Walmart Bows Down to Sharia Law?
Claim:  An Ohio Walmart store has begun selling halal meat. : Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Is Walmart going to start selling sharia compliant meat?   Origins:  On 12 November 2014, Miami (Ohio) University's student newspaper, The Miami Student, published an article about a local Walmart's decision to add a halal meat section to their grocery aisles: article Upon the request of Muslim students at Miami University, Walmart recently made the decision to provide halal-certified meat at the Oxford location. Store manager Elijah Woodard made a formal announcement on Oct. 21 that the store would be accommodating these requests.  "I appreciated the students bringing this interest to our attention," Woodard said. "I am pleased to announce that we have set a halal meat section in the store." Visiting assistant professor Tareq Hasan Khan and the Muslim Student Association (MSA) had petitioned all local grocers to carry Halal meat. So far, the local Walmart is the only store to have obliged to the request:  Between Khan and members of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), efforts were made to convince Walmart to provide the Halal meat. Many students reached out directly to the management at Walmart. In addition, a petition was passed around on the Internet. The petition acquired nearly 50 signatures and was directed at all Oxford grocers including MOON co-op and Kroger. Thus far, Walmart is the only provider who has responded to the requests of the Muslim students. "For halal meat, we needed to drive from Oxford to Cincinnati, around 40 miles one way, almost every week," Khan said. "This long drive is very tiresome and takes about two hours only to go to Cincinnati and return back." This case is not the first instance of a Walmart store's choosing to carry Halal meat: Similar products have been sold at dozens of Walmart stores around the U.S. since at least 2010.  Still, the announcement that the Oxford location had added a halal meat section stirred up anger on social media sites: Walmart social media    While some people viewed Walmart's decision to sell halal meat as proof the company was "bowing down" to Sharia law, the Associated Press noted demand for halal products has been on the rise throughout the world: The worldwide market for Islamically permitted goods, called halal, has grown to more than half a billion dollars annually. Ritually slaughtered meat is a mainstay, but the halal industry is much broader, including foods and seasoning that omit alcohol, pork products and other forbidden ingredients, along with cosmetics, finance and clothing. Corporations have been courting immigrant Muslim communities in Europe for several years. Nestle, for example, has about 20 factories in Europe with halal-certified production lines and advertises to Western Muslims through its marketing campaign called "Taste of Home." Nestle plans to increase its ethnic and halal offerings in Europe in coming years. In the United States, iconic American companies such as McDonald's (which already has a popular halal menu overseas) and Wal-Mart have entered the halal arena.   Although Walmart has opted to offer halal meat in their Oxford store, it appears it is making such decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than instituting a country-wide policy to that effect.   Last updated:  19 February 2015    Zoll, Rachel.   "US Muslims: A New Consumer Niche."   Business Week.  27 December 2010.
Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014 In the summer of 2020, readers sent Snopes multiple inquiries about widely shared social media posts claiming that PepsiCo, the company that makes Pepsi, had donated $100 million to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. In May 2020, a Black man named George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, prompting a renewed wave of nationwide and international protests against racial injustice and police brutality. The BLM movement spearheaded much of that protest and debate, and in response, critics of the protests targeted BLM, often deploying false, exaggerated, or distorted allegations.  targeted During the summer of 2020, those critics sought to target several major U.S. companies, including PepsiCo, by claiming they had each donated substantial amounts to BLM. Social media posts in July read that: Social media posts BankofAmerica Gave them $1 BILLIONPepsiCo - $400 MILLIONWalmart - $100 MILLIONApple - $100 MILLIONComcast - $100 MILLION Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk alluded to an incident in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2020, in which local residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed firearms at protesters, writing on Twitter:  pointed firearms writing "In America if terrorists show up to your home, you get charged for showing that you own a weapon after they tear down your gate. And the thugs who entered on to your property get $400 million from PepsiCo. as a reward." In August 2020, social media users focused on PepsiCo, and the amount of the company's purported donation to BLM shifted from $400 million to $100 million, for reasons that are unclear, but may have resulted from a misreading of earlier posts that claimed Walmart, Apple, and Comcast had each donated $100 million to BLM.  A typical version of the post claimed that: "PEPSI JUST GAVE BLM A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS... PLEASE BOYCOTT PEPSI!" typical version post claimed   The August posts that claimed PepsiCo had given $100 million to BLM appeared to have been based on the earlier claims that the company had donated $400 million. In turn, those earlier posts stemmed from an announcement the company made in June 2020. On June 16, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta wrote: wrote "Today, I am announcing the next step in PepsiCos journey for racial equality: a more than $400 million set of initiatives over five years to lift up Black communities and increase Black representation at PepsiCo. These initiatives comprise a holistic effort for PepsiCo to walk the talk of a leading corporation and help address the need for systemic change." Specifically, the company pledged to spend, over the course of five years: We asked PepsiCo whether it, or any charitable entities associated with the company, had donated to groups or projects associated with BLM, including the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the movement. We also requested a list of any recipients of charitable disbursements from the $400 million investment announced in June. We did not receive a response in time for publication. However, since $415 million was reserved for supporting Black-owned suppliers, restaurants, and small businesses, as well as starting a fellowship program, it was therefore mathematically impossible for $100 million to have been pledged for BLM. The only component of that spending that appears to leave room for any involvement with BLM is the $6.5 million reserved for "community impact grants to address systemic issues." So even if that entire portion of funding went to BLM, it would still constitute only a small fraction of the $100 million and $400 million claimed in social media posts in the summer of 2020. None of those who promoted those claims presented any evidence that linked PepsiCo's pledged investment with specific, named organizations or projects associated with the broader BLM movement or the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. The claim that PepsiCo had donated $100 million (or $400 million) to BLM appeared to be based on a basic misunderstanding of the company's June 2020 announcement  or the false assumption that any investment associated with the Black community or rectifying racial injustice must be directly connected to BLM.  Laguarta, Ramon.  "Pepsico's Journey to Racial Equality: A Message from Our CEO."
