Is the U.S. One of the Worst Countries for Women?
Many social media users have expressed disbelief and dismay at a graphic indicating that the United States had been deemed "one of the ten worst countries in the world to be a woman," rounding out a list headed by India, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, and Nigeria:  The basis of the graphic was a 2018 survey compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the "charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, property rights, climate change and resilience." survey This item is therefore superficially "true" in the sense that it reflects the results of a genuine poll, but of course the significance of any particular survey or poll depends upon its methodology. In this case, Thomson Reuters polled 548 experts on women's issues by phone and in person between March 26 and May 4, 2018. The respondents were evenly spread across Europe, Africa, the Americas, South East Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific, and included "aid professionals, academics, healthcare staff, non-government organisation workers, policy-makers, development specialists and social commentators." According to Thomson Reuters, "the survey asked respondents which five of the 193 United Nations member states they thought were most dangerous for women and which country was worst in terms of healthcare, economic resources, cultural or traditional practices, sexual violence and harassment, non-sexual violence and human trafficking." Still, Americans (and others) were left puzzled by how the United States could rank so highly in such a survey, given that many of the phenomena that contributed to the other countries' being declared dangerous and unhealthy places for women  female infanticide, forced marriages, sex slavery, domestic servitude, death by stoning, civil war, restricted access to health care  have little to no prevalence in the U.S. The explanation offered by Thomson Reuters was that the influence of the #MeToo movement and the Time's Up campaign, which were running concurrently with the poll, influenced the results sufficiently to push the U.S. into the top 10: Time's Up Experts said the surprise addition of the United States in the top 10 most dangerous countries for women came down to the #MeToo and Time's Up campaigns against sexual harassment and violence that have dominated headlines for months. "People want to think income means you're protected from misogyny, and sadly that's not the case," said Cindy Southworth, executive vice president of the Washington-based National Network to End Domestic Violence. "We are going to look back and see this as a very powerful tipping point ... We're blowing the lid off and saying '#Metoo and Time's Up'." Reuters.  "Factbox: Which Are the World's 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women?"
  25 June 2018. Goldsmith, Belinda and Meka Beresford.  "India Most Dangerous Country for Women with Sexual Violence Rife."
  Thomson Reuters Foundation.  26 June 2018.
In August 2018, a bit of Islamophobic copypasta started making its way around social media, asserting that the mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota had canceled a 4th of July city fireworks display but allowed "Muslim animal sacrifice" to be held in the city's U.S. Bank Stadium (home of the Minnesota Vikings football team) the following month: copypasta   This copypasta was based on a bit of fake news, a fear-mongering report about the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, and a misreading of two genuine news reports. Fake News On 10 June 2018, the Last Line of Defense web site published an article positing that the Muslim mayor of Minneapolis had "canceled the 4th of July": article Mayor Ahneid al Ahmed of Haskentot, Minnesota has done the unthinkable and canceled the 4th of July. According to his office, the city has no desire to spend money on something so frivolous. Muslim spokesman Art Tubolls said: This city elected our mayor to do what is best. We dont hink buying a bunch of flags and fireworks and spending a day celebrating nationalism like nazis is a good idea. This was not a genuine news story about the mayor of Minneapolis, who is neither named "Ahneid al Ahmed" nor a Muslim. (The city's actual mayor is Jacob Frey.) The Last Line of Defense is part of a network of sites that engages in political trolling under the guise of proffering "satire." Jacob Frey This junk news piece may have prompted some confusion, as it resembled a genuine news story about a nearby Minnesota city. The mayor of St. Paul did cancel the city's Independence Day firework show due to budgetary concerns: cancel St. Paul will go without the rockets red glare on Independence Day this year. Mayor Melvin Carter announced that the city wont hold a Fourth of July fireworks event. The cancellation may foreshadow of what could be a difficult budget season. Carters announcement, posted to Facebook, cited concerns about the citys budget climate. Minneapolis, on the other hand, hosted multiple firework shows on July 4th. multiple firework shows Fear-Mongering Reports About Eid al-Adha The Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha is also referred to as the "Feast of Sacrifice." The holiday, which honors Ibrahim's (Abraham's) willingness to sacrifice his son at God's command, is celebrated by Muslims around the world. In many places, Muslims observe that holiday by  sacrificing an animal and then sharing its meat with the poor: sacrificing To commemorate God's test of Ibrahim, many Muslim families sacrifice an animal and share the meat with the poor. They also are required to donate to charities that benefit the poor. Muslims also routinely exchange presents during the holiday. When it was announced that U.S. Bank Stadium would be hosting a Eid al-Adha festival, the Islamophobic web site "Bare Naked Islam" published an article about the upcoming event imploring readers to "imagine" 50,000 Muslims at the stadium and displaying various photographs and videos of animal sacrifices from around the world. article The following photograph, for instance, was taken in Lahore, Pakistan, in 2008: taken   These photographs led many readers to mistakenly believe that the "Super EID" festival at U.S. Bank Stadium would also feature animal sacrifices, but that wasn't the case. Ahmed Anshur, executive director of Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center in St. Paul and one of the organizers of "Super EID," attempted to quell these fears, telling Minnesota Public Radio that no animal sacrifices would take place at the event: Minnesota Public Radio Eid Al-Adha, the second Muslim holiday of the year, comes at the end of the pilgrimage. Its name in Arabic means the "festival of sacrifice." Muslims celebrate by sacrificing animals and donating meat to charity. But Ahmed Anshur, executive director of Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center in St. Paul and one of the organizers, wants to be clear: The actual ritual will not take place at U.S. Bank Stadium. "Nobody is going to sacrifice an animal, or nobody is going to slaughter an animal in that field," he said. "I can assure you that, 100 percent." The Minneapolis Star Tribune filed a report after the 21 August 2018 celebration on  which stated that in fact no animal sacrifices had taken place at the stadium during the EID celebration: report The holiday honors the prophet Ibrahim, also known as Abraham in Judaism and Christianity, and his willingness to sacrifice his son for God. It comes at the end of the annual hajj pilgrimage. It is one of the holiest days of the year for Muslims, who celebrate with prayer, shared meals and gifts. In some places, families who can afford it slaughter an animal and share the meat with family and charities. No animals were sacrificed at the stadium Tuesday. Bowling, Chris.  "Thousands Join in 'Super Eid' Celebration at U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis."
