015    Fallows, James.  "Fatca: The Menace You'll Hear About in 2012."   The Atlantic.  31 December 2011.   Graffy, Colleen.  "How to Lose Friends, Citizens and Influence."   The Wall Street Journal.  17 July 2013.   Hjelmgaard, Kim.  "Americans Abroad Find Citizenship Too Taxing to Keep."   USA Today.  8 March 2014.   Newman, Alex.  "The Dark Road: The Worst Tax Law You've Never Heard About."   The New American.  8 April 2014. In August 2014, Facebook users begin seeing posts that featured what looked to be an image from a video of pro wrestler Hulk Hogan bloody and prone, with text indicating that "Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge": Is this true? R.I.P Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge  However, no matter how often this hoax is recirculated on social media, Hulk Hogan remains alive, and no such bloody video of him exists to be seen. As of 20 November 2017, Hogan was still well enough to be commenting on that day's destruction of the Georgia Dome: Georgia Dome The first time the Georgia Dome exploded was Hollywood Hogan vs @goldberg. Now they had to implode it. They should have just called me and Bill again brother. HH pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl @goldberg pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl  Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) November 20, 2017 November 20, 2017  (The bloodied photo of Hulk Hogan actually came from a 2009 promotional 'incident' in Australia when Hogan was 'attacked' by fellow wrestler Ric Flair.)   incident Users who did click through on such links were taken to a faux Facebook page which eventually led them down the trail of the usual survey scam, directing them to "like" or "share" links with their Facebook friends and complete online surveys, all with the goal of getting them to enrich scammers by disclosing sensitive personal information, spreading malware, buying products, and signing up for costly, difficult-to-cancel services. survey scam In April 2020, as the global death toll from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic surpassed 100,000, social media users started to post messages about how Ivanka Trump, U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter and newly appointed member of the White House's council to reopen America, had a trademark in China on coffins: pandemic messages   While some shared this claim as if it were a "fun fact," others made a more direct connection between her company's trademark on coffins in China to the rising death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic:   According to multiple news reports, the first daughter's company, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, was truly awarded a trademark on coffins in China. However, this occurred in 2018, long before COVID-19 started to spread around the globe.  The Associated Press reported in May 2018 that her company had been awarded 13 trademarks in China over three months. These trademarks covered a variety of products, including baby blankets, coffee, perfume, and coffins: reported 13 trademarks Ivanka Trumps brand continues to win foreign trademarks in China and the Philippines, adding to questions about conflicts of interest at the White House, The Associated Press has found. On Sunday, China granted the first daughters company final approval for its 13th trademark in the last three months, trademark office records show. Over the same period, the Chinese government has granted Ivanka Trumps company provisional approval for another eight trademarks, which can be finalized if no objections are raised during a three-month comment period. Taken together, the trademarks could allow her brand to market a lifetimes worth of products in China, from baby blankets to coffins, and a host of things in between, including perfume, makeup, bowls, mirrors, furniture, books, coffee, chocolate and honey. Ivanka Trump stepped back from management of her brand and placed its assets in a family-run trust, but she continues to profit from the business. When users in April 2020 re-shared news stories about her trademarks amidst the global pandemic, many insinuated she would be capitalizing off of people's deaths, and that people in China would be required to purchase a Trump coffin. But that's not the case.  This confusion appears to be based on the conflation of the terms "trademark" and "patent." With a trademark, Ivanka Trump has the opportunity to sell products (in this case a coffin) bearing her company's name. A trademark does not give Trump's company any sort of exclusive deal to sell coffins in China. Other companies can still manufacturer and sell coffins just as always. patent Australia's ABC News noted that companies sometimes file for a trademark as part of a "defensive" strategy to prevent competitors from squatting on a brand's name: ABC News Companies register for trademarks for a variety of reasons. They can be a sign of corporate ambition, but in many countries, like China, where trademark squatting is rampant, companies also file defensively, to block copycats from grabbing legal rights to a brand's name. This appears to be the strategy of Ivanka Trump's company. Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said in a May 2018 statement that these trademarks were obtained during the "normal course of business." Klem also noted that trademark infringement was rampant, and that the company was trying to protect its brand: statement The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant. ... We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark. It should also be noted that, as Snopes reported in 2019, Ivanka Trump was not running the company at the time that these trademarks were obtained. Ivanka stepped down from day-to-day operations in 2017 and announced that the company was closing down the following year: reported Ivanka Trump said in a statement announcing the closure:  statement "After 17 months in Washington, I do not know when or if I will ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable future will be the work I am doing here in Washington. So making this decision now is the only fair outcome for my team and partners." While Ivanka Trump may have not had a hand in obtaining these trademarks, the government transparency advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) cautioned that these trademarks could still represent a conflict of interest in the future.  CREW wrote: wrote Ivanka announced the immediate closure of her brand in July 2018, citing her official government responsibilities in Washington, DC. However, her trademarks remain a potential conflict of interest as she continues to work on policy in the White House and meet with foreign leaders. To sum up: Ivanka Trump's company obtained several trademarks in China in 2018 that covered a wide range of products, including baby blankets, perfume, and coffins. This trademark gives the company the opportunity to sell Trump-branded coffins and prevents other companies from using the Trump brand to sell their own coffins. As of this writing, we've seen no reporting that Ivanka Trump's company (which she no longer operates) plans to manufacture or sell coffins in China.  Higgins, Tucker.  "Ivanka Trumps Chinese Trademarks Raise Questions About Potential Conflicts of Interest."