  PepsiCo. 16 June 2020. In a video and an infographic, the Republican National Committee amplified a charge first raised by Mitt Romney on the stump the day before -- that President Barack Obama has held more than 100 fundraisers in the past six months, yet his jobs council didnt meet once.In the last six months, he has held 100 fundraisers, and guess how many meetings he has had with his jobs council? Romneysaid in a July 18, 2012, campaign event in Bowling Green, Ohio. None. Zero. Zero in the last six months. So it makes it very clear where his priorities are.The following day, the RNC released agraphicthat provided some additional specifics. Over the last six months, the graphic said, Obama has golfed 10 times and held 106 fundraisers, but his jobs council has never met. The RNC supplemented this with avideothat added a goofy soundtrack as well as audio and video of an exchange on this topic between reporters and White House press secretary Jay Carney.Several readers asked us to check this statistic. We wont pass judgment on how Obama should spend his time, but we will check the accuracy of the numbers.The jobs councilLets start by explaining what the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness actually is. Itswebsite explainsthat the panel was established to provide nonpartisan advice to the President on strengthening the economy and creating jobs.The council ischairedby the chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, and is populated by a variety of other business figures, such as former AOL chairman Steve Case, venture capitalist John Doerr, former Citigroup and Time Warner chairman Richard D. Parsons, as well as economist Laura DAndrea Tyson and AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka.Checking the lack of recent meetings was straightforward. The councils ownweb pagecites four meetings of the council so far -- Feb. 24, 2011, at the White House, June 13, 2011, in Durham, N.C., October 11, 2011, in Pittsburgh, and Jan. 17, 2012, at the White House.The Web page does add that the council has also conducted 18 listening and action sessions in communities around the country with businesses and local leaders and that it plans to hold more in the coming months. However, the Web page doesnt appear to consider these to be meetings, and since the most recent was just slightly over six months ago, the RNCs claim is correct.Asked about thelack of meetingsin a July 18, 2012, press briefing, Carney said the president solicits and receives input and advice from members of his jobs council and others about economic initiatives all the time. Theres no specific reason (why they havent met) except the president has obviously got a lot on his plate.Golf and fundraisingFor statistics on Obamas golf and fundraising activities, we turned to the RNC, which provided us with an Excel spreadsheet they had compiled internally. We then double-checked the RNCs work.There is no official tally of the presidents daily activities. There is one tally thats unofficial but widely respected -- one compiled by longtime CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller.Knollertweetedon June 12, 2012, that today's six events will bring to 160 the number of fundraisers Pres Obama has done since filing for re-election with the FEC last year. He also wrote in astoryon June 17, 2012, that Obama had just played his 100th round of golf since taking office.However, because Knoller did not return an inquiry for this story, we could not match these numbers to the RNCs claim.The RNC offered links to news accounts to back up Obamas 10 golf outings in the past six months, and they confirmed golf outings on the dates cited by the RNC count.As for fundraising events, the RNC only provided dates and locations. However, we were able to check this list using two sources.The White Housesarchiveof presidential speeches and remarks offers chronological links to transcripts of the presidents comments at every public appearance he makes. Many, though not all, fundraising events are included in this archive.Meanwhile, to track events that were closed to the press -- and thus wouldnt be included in the archive of speeches and remarks -- we relied on our personal archive of White House pool reports, which are the dispatches written by journalists covering the White House several times a day and distributed to all members of the White House press corps. These pool reports will typically mention that the president is attending a fundraiser even if the event is closed to the press.Using these two sources, we were able to confirm virtually all of the fundraisers cited by the RNC. In only three cases were we unable to verify fundraisers cited by the RNC using these sources. This doesnt mean that these three events didnt happen; we just couldnt find pool reports that specifically backed them up. However, even if the actual number of fundraisers in the last six months turned out to be 103 rather than 106, we wont quibble -- the number would be close enough for us to consider it accurate.Our rulingThe RNC said that over the last six months, Obama has golfed 10 times and held 106 fundraisers even as his jobs council didnt meet once. The RNCs tally is on target. We rate the statement True. In November 2023, multiple Facebook ads were displayed to users that led to an article that bore the People magazine logo and claimed that Sheryl Underwood, the longtime co-host of "The Talk," would be leaving the TV talk show to work on expanding her own line of keto gummies for weight loss. However, this was not true. Underwood has nothing to do with any keto gummies for weight loss, nor did People magazine ever publish any such story. Underwood was simply the latest person in a long line of famous people who had had their image and likeness used without permission to sell keto gummies. Further, this false rumor that mentioned Underwood led to a dangerous scam that could potentially cost victims thousands of dollars per year. a long line of famous people One version of the Facebook ad claimed, "Producers are furious that she came forward." The headline in the ads read, "Sheryl Abandons 'The Talk' After Confessing Her Trick." Two of the false Facebook ads that promoted the scam. These ads led to a fake People magazine article on scam websites including emperorsland.pro, sizzlingpear.pro, mindfulmovement.pro and chillytreats.info. (We were unable to provide an archived link to the article since scammers design these websites so that the scam version of the page is cloaked from prying eyes  that is, unless users specifically came from a Facebook ad.) This is not a true story, nor did People.com ever publish any such article. The fake People magazine article, which was nothing more than fiction and a