  [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  21 August 2018. Feshir, Riham.  "Thousands Expected for 'Super Eid' in Downtown Minneapolis."
  MPR News.  20 August 2018. CNN.  "5 Things to Know About the Muslim Holiday Eid al-Adha."
  21 August 2018. The Current.  "Fourth of July 2018: Where to See Fireworks in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Beyond."
  26 June 2018. Melo, Frederick.  "St. Paul Mayor Cancels July 4 Fireworks, Cites Budget Concerns."
  TwinCities.com.  27 June 2018. A fake photograph of an explosion at the Pentagon in Washington that was virally shared on Twitter may have caused the stock market to briefly take a slight dip. The picture went viral on the social media platform on the morning of May 22, 2023. The photo may have originally been generated by artificial intelligence (AI) technology. It was reshared by a number of prominent accounts. The Arlington County Fire Department in Virginia confirmed on their specially-designated "government or multilateral organization account" that no such explosion had taken place.  According to Insider.com, the stock market happened to fall 0.26% four minutes after one prominent user tweeted the fake news. Bear in mind that all of this happened on a Monday morning, the beginning of the week for Wall Street. Still, the market "quickly bounced back," the reporting said. Insider.com tweeted Any rumors that claimed the market took a massive hit because of the photo or the false news were not true. As the news and fake picture went viral, it was shared byRussian state-backed media outlet RT. The tweet was deleted minutes later. The news of the explosion that never happened also appeared on TV on India's Republic Media Network.  Additionally, a number of users who paidfor Twitter Blue shared the news. The paid service provides accounts various perks, including a blue checkmark.  In one case, an account named @BloombergFeed, whose owner had paid for Twitter Blue, tweeted the news. However, despite its handle, this user had no affiliation with Bloomberg News. The account has since been suspended.  In the past, blue checkmarks were not for sale to the general public. They were only handed out to a select number of accounts, many who could have been considered prominent people or authoritative sources. After Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, policies were put into place that made it so anyone could purchase the checkmark symbol to be placed on their account with Twitter Blue. To some users, this perhaps gave a broad and false sense of trust of authority to tweets from "verified" accounts. Twitter Blue @ArlingtonVaFD. "@PFPAOfficial and the ACFD Are Aware of a Social Media Report Circulating Online about an Explosion near the Pentagon. There Is NO Explosion or Incident Taking Place at or near the Pentagon Reservation, and There Is No Immediate Danger or Hazards to the Public." Twitter, 22 May 2023, https://twitter.com/ArlingtonVaFD/status/1660653619954294786. Cohen, Rebecca. "An Apparently AI-Generated Hoax of an Explosion at the Pentagon Went Viral Online  and Markets Briefly Dipped." Insider, 22 May 2023, https://www.insider.com/ai-generated-hoax-explosion-pentagon-viral-markets-dipped-2023-5. On Feb. 15, 2019, a pregnant waitress in her third trimester received a generous $100 tip after serving lunch to a cop. It happened at the Lamp Post Diner in Clementon, New Jersey. A Voorhees County police officer had ordered a lunch that cost less than $9. He paid his bill and left the diner before the waitress, Courtney English, was shown the receipt by the hostess. The story ended up being reported by local and national news media. NJ.com reported that the tip "brought her to tears": local national reported As Courtney English worked the lunch crowd Friday at the Lamp Post Diner, she got to chatting with customers about the upcoming birth of her first child. English is nearly eight months pregnant and has been working at the Gloucester Township diner to save as much money as possible before her daughter arrives. What happened next brought her to tears. A police officer dining on a salad at a nearby table must have overheard the conversation, she said. When he left to pay the bill, the anonymous officer included a $100 tip on the $8.75 check, along with a simple note: "Enjoy your first. You will never forget it. This was all true. Then a viral content website seized on the story for profit. The person or people behind the website HouseDiver, which claimed to be managed from Israel, dramatized the tale of kindness into a 71-page slideshow-style article. Most of the pages contained about three sentences each. Since at least January 2021, the HouseDiver article was advertised on the Taboola advertising platform with a misleading headline: "Pregnant Waitress Charges Cop $9 For Lunch, Moments Later She Runs To The Manager." Another ad read: "[Pic] Heavily Pregnant Waitress Runs To Her Boss In Tears After Seeing What Cop Left Next To Bill."   The strategy behind HouseDiver's 71-page article was known as advertising "arbitrage." The goal for the website was to make more money on the ads displayed on each of the 71 pages than it cost to run the initial ad that lured readers to the story in the first place. HouseDiver appeared to have located a number of pictures of English and her child, who was born weeks after English received the $100 tip. The viral content website used multiple photographs of her child without her permission. We contacted English, who was eager to set the record straight. We asked her if she had seen the misleading and dramatized version of the story. "I came across all of that too and was very upset," English said. She confirmed to us that she did not "run to the manager." Further, she said that the story's writers "came up with some really outlandish things" and that much of it was "over-exaggerated." We also notified her that it appeared pictures of her and her child had been used without her permission. "Definitely without my permission," she said. Honestly, I just find it inappropriate that pictures I didnt give permission to be used are all over the internet. Pictures of my minor child are being shared with false information and I just feel its an invasion of our privacy, as well as I didnt consent to it. As for the real story of the waitress, the cop, and the $100 tip, Courtney English's father, Brian, shared his thoughts in a Facebook post. It read, in part: waitress Facebook post What a wonderful person to not only leave a VERY generous tip, but a lovely message. I don't know you Mr. Police Officer, but you made my little girl cry, and made her year. Thank you. I always had the utmost respect for officers, but you went above and beyond not just