  CNBC  29 May 2018. Associated Press.  "Ivanka Trump Wins 13 New Trademarks From China in 3 Months."
  28 May 2018. ABC News.  "Ivanka Trump's Chinese Trademarks on Products From Baby Blankets to Coffins Raise Corruption Concerns."
  28 May 2018. Palma, Bethania.  "Did China Grant a Trademark to Ivanka Trump for Voting Machines?"
 Snopes.com.  9 October 2019. Zhang, Caroline.  "Ivanka Trum's Business Wins Approval for 16 New Chinese Trademarks Despite Shutting Down."
  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.  5 November 2018. The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback On Jan. 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a ruling on emergency measures requested by South Africa over Israels ongoing military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Many online erroneously claimed South Africa had therefore won the case and that Israel had been declared a genocidal state by the court. For example: delivered online erroneously claimed (Screenshot via X) However, South Africa has not officially won the case, even though the ICJ ordered nearly all of South Africas requested provisional measures to be carried out, with the exception of a cease-fire. The judges have not ruled on the merits of the genocide allegations  and it could take years before they reach a decision. ordered As such, we rate the above claim as False, with the caveat that the judges agreed with some of South Africas arguments in their provisional ruling  that the ICJ had jurisdiction and that South Africa had standing to bring the case  and did not accept Israels request to dismiss the case, as there were plausible claims of possible genocidal acts. agreed plausible The ICJ did not, however, order a cease-fire in Gaza, which was the key request in South Africas list of emergency measures.  however Earlier in January 2024, South Africa argued that Israels actions amounted to genocide against the Palestinian people, noting that more than 23,000 Palestinians had been killed in Israeli operations since October 2023, and asked the court to halt the operations. Israel rejected South Africas claims and argued it had the right of self-defense after Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, attack, which resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 Israelis, most of whom were civilians. argued noting rejected deaths Stopping short of ordering a cease-fire, the ICJs interim ruling was a series of provisional measures that effectively ordered Israel to comply with the 1948 Genocide Convention. The provisions outlined by ICJ President Joan Donoghue are as follows (summarized by Al Jazeera): Al Jazeera The full order can be read on the ICJ's website. the ICJ's website David Simon, director of the genocide studies program at Yale University, told Snopes over email that the court stopping short of ordering a cease-fire could be some unspoken deference to Israel's self-defense argument. What [the court] is trying to say  is we would be overstepping our bounds if we called for the cessation of all military activities, but you have to make sure that nothing you do [constitutes] genocide, or is comprised of acts of genocide. Simon added that the ruling was consistent with provisional measures issued in Gambia v. Myanmar, referring to the 2019 case in which Gambia took Myanmar to the ICJ, accusing it of committing genocide against the Rohingya. In 2020, the court directed Myanmar to "take all measures within its power" to prevent the commission of acts defined in the Genocide Convention. The case is still ongoing. provisional measures 2019 case 2020 In both cases, the ICJ is aware that its jurisdiction is over state compliance with the Genocide Convention, not matters of the criminal liability of individuals, he said. Donoghue noted that while the court could not at present make a final determination on whether Israel is guilty of genocide, given the deteriorating situation in Gaza the court had jurisdiction to order measures to protect Gaza's population from further risk of genocide. noted Before announcing the decision, Donoghue read statements from Israeli officials that she said made South Africas case plausible and gave an assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The order called attention to a series of statements made by Israeli leadership  described variously as incitements to genocide and as "dehumanizing" Palestinians by scholars  in particular Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, President Isaac Herzog and Foreign Affairs Minister Israel Katz (then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure when he made the statement). For example, the order stated: read order described then example [...] the Court has taken note of a number of statements made by senior Israeli officials. It calls attention, in particular, to the following examples. 