scam, began as follows: Sheryl Underwood Confirms She Is Leaving 'The Talk' After Her Accidental 'Live' Confession On-Air... The host said that it was 'time for a break', but she may actually have bigger things in mind. (People) - Sheryl Underwood, the 60-year-old host on CBS's show 'The Talk', shocked everyone when she announced her departure from the show after 12 record-breaking years on-air. Sheryl, who has earned the reputation of being one of the most business savvy women in the industry, made sponsors (and CBS) FURIOUS. Why? Because Sheryl failed to disclose her new weight loss line to the network. Sheryl's new company is actually a HUGE competitor to CBS's current sponsor Weight Watchers because Sheryl's product is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than Weight Watchers's competing product. According to sources, CBS made Sheryl decide on which direction she was going to focus on in the future. Being so turned off by the reaction of the network and their power move she has decided to pursue her new weight loss line and dream. The scam article went on to falsely claim that other celebrities had joined with Underwood to promote the products, whether they be Belly Blast Keto Gummies, Total Fit Keto Gummies or other products. It is a fact that no celebrities have ever endorsed keto gummies that are purportedly intended for use in weight loss. Websites that promote sales of keto gummies for weight loss usually lack information about the true creators of the products and the source of where they were packaged. In the past, some consumers who fell victim to these scams told Snopes that the post office box numbers included in return addresses for the products don't exist. The rabbit hole for keto gummies goes even deeper, however. Two odd scenarios have been laid out by numerous victims of the scams, which usually involve monthly subscription fees often reported as being around $200 or more, or around $2,400 per year. Some consumers said that they never ordered the products but kept receiving shipments that they had no way of returning, due to fake return addresses. On the flip side, other customers said that they received charges for the products on their credit card statements despite never having ordered them, and then never received any products in the mail. Further, listings for keto gummies for weight loss on Amazon.com and Walmart.com often feature the words "Shark" and "Tank," although not consecutively as "Shark Tank." The two words are included in product listings on Amazon.com and Walmart.com so that any customers searching online for keto gummies with the words "Shark Tank"  after those same customers saw false claims that said the TV show's investors endorsed the products  would then fall victim to the scam and purchase the products based on the "Shark Tank" lie. Again, to be clear, no investors associated with "Shark Tank" ever endorsed gummies. false claims If any readers have been victimized by these scams, we recommend contacting your credit card company immediately, reporting fraud to the FTC and also searching the U.S. Better Business Bureau's (BBB) website to perform a search for the product name associated with the purchase on your account or the product that arrived at your doorstep, so that you can find the company or LLC connected with the scam. reporting fraud to the FTC website Liles, Jordan. Shark Tank Keto Gummies Weight Loss Reviews Are a Scam. Snopes, 14 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-keto-gummies-weight-loss-reviews/. Talk-radio host and former Providence Mayor Vincent A. Buddy Cianci Jr. recently referred to a member of Governor Chafees staff as the guy who still owes $250,000 to the state.Ciancis jab at Michael F. Trainor,  aired on Sept. 1, 2011 on WPROs The Buddy Cianci Show.Because it wasnt the first time that Cianci had made the comment -- and because a bankruptcy judge had discharged most of Trainors debt nearly a year ago -- we thought it was worth looking into.Trainor has built a career in public relations representing some of the states high-profile politicians and corporate players. He was an advisor and spokesman for Lincoln Chafee during Chafees successful 2010 run for governor.But Trainor has had his own public relations problems ever since it became known late last year that he and a business partner from Connecticut defaulted on a $250,000 federal small business loan granted through the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation.According to the EDC and bankruptcy court documents,  heres what happened:The duo and two of their partners started a Rhode Island company, called Genesis Distribution & Marketing, in 2006 to distribute and market retractable window screens and hurricane shutters.Trainor and his partners had already bought a company in Connecticut that distributed and installed hurricane shutters. And they planned to buy three more in the South that made the shutters. In January 2007, the EDC loaned  the business $250,000 through the federally funded Small Business Loan Fund to buy inventory, furniture, fixtures and equipment and hire three employees.But the business was short-lived.Just two months after receiving the EDC loan, the partners fell behind on their payments. In 2008, the company folded.Trainor and his partner from Connecticut, who had pledged their homes as collateral for the loan, talked with representatives from the EDC about a settlement. But the talks broke off in August 2009, when Trainor notified the agency that he was filing for bankruptcy.By then, the housing market had tanked along with the value of Trainors house.The partners had repaid $36,326 of the loan; with interest and late fees, the debt on the loan at the time totaled $250,723.In September 2010, a bankruptcy judge granted Trainors petition for Chapter 7bankruptcy.An explanation of the ruling in the bankruptcy court documents states: The chapter 7 discharge order eliminates a debtor's legal obligation to pay a debt that is discharged.The EDC loan was written off on Nov. 30, 2010. The agency concluded that it couldnt recover any money from its lien on Trainors home because the mortgage balance exceeded the propertys value.In December, 2010, Trainor, who was being considered for a job in the Chafee administration, toldThe Providence Journalthat he had not walked away from his obligations, saying hed like to negotiate a settlement with the EDC.Governor Chafee discussed Trainors situation on Channel 12 Newsmakers in December 2010, saying that there would be an effort made to repay the EDC. [Well] make sure Mike does that, he said.So it certainly sounded then as though Chafee and even Trainor himself believed that Trainor still owed the EDC the money.Chafee hired Trainor as spokesman when