an officer, but a beautiful human being. God Bless. We provided information to English regarding how she can report the advertisement to the Taboola advertising platform. We also directed her to the contact page for housediver.com, the website that hosted her child's pictures without her permission. For further reading, we have previously reported on a similar instance of a viral content website seizing on another true story about something that was hidden in a necklace. previously reported Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. In March 2022, a rumor started circulating online that actor Leonardo DiCaprio had donated $10 million to Ukraine after the country was invaded by Russia. While this claim was repeated ad nauseam across social media, there's little evidence to suggest that it's true. In an article that has since been deleted, the Daily Mail reported: Daily Mail reported Hollywood megastar Leonardo DiCaprio has donated $10million (7.6million) to a fund for Ukraine, where his grandmother was born in 1915. The actor was reportedly very close with his grandmother - Helene Indenbirken - and would take her to premiers of many of his films. DiCaprio would call her 'Oma'. The donation from the 47-year-old was announced by the International Visegrad Fund, according to Polish News. For starters, neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor the International Visegrad Fund (IVF) have made any announcements about this alleged donation. We searched the social media profiles and websites for both the actor and the IVF, an international donor organization that finances grants and scholarships to encourage the "advancement of innovative ideas in Central and Eastern Europe," and found no mention of this alleged donation.  Leonardo DiCaprio International Visegrad Fund Furthermore, this rumor can't be traced back to a reputable news source. While most articles about this alleged donation quoted a report from a website called "Polish News," that March 7 article is not the primary source for this rumor. The earliest iteration of this claim that we could find was published on guyanasouthamerica.gy on March 5, 2022. That article cited anonymous "sources" inside Ukraine: guyanasouthamerica.gy on March 5, 2022 Sources inside Ukraine today, 5th of May, 2022, disclosed that Hollywood superstar, famed for his role in the hit movie Titanic, Leonardo DiCaprio, has transferred ten million US dollars to the Ukrainian government as the war rages on between Russia and Ukraine. Presumably, the huge donation is meant to support the war efforts as well as humanitarian efforts within the country. This original report states that DiCaprio donated money directly to the Ukrainian government. This simply doesn't seem feasible, especially without any statements from the Ukrainian government. (We checked. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has not mentioned any multi-million dollar donations from DiCaprio.) The claim that this money was donated to the International Visegrad Fund appears to come from people making big assumptions based on little information. On March 6, a day after the anonymously sourced guyanasouthamerica.gy article was published, the Twitter account Visegrad 24 picked up on the story and published the following tweet. (Visegrad 24 previously shared a false rumor that Pornhub was blocking Russian users from accessing its site). Visegrad 24 picked up on the story and published the following tweet. previously shared a false rumor Pornhub was blocking Russian users from accessing its site   This tweet does not claim that DiCaprio donated money to the International Visegrad Fund. Rather, it says that the money was "donated to Ukraine." It seems likely that people saw this tweet, connected Visegrad 24 to the International Visegrad Fund, and assumed that this is where DiCaprio's alleged donation went.  A spokesperson for the International Visegrad Fund told us that they were unaware of any such donation from DiCaprio: "We are not aware, neither do we have any information about Leonardo DiCaprio donating USD 10 million/7.6 million to Ukraine. International Visegrad Fund has not announced this information." While DiCaprio did not donate $10 million to this fund, the spokesperson did say that prime ministers from V4 countries (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) agreed on a "support package of 1 million euros to help Ukraine via the International Visegrad Fund." The spokesperson said: I can, however, inform you that the V4 Prime Ministers met in London on 8 March 2022 where they agreed on a support package of 1 million euros to help Ukraine via the International Visegrad Fund. An extraordinary call for applications will be shortly available to NGOs, organisations, and municipalities from the V4 countries and Ukraine with a focus on improving the situation of refugees from Ukraine. While the rumors that DiCaprio donated $10 million to the Ukraine military or the International Visegrad Fund are untrue, the actor really has made a few private donations of unknown amounts to various humanitarian organizations working in Ukraine.  People Magazine reported: People Magazine reported Previous reports claiming the actor had donated $10 million for Ukrainian military use and that DiCaprio has family ties to Ukraine are not true. "Leo had privately made several donations to humanitarian groups  CARE, IRC, UNHCR and Save the Children. All directed at Ukraine," a source close to the Don't Look Up actor tells PEOPLE. "He had been watching things unfold and wanted to support Ukraine the best he could. He will continue to support the humanitarian groups on the ground which are helping the people of Ukraine."   Dickler, Jessica. Heres a List of the Top-Rated Charities to Help the Ukraine Relief Effort. CNBC, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/heres-a-list-of-top-rated-charities-to-help-the-ukraine-relief-effort.html. Examiner, Luke Gentile, Washington. Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10 Million to Ukraine. Colorado Springs Gazette, https://gazette.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-donates-10-million-to-ukraine/article_b1faacaa-b309-587c-8905-19f046619474.html. Accessed 9 Mar. 2022. Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10 Million to Ukraine. Washington Examiner, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-donates-10-million-to-ukraine. Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10MILLION to Fund for Ukraine - His Grandmothers Homeland | Daily Mail Online. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10593687/Leonardo-DiCaprio-donates-10MILLION-fund-Ukraine-grandmothers-homeland.html. Accessed 9 Mar. 2022. REPORT: Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10 Million To Help Ukraine. https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/09/report-leonardo-dicaprio-donation-10-million-ukraine-russia/. Accessed 9 Mar. 2022. Updated [9 March 2022]: Article updated with statement from DiCaprio's spokesperson about the actor's genuine donations to Ukraine. On 14 December 2014, photographs were posted by a Facebook user along with accompanying text suggesting the pictures depicted shopping carts full of donated toys that had been returned to a Walmart store in exchange for beer and cigarettes: Ok...As I was leaving Wal-Mart at 6:30am this morning, I asked the returns clerk did someone purchase these? She responded, those were yesterday's return. I then asked the question; were these gifts? She responded that most likely all of them are gifts from organizations or toy runs. I was sick to my stomach with her next response, "folk return them, get a gift card and then buy beer and cigarettes." Be aware of your blessing to others in need. Make sure that the organization or individual is truly getting and keeping the gift, especially children. These pics are from one day of returns and the clerk said; most of time there's more. Be blessed friends...          That claim predictably caused outrage among Facebook users, with many commenters stating the situation as described confirmed their suspicions about the poor and needy. However, a number of factors suggested the claim might not be true and could therefore negatively impact initiatives to ensure children living in poverty had access to much-needed toy donations at Christmastime. First and foremost, the post presented only a single Walmart shopper's account in assessing what the images depicted. The man said he confirmed with the cashier that the items were toy returns, but whether such a conversation even took place is not independently verifiable. Then there's the matter of how retail systems are organized, particularly during the holiday season. Sorting merchandise into carts for restocking on shelves is common practice, and such sorting includes not just returns but also items moved by customers from one part of the store to another or abandoned at check-out aisles.  Such items are generally sorted by department, so busy stores are likely to be stuck with several carts per department at the end of a shift or the start of a day.  Items moved or abandoned at checkout that require refrigeration would be top priority, and items such as clothing and toys would command less urgency. So pictures of carts full of toy department items could create the false impression of a disproportionate number of returns to that department, when it's entirely possible carts full of other departments' items were just as plentiful but were left out of the frame of the photographs or had already been returned to their shelves.   And even if we were to take the tale at face value, it's still a bit hard to buy because for the cashier's claim about beer and cigarettes to be credible, we would have to assume she was in the habit of tracking customers after they returned items, carefully observing what they purchased with  gift cards or store credits.   There is also the matter of the origin of the toys. Although toys received through programs for the needy are certainly returned to stores from time to time, there's simply no way to discern which toys seen in random photographs might have been received as standard gifts from family members or friends, which toys might have been donated via Christmas drives for the needy, and which toys might have been returned simply because they proved to be unwanted or duplicate items. No explanation was provided in the Facebook post as to why the toys in the cart were assumed to have been donated ones rather than purchased or gifted toys. returned In fact, the store in question, a Walmart on Bleachery Boulevard in Asheville, North Carolina, verified that although the photographs were in fact taken at that store, "The claim the toys are all returns is 100 percent not true" and "most of the toys are items left around the store that need to be restocked,"  according to a report by Asheville television station WLOS: report The Facebook post claims donated gifts from organizations or toy runs were being returned to Walmart. The Facebook user says a store clerk told him folks returned the toys to "buy beer and cigarettes." Bill Murdock, CEO of Eblen Charities, has his doubts. "Sometimes these things kind of get out of hand. You know, somebody will make a comment or somebody will assume something and then all of the sudden it becomes the truth, whether it's the truth or not," Murdock said In an effort to reduce the chances someone will return one of the donated toys to a local store, Eblen Charities representatives have started marking over the bar codes.  Whether or not the story were in any way reflective of any factual circumstances, it would be a shame for such a claim to negatively impact much-needed toy drives right before Christmas. The tale closely matches much of the argument against food stamps and other forms of assistance for the needy and has the potential to damage efforts to supply children in need with toys at Christmas. According to Toys for Tots, demand for toys has outpaced supply in recent years, and while the scope of the program is very large, the organization is unable to fulfill all the requests it receives: Many of the gifts they provide, such as books, games and sports equipment, make a significant contribution to the educational, as well as social and recreational interests, of these children.  The program is also of immense assistance to parents who, during the holiday season, are unable to provide needed gifts for their children.  The Marine Corps fulfilled the holiday hopes and dreams of nearly 7 million less fortunate children in each of the past ten years.  While that may be a lot of children, we unfortunately ran out of gifts long before they ran out of children.  To make a credit card contribution or to find out more about the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, please go to their website at www.toysfortots.org or call the foundation at (703) 640-9433. The author urged people to verify whether toys are truly being parceled out to kids in genuine need, but most toy drives are partially or wholly anonymous in order to protect the privacy of recipients, and therefore such endeavors aren't possible without intruding upon those who receive items from those drives. In the absence of stronger evidence, there is little reason to believe the claim presented here was true, accurate, or representative of how toy drives actually operate. Brigman, Lauren.   "REALITY CHECK: Returned Toy Donations?"