52. On 9 October 2023, Mr Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister of Israel, announced that he had ordered a complete siege of Gaza City and that there would be no electricity, no food, no fuel and that everything [was] closed. On the following day, Minister Gallant stated, speaking to Israeli troops on the Gaza border: I have released all restraints . . . You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against . . . Gaza wont return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesnt take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places. Simon told us that the court taking notice of those statements gives credence to South Africas arguments of genocidal incitement that we discussed in more detail in our past coverage. coverage He noted: That Israel has already announced that it would crack down on incitement suggests that it is aware of its vulnerability to [findings] against it on this matter. A court need not find 'intent to destroy' when asking whether a state has taken sufficient measures to prevent genocide incitement, only that it has been essentially negligent with respect to others within its jurisdiction who may be articulating such intent.  Crucially, the court found that a number of South Africas arguments were plausible, stating: stating In the Court's view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention. Ultimately, the ICJ cannot force Israel to do anything, as we previously outlined. However, international scrutiny on how Israel characterizes its actions in Gaza will be higher, Simon pointed out. outlined Israel will presumably calculate that there is a reputational loss (beyond what it has already absorbed) to making tenuous arguments, so it will want to be able to claim it has taken real measures, he added. Because Israel already has argued that it is in compliance with the Genocide Convention, it is unlikely to drastically change course, according to Simon, and South Africas right of rebuttal will become the forum to adjudicate further genocide claims. South Africas minister for international relations, Naledi Pandor, said that without a cease-fire Israel could not effectively implement the court-ordered measures. said Mahmood Mamdani, professor of government at Columbia University, told Democracy Now!: Democracy Now! It is clear to me that [the ICJ] couldnt have called directly for a ceasefire without preempting their future deliberations. At the same time, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then its a duck. Everything they ordered in terms of preventive measures leads to only one conclusion, which is ceasefire. How do you stop killing people? Ceasefire. How do you ensure that supplies for human life get in? Ceasefire. And so on and so forth. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the ICJs willingness to consider the genocide charges was a mark of shame that will not be erased for generations. He vowed to continue the war. said vowed We will continue to do what is necessary to defend our country and defend our people, he said. Like every country, Israel has the basic right to defend itself. The court in the Hague rightfully rejected the outrageous request to take that away from us. said Al Jazeera reported frustration and resentment on the part of Palestinians in Gaza in response to a ruling that did not include a cease-fire. People wanted an end to the madness and were waiting for that one statement that could have relieved an entire population largely displaced and, more profoundly, traumatised as the bombing continues across the Gaza Strip, the news outlet wrote. Al Jazeera Up until the order was announced, bombing continued in the city of Khan Younis and the northern part of the region, according to Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera In sum, the ICJ did not made a final judgment, but issued a number of provisional rulings while finding many of South Africas arguments were plausible and warranted a case. It did not call for a cease-fire. A definitive judgment will likely take years to come. Al-Kassab, Fatima. U.N. Court Says Gaza Genocide Is plausible, but Does Not Order Cease-Fire. NPR, 26 Jan. 2024. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Berg, Stephanie van den, and Anthony Deutsch. World Court Says Israel Must Take Steps to Prevent Acts of Genocide in Gaza. Reuters, 26 Jan. 2024. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-court-rule-urgent-measures-gaza-genocide-case-2024-01-26/.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Day One of the ICJ Genocide Hearing against Israel: Key Takeaways. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/11/day-one-of-the-icj-genocide-hearing-against-israel-key-takeaways. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Frayer, Lauren. Israel Revises down Its Death Toll from the Oct. 7 Hamas Attacks to about 1,200. NPR, 11 Nov. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/11/1212458974/israel-revises-death-toll-hamas-attacks-oct-7.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Ibrahim, Nur. Israel-Hamas Explainer: What Constitutes a Genocide? Snopes, 22 Jan. 2024, https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/01/22/israel-hamas-what-is-genocide/.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. ICJ Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide in Gaza But Doesnt Demand Ceasefire. Democracy Now!, https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/26/icj_provisional_ruling_israel_genocide_gaza. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Milisic, Alma and Nils Adler. ICJ Updates: Court Orders Israel to Prevent Acts of Genocide in Gaza. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/26/live-icj-to-issue-preliminary-ruling-in-south-africa-genocide-case-against-i. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures: Order." International Court of Justice , 26 Jan. 2024, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Salhani, Justin. What the ICJs Interim Ruling Means for Israels War on Gaza. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/26/what-the-icjs-interim-ruling-means-for-israels-war-on-gaza. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Simon, David. "Interview with David Simon." Email, 26 Jan. 2024. Top UN Court Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide in Gaza but Stops Short of Ordering Cease-Fire. AP News, 26 Jan. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. In March 2017, an advertisement disguised as a news story appeared to report that Facebook CEO's Mark Zuckerberg was leaving the company in order to sell skin care products. The hoax report was published on the web site GetInkNews.co: story   Neither Katy Perry nor any of the other aforementioned celebrities have endorsed this product, and the web site took unrelated images of Zuckerberg and various celebrities (the image of Katy Perry was taken in 2011) to make it seem as if they had endorsed Zuckerberg's skin care line together.  2011 The advertisement also claimed that Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan were giving away free samples of the product (as long as customers paid for shipping and handling): ZUCKERBERG GIVES PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE! So, what if you arent rich or famous? Chan and Zuckerberg dont care. After all, they are already worth more than $556 billion. We arent in this to make a fortune, Chan told a friend recently. We already have amassed a fortune. I just want to help people. That is why she is now offering readers the opportunity to experience the joys of younger looking skin for FREE! The only cost to you is a $4.95 shipping and handling fee, so you can try the EcoMaxx Ageless Moisturizer and EcoMaxx Ageless Eye Revitalizer have it delivered right to your front door. Simply click on the link here for ordering details.   This a relatively new form of the ubiquitous fake news: an advertisement designed to mimic a genuine news item in order to convince people to buy a skin care product. At the very bottom of this web page, below the comments section, below several links to purchase this product, and below several fake celebrity endorsements, appears a disclaimer: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE This website is not intended to provide medical advice or to take the place of medical advice and treatment from your personal physician. Visitors are advised to consult their own doctors or other qualified health professional regarding the treatment of medical conditions. The author shall not be held liable or responsible for any misunderstanding or misuse of the information contained on this site or for any loss, damage, or injury caused, or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly by any treatment, action, or application of any food or food source discussed in this website. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have not evaluated the statements on this website. The information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. MARKETING DISCLOSURE: You should know that the owner of this website has a monetary connection to the product & services advertised and provided. The owner receives payment whenever a qualified lead is referred. All of the information regarding the goods and services mentioned on this website is provided by the owner. ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE: This website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of persons used on this site are models. Any photographs of before/after images used on this site are not real and are only used to illustrate the results some may achieve. Many of the articles featured on this site are what is commonly referred to as an advertorial, a combination of advertisement and editorial written in an editorial format as an independent news story. However, unlike an independent news story, an advertorial may promote a particular product or interest. Advertorials take factual information and report it in an editorial format to allow the author, often a company marketing its products, to enhance or explain certain elements to maintain the readers interest. A familiar example is an airline's in-flight magazines that provide editorial reports about travel destinations to which the airline flies. In 2018, the same conceit of Facebook's head announcing that he was stepping down was used as fodder for an April Fool's Day joke: stepping down  Last year in June, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave the company a new mission statement, it was too late for him to try to change how things worked at Facebooks offices. While it wasnt made public, Cambridge Analytica had already used data from millions of users for voter profiling and other purposes. In the wake of the recent data misuse revelation, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has resigned from the company. While demands were already being made for his resignation, this has come as a big surprise for many. Zuckerberg publicly informed the world via a post on Facebook. Altus, Celeste.  "But Did He Friend Her?"
  AdWeek.  21 January 2011. Get Ink News.  "Mark Zuckerberg Disgusted with Social Media; Set to Leave Facebook Later This Year."