he took office in January, a job that paid $129,235.That month, Trainor also repaid the state $20,788.75 in taxes -- which were not  dischargeable in the bankruptcy -- owed on his failed business. In return, the state Division of Taxation removed the lien on his property. Six months later, in July, the bank sold his house at a foreclosure auction. Trainor served seven months as Chafees spokesman before he was transferred, in August, to the Department of Higher Education. His salary has dropped to $88,177. So, does he still owe the $250,000, as Cianci claims?That debt was discharged, Andrew S. Richardson, a lawyer and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Trustee in the Trainor case, said. (He) can no longer be forced to pay the obligation -- nor can the creditor take any steps to try and collect it.In other words, Richardson said, theres no legal obligation that Trainor repay the loan.But other lawyers who specialize in bankruptcy see it differently.Most people understand (bankruptcy) as destroying the debt  but technically the discharge in bankruptcy doesnt destroy the debt at all, Jason Kilborn, a lawyer, law professor and resident scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute in Virginia said. It does not destroy the obligation from a moral or even a legal obligation. It just prevents the creditors from collecting on that debt.The American Bankruptcy Institutewas founded in 1982 to provide Congress and the public with unbiased analysis of bankruptcy issues.In other words, the debt remains, even though the creditors are forced to write it off as uncollectable.So if the debt remains but Trainor isnt obligated to repay it, does he really owe the state money?We called Cianci and challenged him on his use of the term owes. Trainors bankruptcy discharge, he maintained, doesnt change the fact that Trainor still owes the EDC the $250,000.Maybe it was discharged, he said, but in the mind of the taxpayer who fronted the 250 grand? Yeah, he still owes it.Said Richardson, the trustee: I think it depends on whose point of view youre looking at, the creditor or the debtor.We agree.Practically speaking, the bankruptcy ruling and the fact that the mortgage on the Trainors home exceeded its value made it impossible for the EDC to recoup its money.But even after the debt was discharged in bankruptcy Trainor and Chafee both said theyd make an effort made to repay the EDC.After all, a debt can be owed even if its never collected.For that reason, we rule Ciancis statementMostly True. Central Florida U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson is digging on some 1970s Led Zeppelin in his first ad attacking Republican opponent Daniel Webster.The ad is called Dan Webster's Stairway to Nowhere. See where this is going, Zeppelin fans?It opens with someone ripping off Jimmy Page's recognizable guitar introduction to Stairway to Heaven. A narrator talks over a black-and-white image of Webster, a longtime state legislator and former House speaker.When career politician Daniel Webster became speaker of the House, he wasted $32,000 of our money on a spiral staircase for his office, the narrator says, before moving on to a claim that he used tax money for private flights.The ad then finishes with a spin off of Robert Plant's vocals.And he's charged us for a stairway to nowhere.To be honest, it's a pretty poor rendition.But we're PolitiFact Florida, not American Idol, so we'll stick to the factual claims in the ad -- specifically about the stairwell.Stepping stones to the staircaseWebster was elected to the state House in 1980. In 1996, he became the first Republican state House speaker in more than 100 years after the GOP seized power.That also put him in charge of improvements and renovations to House offices and facilities. Each new speaker traditionally has made changes, upgrades, or renovations. In 1999, Speaker John Thrasher, now a state senator and chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, approved nearly $7 million for the House chamber -- now adorned in mahogany -- the Speaker's Office, and House office building.In 2002, leaders of the House and Senate spent about $1.5 million on furniture, structural changes, even a private bathroom. On the other hand, former Speaker Allan Bense spent only about $1,500 on changes in 2004, according to theSt. Petersburg Times.According to newspaper accounts Webster spent about $100,000 in taxpayer dollars on improvements to House facilities in his first months as speaker, including $31,983 on a spiral staircase.The staircase connected the Republican Majority Office on the Capitol's third floor with the Speaker's Office above it on the fourth floor. The staircase was intended to make it easier to move back and forth between the two offices -- namely, it allowed legislators and Webster as speaker to avoid walking through the public hallways filled with lobbyists, reporters and members of the public. The staircase will allow us to better coordinate things between the Speaker's Office and the Majority Office, Webster said at the time. He also noted that he took the idea from Democrats, who previously had drawn up plans for a spiral staircase of their own. It was built in a spiral style because it was the only way it could work given the space. The Grayson ad includes an image of an elaborate white spiral staircase to help make its point about Webster. But that's not the Webster staircase, said Todd Reid, staff director for the Florida House Majority Office. The staircasewas closed off in 2006 during more than $500,000 of renovations ordered by then-Speaker Marco Rubio. The stairway's fourth-floor landing became the new offices of the speaker's chief of staff. It was a standard black metal staircase, Reid said. It certainly wasn't heavy on the accouterments. Reid described the staircase as noisy and said whenever someone walked up or down it, people could hear the staircase rattling from both offices. He said the bottom half of the staircase remains in place; a closet was built around it. If you were in Tallahassee, I'd take you in to see it, Reid told PolitiFact Florida. Your humble fact-checker didn't have time to jump in a car for the five-hour trip to Tallahassee, but we were able to send theSt. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald'sLee Logan for an exclusive tour. Cribs: Staircase to Nowhere-edition Logan filed the following report, complete with apicture. Behind a door labeled No Entry in the House Majority Office is the famed Webster staircase. The small closet without lights is used so rarely that Reid had to hunt down someone in the House Sergeant at Arms office to get a key to the door. The bottom half of the black spiral staircase is still bolted to the floor. (Stairs are simple black metal, with a black metal railing.) Pieces of the top half are also in the closet, including a large piece that rests on top of the lower portion.The ceiling of the closet is now covered over with concrete, forming the floor of the chief of staff's office on the fourth floor. Reid says it's unlikely the stairway would be re-installed because the fourth floor spot is prime real estate -- now the House speaker and his chief of staff have direct access to one another through a door.Before Rubio made the space into the chief of staff's office, the staircase came up through a hole in the floor and emptied into a common area that also housed a few supplies.Reid said the closet could be used for supplies if the stairs were removed. But he speculated that they weren't taken out because they're simply too big. Also, a speaker sometime in the future might find a use for the stairs.The stairs were used irregularly, Reid said, usually on peak days when the Capitol was crowded. He also recalled former Gov. Jeb Bush occasionally using the stairs.Currently, if a staffer (not Joe Public) wanted to go from the Majority Office to the Speaker's Office, he or she could go up a back stairwell and cut through the Member's Lounge, which requires a key card and is reserved for lawmakers. Speaker Larry Cretul has said staffers can cut through the area if they don't loiter or disturb the lawmakers. Our ruling Grayson's ad is unintentionally ironic in that Webster's stairway to nowhere actually now is a stairway to nowhere, as it's bolted to the ground of a seldom-used closet. The stairway leads to a concrete ceiling, which now serves as the floor of an office above. Those changes were made by Marco Rubio in 2006. The stairs haven't been used since then. But that's not how Webster left it. When he became speaker in 1996, Webster did what most every speaker has done in recent times -- he spent taxpayer money on House renovations. The amount has varied wildly over the years depending on the size of the renovation.Among the $100,000 or so Webster spent, he allocated just under $32,000 for a plain spiral staircase to internally link the Speaker's Office with the House Republican Offices below.While Grayson's ad is correct on the reported dollar amount and the type of staircase, we think it's slightly misleading for two reasons. First, the imagery displayed suggests an ornate staircase when the staircase is far from ornate and only a spiral staircase by necessity. Second, it fails to provide the context that most every speaker spends taxpayer dollars on renovations, and several spent more than Webster. We rate the claim Mostly True.Now cue the Led Zeppelin ... (Update Sept. 1: We reached out to the Webster campaign before publishing this story via phone and e-mail, but did not hear back. After publication, Webster spokesman Brian Graham said in an e-mail that the staircase actually cost less than published reports. The original construction contract was for $28,126. The state paid even less, $22,242, Graham said). (Update Sept. 3:We noticed that the Grayson ad has been removed from his You Tube web page. We're not sure why). An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. 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 As COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to Americans in spring 2021, anti-vaccine groups attempted to frame the shots' manufacturers as untrustworthy to try to stop people from getting inoculated. COVID-19 Below is a sample of such claims  all from a single meme  that we fact-checked using reputable sources such as court records, resources distributed by the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the vaccine manufacturers' websites.   All in all, the meme stated facts about companies that have developed COVID-19 vaccines but failed to demonstrate how those histories are relevant to the safety or effectiveness of the manufacturers' solutions for ending the pandemic.   Firstly, in an attempt to persuade people against the two-dose Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the meme alleged the New York-based company faced almost $5 billion in penalties for supposedly breaking laws while manufacturing or distributing unidentified products.  "Pfizer: $4.7 billion in fines for false claims, drug and medical equipment safety violations, off-label promotion, corrupt practices, kickbacks, and bribery," according to the meme. The claim was factually accurate. But its implication  that, because of prior lawsuits, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccines were potentially unsafe  was unsubstantiated, a conclusion on which we elaborate below. As one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations, Pfizer's multiple subsidiaries (which produce a range of drugs, including Advil, the erectile disfunction drug Viagra, and the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor) indeed faced penalties totaling about $4.7 billion over the years, according to Good Jobs First, a left-leaning watchdog group tracking corporate subsidies. left-leaning Those cases, which originated in jurisdictions nationwide, essentially included the above-listed offenses involving all sorts of products between 2000 and 2019, according to Good Jobs First's database. above-listed offenses For instance, in 2004, the Warner-Lambert company  which Pfizer acquired four years earlier  pleaded guilty to illegally marketing the epilepsy drug Neurontin "even when scientific studies had shown it was not effective," the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a statement. illegally marketing statement Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million, said that it "cooperated fully with the government to resolve this matter," and stressed the alleged violations occurred before Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert. agreed said Then, in 2009, the company paid the largest settlement for health care fraud to date, totaling $2.3 billion, according to the DOJ.  DOJ. In that case, the company's subsidy Pharmacia & Upjohn Company pleaded guilty to promoting a painkiller Bextra "for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns," and paid a $1.3 billion criminal fine, the DOJ said in a statement. Bextra had been taken off the market four years earlier. statement had been taken off Additionally, Pfizer paid $1 billion to resolve civil claims regarding not only Bextra but also the antipsychotic Geodon, the antibiotic Zyvox, and the anti-epileptic drug Lyrica, per the statement. Pfizer denied all of those accusations, aside from acknowledging the improper promotion of Zyvox, Reuters reported at the time. Reuters reported Shortly after reaching the historic settlement, the company's general counsel told reporters that it regretted "certain actions in the past," but was proud of the action it had taken to strengthen its internal oversight. told reporters But here's how the meme misled people: It lacked critical evidence to show how those cases against Pfizer were relevant to COVID-19 vaccines, pictured below.    