  WLOS-TV.  18 December 2014. As controversy raged over racially motivated violence and law enforcement policies in the United States, a persistent rumor regarding the origins of 21st-century policing appeared online. It showed up, as such things tend to do, in meme form:   But how accurate is this? And where did the concept of police as de facto executors of justice (rather than peacekeepers) originate? Law enforcement has always existed in one form or another. The first constables (from the Roman comes stabuli, or "head of the stables") with duties very similar to today's sheriffs, were around at least since the 9th century, and traveled to the Americas from Europe to supplant the systems that existed there at the time in the 1600s. The Encyclopedia of Police Science delves into the history of constables in the colonies:  history In the American colonies the constable was the first law enforcement officer. His duties varied from place to place according to the needs of the people he served. Usually, the constable sealed weights and measures, surveyed land, announced marriages, and executed all warrants. Additionally, he meted out physical punishments and kept the peace.  The informal and communal system known as "the Watch" worked (more or less efficiently) on a volunteer basis in the early colonies; there were also private policing systems for hire that functioned on a for-profit basis. As populations grew, so did demands for more functional system of policing towns and cities. Volunteers would often show up to their posts drunk or not at all, and the systems were disorganized or hopelessly corrupt.  posts According to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University, a centralized, bureaucratic police system did not emerge until well into the 1800s, but was quickly adopted by cities around the country: Gary Potter It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. These "modern police" organizations shared similar characteristics: (1) they were publicly supported and bureaucratic in form; (2) police officers were full-time employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers; (3) departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as a police officers was continuous; (4) police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority (Lundman 1980). More than a hundred years earlier, in 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the fledgling United States' first slave patrol. The patrol consisted of roving bands of armed white citizens who would stop, question, and punish slaves caught without a permit to travel. They were civil organizations, controlled and maintained by county courts. The way the patrols were organized and maintained provided a later framework for preventive (rather than reactive) community policing, particularly in the South:  courts Policing had always been a reactive enterprise, occurring only in response to a specific criminal act. Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the "dangerous classes" began to emphasize preventative crime control. The presence of police, authorized to use force, could stop crime before it started by subjecting everyone to surveillance and observation. The concept of the police patrol as a preventative control mechanism routinized the insertion of police into the normal daily events of everyone's life, a previously unknown and highly feared concept in both England and the United States (Parks 1976). Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as "collective bargaining by riot") and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States' restive economic underclasses.  labor strikes Eric Hobsbawm destruction In fact, police duties since the 1800s can be easily traced along the ebb and flow of political pressures as well as social issues:  issues In 1822, for example, Charleston, South Carolina, experienced a slave insurrection panic, caused by a supposed plot of slaves and free blacks to seize the city. In response, the State legislature passed the Negro Seamen's Act, requiring free black seamen to remain on board their vessels while in Carolina harbors. If they dared to leave their ships, the police were instructed to arrest them and sell them into slavery unless they were redeemed by the ship's master.  Similarly, patrols such as the Mounted Guards (forerunners to what eventually became the Border Patrol) were put in place to maintain minority quotas, among other things:  minority quotas Mounted watchmen of the U.S. Immigration Service patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted. The inspectors, usually called Mounted Guards, operated out of El Paso, Texas. Though they never totaled more than seventy-five, they patrolled as far west as California trying to restrict the flow of illegal Chinese immigration. In March 1915, Congress authorized a separate group of Mounted Guards, often referred to as Mounted Inspectors. Most rode on horseback, but a few operated cars and even boats. Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the Chinese exclusion laws. Modern law enforcement evolved out of complex brew of a larger population, shifting sociopolitical class boundaries, and other external issues (such as the labor pressures that created an unhappy underclass) and a shift in the way policing was regarded by business owners and the population at large: proactive rather than reactive.  However, it is important to note that "the police" do not consist of a homogenous block of the American population, and while the early days of modern-day police forces are undeniable and under-covered facets of its history, the focus and perspective of policing is a complicated and fraught subject. It would be a mistake to assume that police in 2016 are the same as police in the 1870s, and to conclude that the profile of law enforcement in the United States  and around the world  has not changed throughout its existence. It would also be a mistake to assume that law enforcement cannot or will not be changed again in response to popular pressure, given that its focus has varied dramatically since its inception.  Greene, Jack R. (ed.)
 The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Third Edition.   Routledge: New York. 2007. Harring, Sidney L., and McMullin, Lorraine M.  "TheBuffalo Police18721900: Labor Unrest, Political Power and the Creation of the Police Institution."
 Crime and Social Justice 4: 5-14. 1975. Kelling, George L. and Moore, Mark H.  "The Evolving Strategy of Policing."
 National Institute of Justice.  November 1988.
  Potter, Gary. "The History of Policing in the United States, Parts 1-6."