  Retrieved 13 March 2017. During an Oct. 4, 2011, interview on MSNBC, host Ed Schultz and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., discussed the Occupy Wall Street protests, which are targeting the financial services sector. Sanders offered a statistic designed to demonstrate the power of American banks.Sanders suggested that many of the protesters have not seen the president be as strong as he should be on Wall Street, saying they want the federal government to take tougher measures against financial-services companies.Ed, today, you have six financial institutions, the largest six, that have assets that are the equivalent of 60 percent of the GDP of the United States of America, Sanders said. (GDP stands for gross domestic product. )We wondered whether Sanders math was correct.When we contacted Sanders office, a spokesman providedtestimonyto a congressional oversight panel by Simon Johnson, a professor of entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School ofManagement. Our six largest bank holding companies currently have assets valued at just over 63 percent of GDP, Johnson testified, citing figures for the fourth quarter of 2010. This is up from around 55 percent of GDP before the crisis (e.g., 2006) and no more than 17 percent of GDP in 1995.We wanted to find the original statistics, and we located them in achartposted by the National Information Center, the federal repository of data about banks and other institutions for which the Federal Reserve has a supervisory, regulatory or research interest. The chart lists the 50 biggest bank holding companies as of June 30, 2011.Here are the top six and their total assets:1.Bank of America Corp., $2.264 trillion2.J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., $2.246 trillion3.Citigroup Inc., $1.957 trillion4.Wells Fargo & Co., $1.260 trillion5.Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $937 billion6.Morgan Stanley, $831 billionTogether, the top six companies assets were $9.495 trillion.For the second part of the equation -- gross domestic product -- we turned to the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis.Though the time spans dont line up perfectly, we decided to use the GDP figure for 2010, the most recent full year. That figure is $14.527 trillion.Dividing these top banks assets by the national GDP produces a result of 65 percent -- which is actually a slightly larger percentage than Sanders had indicated, but certainly in the ballpark.To make sure we werent missing something, we contacted a few experts on financial services issues. They offered a few caveats:The comparison is a bit of apples vs. oranges.The banks asset figures are an aggregation measured at a single point in time, whereas the GDP figure is an aggregation of goods and services measured over time. This distinction is the equivalent to a comparison of your net worth with your personal income, said Lawrence White, an economist at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. Economists generally don't find these sorts of comparisons very useful or interesting. So the best that can be said is that these comparisons provide a rough sense of comparative magnitudes.The data are constantly moving.Several of these banks, especially Bank of America, have lost significant value since the figures were published in June 2011, said Satya Thallam, director of the Financial Markets Working Group at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. The denominator, GDP, is always changing, as well. So, any estimate is true for a specific point in time, but possibly out of date not long after its made.Banks overseas holdings significantly complicate the comparison.For starters, the comparison Sanders is making doesnt mean that these banks own 60 percent of the U.S. wealth, because some of these banks assets are in overseas holdings. However, Sanders appears to be on safe ground with his phrasing, since all he said was that the two dollar figures were equivalent.Potentially more problematic for Sanders is that the assets-to-GDP ratio for the top six bank companies in the U.S. are actually quite modest when compared to the biggest banks in other nations.A2010 study by J.P. Morganlisted the 25 biggest banks internationally in 2008, along with the percentages of their home countrys GDP. The highest was UBS, with 376 percent of Switzerlands GDP. And six other banks all had assets as large as their home countrys GDP -- Credit Suisse Group of Switzerland (218 percent), Dexia of Belgium (180 percent), Fortis of the Netherlands (155 percent), Royal Bank of Scotland of the United Kingdom (131 percent), Barclays of the United Kingdom (112 percent) and BNP Paribas of France (101 percent).All of these dwarf the combined holdings of the top six banks in the U.S., in part because Americas GDP is so much larger than the GDP of these other nations.The significance of this fact for Sanders assertion, however, is less clear.This doesn't tell us what is a proper or appropriate number, Thallam said. One might reply that other countries are much more concentrated, but that only means they're worse -- not that we're in a good position. Some scholars, he added, have said that even at current concentration levels, U.S. banks should be broken up because they create a too big to fail problem. On the other hand, people for years said that banking exhibited economies of scale, so consolidation was natural, Thallam said.Our rulingSanders math is correct -- in fact, the percentage he offers is actually a little low. And hes careful to say only that the banks assets are only equivalent to 60 percent of the United States GDP, not that the banks own 60 percent of the United States. Sanders doesnt note that big banks in other countries are far bigger, compared to their nations GDP, than the U.S. banks are. Still, on balance, we rate his statement True. Claim:  Legislation currently under consideration would cut $100 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status:  Was true; proposal has been defeated. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year  $100 million  and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Origins:  Although a long-outdated  piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. piece In June 2005 the House Appropriations Committee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting. If this budgetary plan were approved it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), money which currently makes up 15% of the funding for public broadcasting.  As the Washington Post reported: CPB A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  which passes federal funds to public broadcasters  starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million. In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue. The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format. Although this legislation, if approved, would not  (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue. On 23 June 2005 the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Other areas of public broadcasting, however, may still face budget reductions if proposed funding cuts are not overturned: But Elmo and Big Bird remain at risk. The House did not restore all of the public broadcasting funding cuts proposed for 2006. Although yesterday's amendment would bump CPB's general budget back to $400 million, the 2005 funding level, an additional $102.4 million that had been shorn from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrites the production of such PBS children's programs as "Sesame Street," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." The money that would be cut also pays for satellite technology, basic equipment purchases and a federal mandate program to convert public TV stations from analog transmission to digital signal technology.  Last updated:  24 June 2005    Sources:   Farhi, Paul.  "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House."    The Washington Post.  10 June 2005  (p. A1).    Gold, Matea and Jube Shiver.  "Public Broadcasting Funds May Be Halved."    Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2005  (p. A28).    Murray, Shailagh and Paul Farhi.  "House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds."    The Washington Post.  24 June 2005  (p. A6).    Taylor, Andrew.  "House Rescinds Proposed Cut in Federal Support of Public Broadcasting."    Associated Press.  23 June 2005. As Christmas 2017 approached, social media users began circulating an image of a vintage-looking box labeled "Asbestos: Pure White Fire Proof Snow" and questioning if the packaging really contained artificial snow made out of what is now a widely-recognized carcinogen:   In the early half of the 20th Century, asbestos was widely used as Christmas decor because of its white, fluffy appearance -- but that was before the substance was recognized as a major risk factor for an aggressive form of cancer known as mesothelioma, as the Asbestos.com website reports: reports Asbestos was once marketed as artificial snow and sprinkled on trees and wreaths and ornaments. Although those products have not been produced for many years, the oldest decorations that were passed down from one generation to the next, may still have small amounts of asbestos. The most famous asbestos snow scene was used during the filming of "The Wizard of Oz," the 1939 classic with Judy Garland that became the most watched film in history. There is a scene in the movie where snow, made from asbestos, falls on Dorothy and her friends, awakening them from a spell cast by the Wicked Witch of the West. The above displayed above depicts a real item sold to consumers in the mid-20th century. The picture was taken by Tony Rich, an industrial hygienist and amateur photographer who catalogs asbestos images on the photo-sharing platform Flickr using the moniker Asbestos Hunter. Rich, an anti-asbestos activist, originally shot the picture in 2009. Asbestos Hunter picture Rich told us he has the actual box in storage and directed us to another photograph that shows the product was manufactured by National Tinsel Manufacturing Company and sold in the late 1940s through the 1950s: photograph This brand actually contains amphibole asbestos "amosite", very toxic. Generally speaking, asbestos was used by the tens of millions of tons for nearly over a century and a half in modern history for a wide variety of applications, mostly due to its fire resistance, insulating properties, durability/strength, inertness, could be woven, and was cheap and abundant. Major asbestos manufacturers had large [research and development] programs constantly finding new ways to use asbestos. I believe the most tragic use was in cigarette filters. Rich told us many people are surprised to learn that, despite its significant link to cancer, asbestos isn't completely banned in the United States. Aside from raising awareness with his camera as "Asbestos Hunter," Rich serves on the Prevention Advisory Board for the non-profit Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), on whose blog he wrote in 2015: wrote The United States has a very long history of asbestos usage, a tragic history that continues to be written to this day, to the ultimate detriment of its citizensour loved ones, neighbors, and future generations. During that time, tens of millions of tons of asbestos materials were put into our nation's buildings and infrastructure, most of which remains in place today. Eventually, laws and regulations were created in an attempt to help protect employees and the public from the toxic legacy left by asbestos. However, despite the volumes of asbestos standards, many still face ongoing problems related to regulatory under-enforcement, poor risk management or by simply failing to identify basic asbestos hazards. Compounding these issues, asbestos continues to be imported into our country, primarily due to the alarming fact that asbestos has not yet been completely banned. Further, asbestos has been repeatedly found in a wide variety of new consumer products as reported by recent independent studies. Some of these asbestos-containing products include children's toys and crayons, readily available from retail marketplace's shelves. Rich, Tony.  "The United States of Asbestos?"   Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.  28 August 2017. Smith, Ernie. "The Slow Demise of Asbestos, The Carcinogen that Gave 'The Wizard of Oz' Snow."   Atlas Obscura.  1 August 2016. Mauney, Matt.  "CDC: Mesothelioma Deaths on the Rise."   Asbestos.com.  10 March 2017. Povtak, Tim.  "Christmas Decorations in the Attic Might Be Sprinkled with Asbestos."   Asbestos.com.  1 December 2011. Claim:  The sister ship to the Olympic and Titanic was originally intended to be named the Gigantic.   . Origins:   The   Titanic was originally conceived by the White Star Company as one of a triumvirate of ships intended to vie with Cunard for the trans-Atlantic passenger service business.  White Star couldn't hope to offer ships as fast as Cunard's liners, so they planned to compete by building liners that were both bigger (and hence able to carry more paying passengers and cargo) and more luxurious than Cunard's.  Moreover, since an Atlantic crossing typically took five days in the new class of steamships operated by Cunard and White Star in the first decade of the 20th century, creating a trio of similar ships would allow White Star to offer trans-Atlantic service in both directions on a regular weekly schedule. The planned ships were so large that the shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff, had to allocate space normally used for building three hulls to handle just two of the new behemoths.  Harland and Wolff planned to construct the liners on a staggered schedule so that White Star would have one ready to go into service each spring between 1911 and 1913, and initially everything went according to plan. The keel of the first ship, the Olympic, was laid in December 1908, and the Titanic followed suit three months later.  The Olympic was launched in October 1910, and the Titanic in May 1911.  The  Olympic's maiden voyage took place in June 1911, and the Titanic's in April 1912.  And then ... After the Titanic disaster, the feverish public interest in these massive ocean liners abated, and the third ship of the planned triumvirate, the Britannic, was finally launched (after extensive modifications and with considerably less fanfare than her sisters) in April 1914.  Like her sister ship Titanic, she wasn't around long, though: World War I broke out before the Britannic ever went into passenger service; she was requisitioned by the Royal Navy and pressed into service as a hospital ship; and she struck a mine and sank off the coast of Greece in November  1916.   The magnitude of the Titanic disaster and World War I both overshadowed the short life of the Britannic, and she was gone before many people were even aware she had been built.  Over the years a rumor began to circulate that the Britannic's original name had been the Gigantic, but White Star had thought better of it and quietly changed their minds after the Titanic sank.  White Star maintained that this was not true; they had planned to name the ship Britannic all along and had never considered the name Gigantic. From a purely logical point of view, Gigantic seems the more likely choice.  The names Olympic, Titanic, and Gigantic all evoke a sense of size and strength that Britannic simply does not.  And White Star had considered naming a ship Gigantic on at least one other occasion, as demonstrated by this brief article that appeared 17 September 1892 New York Times: London, Sept. 16  The White Star Company has commissioned the great Belfast shipbuilders Harland and Wolff to build an Atlantic steamer that will beat the record in size and speed. She has already been named the  Gigantic, and will be 700 feet long, 65 feet 7-1/2 inches beam and 4,500 horsepower. It is calculated that she will steam 22 knots an hour, with a maximum speed of 27 knots. She will have three screws, two fitted like Majestic's, and the third in the centre. She is to be ready for sea in March, 1894. We have more than logic and supposition to go by here, however.  Contemporary references publications such as The New York Times, Scientific American, and Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette as well as a promotional flyer from White Star itself all indicate that White Star did indeed originally have the name  Gigantic in mind, but one could hardly blame them for altering their plans.  After the sinking of the Titanic, passengers were suddenly less concerned with size and luxury than they were with getting to their destinations alive, and the dignified name Britannic conveyed a sense of safety and reliability in a way the attention-grabbing Gigantic could not. Last updated:  18 December 2005    Sources:   Eaton, John P. and Charles A. Haas.  Titanic: Destination Disaster.   Wellingborough, England: Patrick Stephens, 1987.  ISBN 0-85059-868-0  (pp. 54-56). Titanic: Destination Disaster    Heyer, Paul.  Titanic Legacy: Disaster As Media Event and Myth.   Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1995.  ISBN 0-275-95352-1  (pp. 20-22).