It also failed to acknowledge that clinical trials have shown the vaccines to be safe and effective. In December 2020, the FDA issued what's called an "Emergency Use Authorization" that deemed a COVID-19 vaccine created by Pfizer and BioNTech, as well as one manufactured by competitor Moderna, safe and effective enough for mass production. December 2020 Emergency Use Authorization BioNTech Moderna The CDC's advisory committee on immunizations also recommended the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, along with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) formulas. (Here's the CDC's explanation for how vaccines like Pfizer's  which uses mRNA technology  attempt to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the coronavirus, if necessary.) CDC's advisory committee (Here's the CDC's explanation mRNA technology Early on, clinical trials showed the Pfizer vaccine 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. The company confirmed "high efficacy and no serious safety concerns" after a March 2021 follow-up study. 95% effective confirmed follow-up study Because of those results, the FDA expanded Pfizer's eligible vaccine population to include adolescents between the ages of 12 to 15 in mid-May. Also, at that time, Pfizer and Moderna were seeking the FDA's full, regular authorization for their inoculation formulas. That status, which requires at least six months of patient data, would allow the companies to begin marketing the shots. Pfizer and Moderna  full, regular authorization In other words, if or when the FDA grants the Pfizer vaccine full approval, the company "can advertise on TV and promote their products under the watchful eye of the FDA," former FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf told CNBC. told CNBC To conclude our research, we reached out to Pfizer's communication's department with the following questions: No one has answered our inquiry, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. In sum, we rate the claim regarding Pfizer a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. It was an accurate depiction of the company's alleged violations involving a handful of its numerous drugs over years. However, no evidence connected those offenses with COVID-19 vaccines nor showed Pfizer had made false claims about, or illegally promoted, its vaccine.  Next, in attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the meme claimed the Massachusetts-based company had tried numerous times to develop vaccines for mass production prior to the pandemic with no success. "Moderna: Has never brought a vaccine to market since its founding, despite fielding 9+ vaccine candidates, none of which made it through phase 3 clinical trials," the meme alleged. Similarly to the Pfizer allegation, the claim was rooted in truth. But the statement failed to explain how it was relevant to Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, as well as erroneously implied the company's other vaccines did not reach mass distribution solely because of shortcomings in the products themselves, such as their effect on patients or alleged lack of success preventing viral outbreaks. Rather, other barriers  such as a lack of funding for research  also played a role in the pharmaceutical company's vaccine history. In addition to the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna has developed nine prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology since its founding in 2010, according to the company's website. The company describes mRNA "like software for the cell" with the potential to fighting many diseases. prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology company's website like software for the cell In April 2020, before the FDA granted emergency authorization of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, BioSpace reported: BioSpace reported So far, Moderna has conducted early trials with success on nine vaccine candidates, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and parainfluenza virus (PIV3), influenza H7N9, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Zika, Epstein-Barr, chikungunya. [...] However, the meme was accurate in claiming none of those experimental immunizations (aside from the COVID-19 vaccine) progressed past Phase II clinical trails. That's the stage after researchers test a product on an initial group of people and want to see how it affects a larger sample. (See the FDA's website for more differences between phases of clinical research, and see here for Moderna's process for developing and testing its mRNA vaccines.) test a product clinical research here for Moderna's process for Here's Moderna's visualization of its various vaccines and their development:   But, as you can see, Moderna's Influenza H7N9 vaccine was only advancing "subject to funding," negating the meme's implication that the company halted development solely due to safety concerns or ineffectiveness. Furthermore, Moderna's Cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine was the first of its kind to enter a Phase II clinical trial, showed "promising" results so far, and was scheduled to progress in 2021, The Medicine Maker reported. Studies on the company's other immunizations remained ongoing, too. Phase II clinical trial The Medicine Maker Similar to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the Moderna shot was 94% effective in preventing recipients from catching the virus. 