  Eastern Kentucky University, Police Studies Online.  July 2013. Williams, Hubert and Murphy, Patrick V.  "The Evolving Strategy of Police: A Minority View."  National Institute of Justice. January 1990. In August 2017, a national debate about the display of Confederate flags and monuments once again gained steam after a protest of the planned removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a park in Charlottesville, Virginia turned deadly. Charlottesville In the wake of that incident, several cities (and protestors) moved to quickly take down monuments, statues, and plaques. Meanwhile, rumors appeared that Congress had passed two laws retroactively declaring Confederate soldiers United States veterans, which means that removing the statues is illegal. Some of the claims were bolstered by a link to an extremely dubious web site: statues illegal dubious Confederate soldiers, sailors, and Marines that fought in the Civil war were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, Approved 23 May, 1958. This made all Confederate Army/ Navy/ Marine Veterans equal to U.S. Veterans. Additionally, under U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by the 17th Congress on 26 Feb 1929 the War Department was directed to erect headstones and recognize Confederate grave sites as U.S. War dead grave sites. Just for the record the last Confederate veteran died in 1958. So, in essence, when you remove a Confederate statue, monument or headstone, you are in fact, removing a statue, monument or head stone of a U.S. VETERAN. The rumor also appeared as a meme on the Facebook page "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" on 16 August 2017: appeared meme   The same image was previously shared by the same Facebook page in a July 2015, just after a gunman in Charleston, South Carolina, killed nine black churchgoers. According to the meme, two acts of Congress (Public Law 810 of 1929 and Public Law 85-425 of 1958) bestows upon Confederate soldiers the benefits and status of a United States military veteran.  shared Charleston Public Law 810 refers to Part II, Chapter 23 of U.S. Code 38 which says that the government should, when requested, pay to put up monuments or headstones for unmarked graves for three groups of people: Code 38 (1) Any individual buried in a national cemetery or in a post cemetery. (2) Any individual eligible for burial in a national cemetery (but not buried there), except for those persons or classes of persons enumerated in section 2402(a)(4), (5), and (6) of this title. (3) Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War. No portion of the law appears to confer any privilege other than markers for graves of Confederate soldiers, nor does it grant Confederate soldiers status equal to those of veterans of the United States military. As of 1901, 482 individuals (not all soldiers) were already interred in the Confederate section of Arlington National Cemetery. interred In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers, but did not grant them U.S. veteran status. Public Law 85-425 was passed 23 May 1958, entitling the widows of deceased Confederate soldiers (what few were left by 1958) to military pensions: pardoned passed To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. A National Archives and Records Administration document details the matter of Confederate soldiers and pensions, and shows that the law seems to recognize those who fought for the Confederacy as veterans of a war, but not necessarily of the United States military. document The last recorded Confederate soldier deaths were in 1959, meaning that the 1957 law had negligible effects for those under its provisions, and in any event the law again conferred no status or other benefit to Confederate soldiers themselves.  1959 effects We reached out to several historians, none of whom wished to be quoted on the record. Several were dubious about the purported laws. One, a scholar who specializes in the Civil War and Reconstruction, told us that he, too, had trouble locating them: [It's] clear that Public Law 85-425, section 410 of 1958 was intended solely to provide a symbolic, Civil War Centennial gesture late-life pension to Walter Williams, the supposed only surviving Confederate veteran, and did not apply in any way to any other Confederate soldiers. Of course it turned out (as many people knew then) that Williams was not, in fact, a Confederate veteran  but the desire to still have a living link to the War proved more important than fact. I have been no more successful than anyone else in finding the supposed Public Law 810 passed in 1929. But, given my experience with other claims based on legislation introduced or passed in Congress during that era, I would surmise that any such law was symbolic and meant as a gesture. On the other hand, there was the 1906 Foraker Law that began Federal involvement in caring for Confederate graves. You have probably seen this VA publication [PDF] and consulted John Neffs important work, Honoring the Civil War Dead (University Press of Kansas, 2005) about that issue. Neff makes clear that Federal money spent on maintaining Federal graves always kept the distinctions between the graves  and the service  of Federal versus Confederate soldiers. PDF [There is, however] the decision in the case of Patrick G. Griffin, III vs. Department of Veterans Affairs issued by the US Court of Appeals 4th District ... the decision ultimately affirmed the VAs contention that the Confederate prisoners buried at Point Lookout were buried and honored as American soldiers and, therefore (the issue before the court) there was no obligation to allow Confederate flags to fly over their graves. decision The cited ruling did not recognize the flag of the Confederacy as a legitimate American flag suitable for display in veterans' memorials. The Veterans' Affairs document to which the historian pointed, Federal Stewardship of Confederate Dead, contained historical context about Confederate burials and the evolution of federal involvement in the interment of their dead, and included President William McKinley's 1898 remarks to legislators in Georgia, noting that was a time when "no disabled Confederate veteran was eligible to live in a federal soldiers home, receive a pension, or, when they died, be buried in a national cemetery": The Department of War had been content to allow Northern cemeteries where Confederates were interred to languish. However, after the Spanish-American War (1898), the federal government, led by President William McKinley, in the spirit of national reconciliation and in the postwar glow of recent victory, proposed that a loving nation would reach out and care for the graves of fallen Confederates. Recognition of these places as hallowed ground and the individuals interred in them as deserving of honor began with the creation of the Confederate section at Arlington National Cemetery in 1900, and continued with the renewal through 1916 of 1906 legislation that authorized federal funds to mark all Confederate graves. Until the turn of the 20th century, United States government interment of Confederate soldiers generally involved deceased prisoners buried during the Civil War on Union lands. In 2013, The Atlantic reported that the United States government continued to follow through on its subsequent promises to provide for all Confederate war dead: reported Providing headstones for America's fallen soldiers is a tradition that goes back to laws passed in 1867 and 1873 that ordered the Department of War to properly establish national cemeteries and furnish graves with headstones ... It wasn't until the 20th century, though, that Confederate veterans were included in this tradition. It started with legislation passed in 1906, at first providing headstones for a very limited number of Confederate veterans, specifically prisoners of war, "who died in Federal prisons and military hospitals in the North and who were buried near their places of confinement." That mandate for the Department of War was expanded to all Confederate graves with a law passed in 1929. Responsibility for headstones was transferred to the VA in the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, which declared, "The Administrator shall furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of" a number of categories of veterans and those who'd served the country or were buried in a national cemetery, including specifically, "Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War." It's no coincidence that many of these changes in attitude and law, and the erection of so many Confederate monuments and memorials, occurred around the turn of the 20th century. They followed the federal withdrawal from the South in 1877, a strategic retreat from the failed policies of reconstruction. When a debate over Confederate monuments and flags came under the national spotlight in June 2015, codified changes in burials and pensions enacted in 1929 and 1958 were puffed up to suggest that a nebulous act of Congress, either in the 1920s or the 1950s, officially declared that Confederate soldiers were the same as United States veterans in the eyes of the federal government. However, no legislation either explicitly or implicitly granted Confederate soldiers status as United States veterans. Survivors of dead Confederate soldiers often took offense at measures appearing to equate them to Union soldiers, objections that died off as Southerners from the Civil War era did. Sturgis, Sue.  "Busting The Myth That Congress Made Confederate Vets Into U.S. Vets."