94% effective Lastly, Snopes contacted representatives of Moderna with the following questions: Pending answers to those questions, we will update this report. In short, the meme factually stated that the COVID-19 vaccine was Moderna's first inoculation to reach mass production. However, it simultaneously implied, without evidence to substantiate the claim, that the company's other vaccines stalled due to their effects on test patients. For those reasons, we rate the claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Much like the meme's claim about Pfizer, its allegation that Johnson & Johnson was "named in hundreds of thousands of lawsuits for toxic and/or dangerous products, including drugs, shampoos, medical equipment, and asbestos-contaminated baby powder" was at least partially accurate at face value. asbestos-contaminated baby powder But the post failed to provide substantial evidence to prove how, or to what extent, that fact was relevant to the safety of the company's COVID-19 vaccine. Let us explain. In fall 2020, Johnson & Johnson indeed paid over $100 million to resolve more than 1,000 lawsuits claiming that the pharmaceutical giant's banned powder and talc products caused cancer due to asbestos contamination, Bloomberg reported. Some 20,000 pending cases made similar accusations. Bloomberg reported Additionally, unrelated lawsuits alleged the company violated medical equipment or drug safety guidelines, among other offenses, according to Good Jobs First, the corporate accountability watchdog. For instance, one investigation concluded the company did not fully disclose the risks of devices to support women's prolapsed pelvic organs, according to The Gaurdian. Good Jobs First The Gaurdian Let us note here: The exact number of lawsuits that named the company for allegedly selling "toxic and/or dangerous products" since its founding was unknown, which meant the meme's reference to "hundreds of thousands" of cases was unsubstantiated. No violation listed in the Good Jobs First database was related to Johnson & Johnson's single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, which the FDA approved months after Pfizer's and Moderna's, in early 2021. approved Instead of using mRNA technology, the J&J shot takes the form of whats called a viral vector to attack one specific part of SARS-CoV-2. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 immunization (which the FDA has not approved, as of this writing, and discuss below) uses that same process. The J&J shot was about 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 from infecting recipients during clinical trials, according to the CDC. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 according to the CDC That said, J&J's immunization was not without controversy. In mid-April, mass vaccination sites in states including Georgia, Colorado, and North Carolina temporarily halted the shot's distribution after a few recipients felt dizzy, light-headed, and faint. The CDC monitored the reports and continued to recommend the shot's use. temporarily halted Then, shortly later, the CDC recommended all vaccine providers nationwide to temporarily halt giving out the J&J shot while health officials investigated a potential blood clotting issue that occurred in seven cases out of 6.8 million shots administered. recommended That pause ended on April 23, when the CDC said in a statement: said in a statement We reached out to J&J with the following questions: We will update this report when, or if, the company responds. In conclusion, we also rated the meme's statements about J&J a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. While it was a mostly factual representation of the company's alleged lawsuits over the years, nothing linked those cases with the company's COVID-19 immunization nor showed that the product included toxic or dangerous ingredients, like the meme implied. Of all of the meme's claims, the assertion about AstraZeneca was the least misleading. It was a direct reference to the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine (which is not currently in use in the U.S. and was developed in partnership with Oxford University) instead of an out-of-context fact pertaining to other pharmaceutical products. not currently "AstraZeneca: Suspended by two dozen European countries due to severe, lethal adverse reactions, like blood clots," the post alleged. lethal Yes, in spring 2021, a number of European countries (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, etc.) temporarily suspended rollouts of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine after reports of patients developing blood clots. Less than 40 cases of blood clots were reported out of the 17 million vaccine recipients, according to AstraZeneca.  Denmark Norway Iceland Bulgaria according to AstraZeneca Reputable sources, including Snopes, said "more than a dozen European countries" issued the suspension  not "two dozen," like the meme claimed. Reputable sources Snopes Additionally, the meme's use of the phrase "due to" discredited its message. Rather, AstraZeneca, health officials, the World Health Organization (WHO) and government regulatory bodies all said there was no causal link between the vaccine formula and the patients' blood clots. "In fact, nearly every country that issued a suspension acknowledged that it had no evidence the vaccine had caused the blood clots," NBC reported at the time. "Health experts have pointed out that the people most likely to currently be receiving COVID-19 vaccinations are also more likely to have other health problems, which could put them at higher risk for blood clots." reported at the time See our fact check into the matter here. here Since then, many European countries restarted their programs after the European Medicine Agency dubbed the AstraZeneca vaccine safe and effective" despite the blood-clot reports. EMA said in a statement: European Medicine Agency In other words, we rate the meme's claim regarding AstraZeneca a "Mixture" of false and factual information. It was true that a number of European countries temporarily suspended the use of the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine after a handful of recipients reported blood clots. But no evidence proved those thromboembolic issues were a direct, adverse affect of the vaccine (rather than unrelated medical issues), and several countries restarted their AstraZeneca vaccination programs since the brief halt. On 18 September 2016, the "Donald Trump for President" Facebook page posted a photograph of Hillary Clinton along with the claim that the Democratic presidential nominee had spent over $1 billion on negative attack ads targeting Trump, but she had spent no money at all on political ads touting her own political record and accomplishments:  The image asks viewers to "share if you agree," but its claims are not up for debate. They are false.  First, the Hillary Clinton campaign has not spent "over $1 billion on negative Trump ads on TV." Although Clinton has run a number of negative TV spots attacking her rival, she has not spent anywhere near $1 billion on such ads. Shortly after this image was published in September 2016, NBC partner Advertising Analytics released a report detailing how much money each of the candidates had spent on ads. They recorded that Clinton's campaign spent about $90 million on ads during the general election (up to 20 September 2016), while pro-Clinton groups had spent an additional $60 million or so: report Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate Donald Trump and pro-Trump outside groups in the 2016 advertising race. According to ad-spending data from NBC partner Advertising Analytics, Clinton's campaign has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, versus $17.3 million for Trump's campaign. That's more than a 5-to-1 advantage for Clinton. And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump. That's almost a 5-to-1 advantage. It's also false to say that Clinton has never released a political ad touting her own accomplishments. The Clinton campaign has issued a number of videos touting her accomplishments from her 30-plus years of public service, including one that highlighted her work with children and health care and another featuring President Obama talking about Clinton's many achievements (including becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party).  children and health care achievements Even if we assume the original image referred only to paid television advertising, it's still wrong in light of examples such as a June 2016 Clinton TV spot that showcased several highlights of her political career: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] John Kerry, man of the common folk . . . he understands your pain, really . . trust him--dah, yeah--right! The many homes of Democrat Presidential candiate John F. Kerry.  Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania  (Assessed value: $3.7 million)  Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway/vacation home  (Assessed value: $4.9 million)  Washington, D.C - Georgetown area (Assessed value: $4.7 million)  Nantucket, MA waterfront retreat on Brant Point (Assessed value: $9.2 million)  Boston, Massachusetts  - Beacon Hill home (Assessed value: $6.9)  Total assessed value of all five homes = $29.4 million. . . . and he sold this estate in Italy to activist actor George Clooney, just before announcing his candidacy for president.  I guess he thought it might not look right to the common man.  ($7.8 million)  Other foreign property ownership by John Kerry is unknown... because he denied repeated requests for this information.  Please e-mail this information to all your friends, family and contacts.   Class warfare is not right, but neither is being a hypocrite.  This man wants to be our president, while claiming that he relates to Joe-6-pack and the common man.  He wants to raise income taxes on the rich, well, guess what?  He won't pay those taxes because he is already rich!  He wants to make it harder for you to get rich by raising taxes on your income!  Talk about snobbery and protecting his "class."   Please e-mail to at least 5 people. It's certainly no secret to anyone familiar with the U.S. political scene that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has a net worth of several million dollars, and that his wife, Teresa, could accurately be described as "super wealthy."  Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry was previously  married for 25 years to the late Henry John Heinz III,  a member of the founding family of the H.J. Heinz Company, and after his death in a 1991 plane crash she inherited a Heinz family fortune  estimated at over $500 million. H.J. Heinz John and/or Teresa Kerry do own several valuable properties in the U.S., including:  A five-story, twelve-room brownstone townhouse (with six fireplaces, a rooftop deck, and an elevator) in Boston's Beacon Hill.  This home is John Kerry's main residence and was assessed at a value of $6.6 million in 2003  A nine-room colonial home on a 90-acre family farm in Fox Chapel near Pittsburgh.  This home is Teresa Kerry's longtime residence, where she lived while was married to John Heinz and where she raised her three children.  It is valued at $3.7 million.  A ski/vacation home located near the banks of the Big Wood River in Ketchum, Idaho, fashioned from a reassembled barn originally built in England in 1485 and brought to Idaho by Teresa Heinz Kerry's late husband.  It was purchased for $4.9 million in 1988.  A three-story, five-bedroom waterfront estate near the Brant Point Lighthouse in Nantucket's harbor, where John and Teresa Kerry were married in 1995.  The beachfront property is valued at $9.1 million. A 23-room townhouse in the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C., valued at $4.7 million. The aggregate value of these five homes is roughly $29 million, but the claim that John Kerry "owns" all of these properties is problematic.  John and Teresa Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate.  The Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they own as a couple; the other four belonged to Teresa before her 1995 marriage to John Kerry, and some of them are even still listed under the name of her late husband.  Also, according to the London Times, the Italian villa bought by actor George Clooney was sold a year before John Kerry announced his intention to seek the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and it was owned not by John or Teresa Kerry, but by Mrs. Drue Heinz, a relative of Teresa's through her marriage to John Heinz: The Hollywood star George Clooney has parted company with his long-time agent in a dispute over the purchase of a historic 5m Italian villa. Clooney is reported to have been "incensed" when he discovered that Michael Gruber, who steered his career from the television medical drama ER to box office hits such as The Perfect Storm, had discussed a 175,000 fee for helping to arrange for the star to buy the house from Drue Heinz, the philanthropist. The widow of Jack Heinz, grandson of the American entrepreneur who first bottled 57 varieties of pickle, Heinz lives in Ascot, Berkshire, but in recent years she had turned the Villa Oleandra on Lake Como, north of Milan, into a writers' sanctuary. Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of the American classic The Scarlet Letter, stayed there in the 1850s.  Family illnesses persuaded Heinz to sell the villa, situated in the village of Laglio, where the neighbours include Donatella Versace, the fashion designer. DePaulo, Lisa.  "Taming Teresa."
  Elle.  June 2003.

 Fee, Gayle and Laura Raposa.  "Crocodile Tears at Fleet If Dems Move Bash."
  The Boston Herald.  19 March 2004  (p. 20).
 Harlow, John.  "Angry Clooney Cuts Loose from Agent Who Steered Him to Film Stardom."
  The [London] Times.  27 October 2002  (p. 29).
 Kasindorf, Martin.  "Kerry Hits the Slopes, Fires Back After Bush's Criticism."
  USA Today.  20 March 2004.

 Noah, Timothy.  "Does Teresa Heinz Trust John Kerry?" 
  Slate.  2 December 2003.

 Reston, Maeve.  "Teresa Heinz Kerry Speaks Her Mind, But in N.H., It's Not Hurting Husband."
  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  30 November 2003.

 Silberman, Ellen J. and Jack Meyers.  "Kerry Loan Twice As Nice."
  The Boston Herald.  25 Feburary 2004.

 Associated Press..  "Five Kerry Homes Valued at Nearly $33M."
  USA Today.  22 March 2004.