  Facing South.  24 July 2015. Weiss, Steven I.  "You Won't Believe What the Government Spends on Confederate Graves."
  The Atlantic.  19 July 2013. U.S. Code, Title 38.  "Part II, Chapter 23,  2306: Headstones, Markers, And Burial Receptacles."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. 85th Congress, H.R. 358.  "Public Law 85-424."
  23 May 1958. Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Andrew Johnson.  "Proclamation 179Granting Full Pardon And Amnesty For The Offense Of Treason Against The United States During The Late Civil War."
  25 December 1868. Arlington National Cemetery.  "Confederate Memorial."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. U.S.Department of Veterans Affairs,National Cemetery Administration.  "Federal Stewardship Of Confederate Dead."
  July 2016. National Archives and Records Administration.  "Pensions For Military Service In The Army Of The Confederate States Of America."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. Correction [25 August 2017]:  Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article stated that President Andrew Jackson pardoned Confederate soldiers. Claim:  Food tasters work on behalf of U.S. presidents. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Does President Obama have a food taster?  If so, is that unique to him, or is it standard policy?   Origins:  Food tasters are a concept long associated with important personages such as political leaders and business tycoons.  The most common image of a food taster is someone who serves as a guinea pig for his  employer, sampling meals before they are served to ensure that no one has tampered with them (particularly by introducing poison or some other harmful substance).  Food tasters can serve other functions, however, such as ensuring that foods do not include ingredients that, although ordinarily innocuous, might nonetheless pose a problem for a particular diner, such as wine used in the preparation of a dish intended for someone who is abstaining from alcohol, or an ingredient that a person with specific food allergies might have a sensitivity to.  Or a taster may simply function as someone who is intimately familiar with the preferences of his employer and serves to ensure that food is prepared to the latter's culinary satisfaction. Whether food tasters are employed on behalf of U.S. presidents when they're away from the White House is a subject that the Secret Service refrains from officially commenting on, but it's something of an open secret that they are: The US Secret Service has always refused to confirm that US presidents travel with a food "taster," in line with their policy of discretion on all security related issues. But it is known the Service goes to great lengths to scrutinise the source and the preparation of food served to US presidents whenever they eat out of the White House to ensure it is not tampered with. Nonetheless, a March 2013 report about President Obama's supposedly declining to partake of the main course during a lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill because his taster was not present apparently took many readers by surprise: report "Unfortunately, you know, the president can't," said [Maine Senator Susan] Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting. "He looked longingly at it," Collins continued. "He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting." This is a subject the press has covered before, though.  When the Obamas visited France to mark the 65th anniversary of D-Day in June 2009, for example, the Agence France Presse reported: A US "taster" tested the food being dished up to President Barack Obama at a dinner in a French restaurant, a waiter said. "They have someone who tastes the dishes," said waiter Gabriel de Carvalho from the "La Fontaine de Mars" restaurant where Obama and his family turned up for dinner. "It wasn't very pleasant for the cooks at first, but the person was very nice and was relaxed, so it all went well," he said on the Itele news channel. The Obama Foodorama blog also noted of a September 2012 fundraiser in Tampa that: Obama Foodorama President Obama hailed Food Network star and celebrity chef Tyler Florence's menu as "outstanding" at a $20,000/plate dinner fundraiser held in the backyard of a mansion owned by a billionaire's daughter in the Palma Ceia neighborhood in Tampa, Florida.  Host of the show The Great Food Truck Race, Florence created a complicated six-course menu that included chicken fried quail, crispy fried pork belly, and a squash and quail egg ravioli.  The chef and his team  including wife Tolan Florence and pastry chef Matt Masera  tweeted comments, the menu and photos from behind the scenes, revealing that the President was accompanied at the event by a special food taster, identified as a White House chef. Mentions of presidential food tasters have also turned up in the media during earlier administrations, such as a New York Times account of President George W. Bush's inaugural lunch in January 2001: The president's tasters were on the job by 6 a.m., not just to make certain no one was trying to poison him, but to make sure the mushrooms that were to decorate the tenderloin of beef at the inaugural lunch for teetotaler George W. Bush were not cooked in wine. The tasters, Navy mess specialists who travel around the world with the president, watched the preparations in a makeshift kitchen just off Statuary Hall in the Capitol. [Correction: Although the president does not drink alcohol, his diet does not exclude foods prepared with it. A food taster who made sure on Jan. 20 that mushrooms for the meal were not cooked in wine had been told mistakenly that the president avoided alcohol in all foods.] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on restaurant screening efforts by a food taster when President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major visited that city in February 1994: As their staffs scrambled to assemble a five-hour whiz through Pittsburgh, President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major sent their appetites ahead of them. Planning went on with a team of advance schedulers and security experts fanning out to sites around the region for possible places for Major and Clinton to tour. The search for the right restaurant took special talents  a security man was sent to check out the food at area restaurants. "The guy appeared to be a professional food taster because he weighed about 400 pounds," said Tom Pastorius, owner of the Allegheny Brewery and Pub on the North Side, where a government agent walked in and announced he'd been ordered to check out the food for some very important potential diners. Food tasters were also mentioned in a New York Daily News article on White House perks published during the administration of George H.W. Bush in 1992: Among the fringe benefits available to senior White House aides are budget-priced meals in the exclusive, Navy-run White House mess, and use of White House tennis courts and the presidential box at the Kennedy Center. A select few on the senior staff can pump iron in the Secret Service gym. The president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries and White House staff receive a wide range of perks. President Bush gets the most, of course: rent-free housing in the Executive Mansion, free travel on luxurious helicopters, airplanes and armored limousines, a free weekend hideaway at Camp David, Md., and free medical care. He also has a tennis court, workout room, horseshoe pit, swimming pool, theater, bowling alley, extraordinarily well-kept gardens and a staff of more than 90 maids, butlers, carpenters, florists, electricians and cooks  and a food taster. Joe Murray also touched on the subject in a 1988 article for the Cox News Service: Everybody probably knew it but me, that Ronald Reagan has a food taster. How I found out was by reading all the way through the news story about the President suffering nausea, vomiting and related stomach problems. This was the night before his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, which, I suppose, is neither here nor there. Hardly anything I read surprises me much anymore. But the last paragraph was the exception: "As a security measure, Reagan's food is routinely tasted by an aide. (White House spokesman) Fitzwater said he did not know if the tester had also become ill." Last updated:  17 March 2013    Murray, Joe.  "Let's Consider This Presidential Food Taster Thing."   The [Daytona Beach] News-Journal.  26 January 1988  (p. A4).    Roddy, Dennis B.  "Food Taster Precedes Clinton and Major."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  26 February 1994  (p. A1).    Agence France Presse.  "President Obama's French Food Tested by 'Taster.'"   7 June 2009.    [New York] Daily News.  "Congress, Losing Perks, Takes Long Look at Others'."   31 March 1992. In January 2017, a photograph appeared to show a poster on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., listing off early warning signs of looming fascism: In the US Holocaust Museum.I'm shook. pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE  Sarah Rose (@RaRaVibes) January 30, 2017 January 30, 2017 The picture wasshared with criticism of President Donald Trump, as people claimed that his administration had alreadychecked off several of the boxes on the list: shared checked The posteris real, in the sense that it exists in a physical form; however, it was not created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, nor was it on display at one of the museum's exhibits.  You can see a price tag in the bottom right corner of the viral image. Sarah Rose, who first shared the photograph on social media, confirmed to us that she took thepicture in the museum's gift shop. We reached out to the USHHM to confirm that it sold a poster showing "early warning signs of fascism," and they told us that themuseum no longer carries theposter. The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of thelist often attribute it to "Dr. Laurence Britt," the author saidthat he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accuratelydescribed as an amateur historian: Laurence Britt said I've read this thread with interest. For your information I never made a claim that I was a "Dr." Someone on the internet made that ASSUMPTION when they passed on the artice. I am a retired bsunessman with a life long interst in history and current events. I have a personal book collection on these subjects of over 3000 volumes. I've contributed chapters to three books, written another, and am working on a second. I've written aproximately 25 magazine and newespaper articles on political and econmic affairs. I spent about 200 hours researching the fascism article building on a lifetime interst in the subject. My novel, "June , 2004" was written in 1997 and published in 1998. It was a fictional treatment of a future of fascism in America, which has turned out quite predictive of actual events since it was published.Regards, Larry Britt Britt created this list during George W. Bush's tenure as president of the United States. While he did not actually nameBush, he wrotein theoriginal articlethat some of the early warning signs had alreadymanifested in the United States: Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. While the text in the image is difficult to read, another version of theposter sold bySyracuse Cultural Workers carries the same (more legible) disclaimer: Syracuse Cultural Workers   Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini's Italy, Francisco Franco's Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar's Portual, George Papadopoulos's Greece, August Pinochet's Chile, Mohamed Suharto's Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can! While it is true that this poster exists, it was not displayedtheUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has since been removed from its gift shop. Riese, Monica.  "Holocaust Museum Poster on 'Warning Signs of Fascism' Goes Viral."   The Daily Dot.  30 January 2017. Britt, Lawrence.  "Fascism Anyone?"   Free Inquiry.  31 March 2003. The Right Stuff.  "14 Warning Signs of Nothing in Particular."   22 January 2014.