Does the NAACP Want to Sandblast Confederate Figures Off Stone Mountain?
In mid-2015, thehistoric Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving Stone Mountain In June 2015, rumors claimed that a petition was being circulated that aimed to destroy the Stone Mountain carving permanently, but those rumors referenced a long-inactive petition that antedated the Charleston massacre.  Then a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain: Stone Mountain circulate That rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared the carving (along with parts of Southern history) would be permanently destroyed. Confederate symbols Southern history News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on 13 July 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed (and used the term "sand-blasted"): article The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park.     "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery," Rose said.      Rose said his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks and lands.       Rose told Petersen he would start with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.     "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said. The following day (14 July 2015) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document (which was undated and nearly impossible to read): article Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's web site, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook  page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter.       web site Facebook It's true Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose said that the Stone Mountain carving should be "sand-blasted off" the mountain in a June 2015 interview and that the following day the Journal-Constitution referenced a "statement" from the local NAACP chapter. However, we were unable to locate a purported statement released by that chapter (or the larger national NAACP organization) demanding such an action. Moreover, whether such an action is even possible or plausible (not to mention under consideration to any meaningful degree) is doubtful.
On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) that said Fox News had reported former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail that asked if this was true. post archived The post read, "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Deutsche Bank has filed a notice to foreclose on Mar A Lago. The Trump property is part of a larger estate lien that is 190m$ delinquent. Court documents show a 3.4b$ loan that's in default. Trump hasn't respond to repeated attempts for comment. Developing story."  However, a quick check of @PatMaguire10's X bio showed that the account posts "parody" content. In other words, Fox News didn't report on any such foreclosure notice, nor was there any public record of a foreclosure of Mar-a-Lago taking place or scheduled to happen in the future. For a little more background on the subject that was referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York. mistrial Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News. ABC News As for Mar-a-Lago, Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank  not Deutsche Bank  for his 1985 purchase of the property: Miami Herald Mar-a-Lago itself cost Trump $8 million, which he financed with an $8.5 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank. The other parcel - oceanfront land next to the manor - cost $2 million. Trump was able to use $500,000 from the estate loan and a $1.5 million mortgage from the seller, Jack C. Massey, to cover the bill. For further reading, we previously published a report titled, "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?" report Bromwich, Jonah E. Trump Lawyers Call for Mistrial in Civil Fraud Case, Attacking Judge. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/nyregion/trump-mistrial-fraud-case.html. Charalambous, Peter, et al. Bank Relied on Trumps Financial Statement to Secure Loan. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/bank-relied-on-trumps-financial-statement-to-secure-loan-103895871?id=103642561. ---. Deutsche Bank Executive Set to Take Stand. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/deutsche-bank-executive-set-to-take-stand-103889913?id=103642561. Ibrahim, Nur. Media Literacy: How Can You Tell If a Post Is Satire/Parody? Snopes, 25 Feb. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464404/media-literacy-satire-parody/. Kleinman, Jeff. How Donald Trump Changed a Palm Beach Mansion. The Story behind His Mar-a-Lago Takeover. Miami Herald, 9 Aug. 2022, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article264318476.html. Spencer, Terry. Is Mar-a-Lago Worth $1 Billion? Trumps Winter Home Valuations Are at the Core of His Fraud Trial. The Associated Press, 9 Oct. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-lawsuit-palm-beach-51fea4e520b1901c1c045590b2a7bdc0. Claim:  Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people." false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in. Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than: Barak Hussein Obama. Origins:  This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to"poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."  Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money  Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank back."  The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race.  The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).  Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories."  The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. redlining Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter.  He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case: Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.  "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech  it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.  On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank  which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees  $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated:  5 September 2012    Associated Press.  "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney."   20 February 2007. In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. Since at least 2010, a picture of a newspaper headline has been shared on websites and social media. The headline read, "Missippi's [sic] literacy program shows improvement," which referred to the state of Mississippi. The most recent social media post we found was from Oct. 18, 2021. most recent social media post   This story might bring to mind Jay Leno's old "Headlines" segment from his late-night show. The weekly bit involved displaying funny newspaper clippings for laughs. We didn't find the misspelled headline in any of the Leno clips that were available on YouTube. segment According to the picture, the article below the headline came from The Associated Press (AP). However, was the headline also written by the AP? This was what we sought to find out. For readers who may not be familiar with what the AP does, stories from the wire service are republished on websites and printed in newspapers across the world, including right here on Snopes.com. including right here on Snopes.com The following words were also visible in the body of the story: "... and his late wife, Sally, put up $100 million of their own money to improve ..." This bit of text helped in the effort to track down when the body of the article was first published. We searched newspaper archives on the handy website Newspapers.com for the words from the body of the story. The earliest date we landed on was June 12, 2005. It was credited to Associated Press journalist Emily Wagster Pettus and printed in The Greenwood Commonwealth, a newspaper in the state of Mississippi. However, it had a different headline: "Barksdale Reading Institute getting results in schools." Newspapers.com printed Following June 12, we found that the same story was printed with different headlines in quite a few newspapers. The most common headline we saw was: "Mogul's literacy investment paying off in poverty-stricken Mississippi schools." We found no newspaper that misspelled the word Mississippi as "Missippi." Further, we found it slightly odd that, according to Google's search results, the headline picture didn't find its way on the internet until five years later in 2010. It's possible that a small newspaper that has not yet made available its archives to Newspapers.com accidentally printed the misspelled headline. It's also possible that the headline was printed as slang, something that has been written about the word "Missippi" before, since some residents in the state pronounce it that way. The picture could also have been doctored by someone looking to make a joke. has been written about One Reddit user provided an interesting possible explanation of why the headline was spelled the way it was, although it could be considered to be a stretch: "They just shortened Mississippi because there are only two columns. "Missippi" is just the phonetic spelling for how they pronounce it down there." provided an interesting possible explanation The "Missippi's literacy program" headline picture has been reposted a seemingly endless number of times on Reddit over the years, perhaps as a way to make light of the state's national education ranking. One of the posts from June 2019 received more than 34,500 points and hundreds of comments. For readers unfamiliar with how significant this is, it meant that the photograph was one of the top submissions on the day that it was posted. a seemingly endless number of times ranking received Quite a few Reddit users assumed the apparent error came from the AP, commenting: "Why would Mississippi be responsible for the AP's inability to spell Mississippi?" We found many more instances where the AP was blamed for spelling it as "Missippi." A search for "Missippi" on Reddit showed lots of reposts with comments that placed blame on the AP. many more instances showed We found no evidence to support the claim that the AP messed up and misspelled Mississippi as "Missippi" in the headline about literacy. After contacting the AP, they confirmed that they did not write the headline. It's not uncommon for newspapers to alter the headlines for stories from wire companies. That may have been what happened here. Sources On Oct. 25, the rating for this claim was updated from "Research In Progress" to  We found no evidence that the AP wrote the "Missippi" headline. Further, the AP confirmed that it did not come from them. It's not uncommon for newspapers to change the headlines for stories from wire companies. Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.      Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. Claim:   Video clip shows Tacoma  housing development "built for illegal immigrants" who are receiving "refugee pay."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011] I want to move to Tacoma.. to the good life!  Here is a development in Tacoma WA (Salishan) that was built for Illegal Immigrants! 1325 Homes created! Refugee Pay offers them $2642 per month in SSI benefits, plus Food Stamps, plus Section 8 Housing. You will see new expensive cars in this video. Wouldn't you like to get a free ride like the illegals?  Origins:  As noted by Kathleen Merryman of the Tacoma News Tribune the video clip linked above about the Salishan housing development on Tacoma's East Side has garnered a good deal of attention for that community: William B. Mount is going viral on Salishan. The Tacoman once used public access television to air his world view, and now posts videos on YouTube. About five months ago, he and a woman named Jane drove through Salishan on Tacoma's East Side with a video camera and a big box of misinformation. They delivered a 10-minute commentary on the mixed use and mixed-income redevelopment of the worn-out public housing site and posted it on the video sharing site. The stew of untruths simmered there. It's at a boil now. Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) and Tacoma City Council members are getting e-mails from people hot over what he calls misuse of Social Security funds. As Ms. Merryman described in considerable detail in an excellent analysis of the video, virtually all of the claims made within it regarding Social Security, foreigners, and illegal immigrants are false: analysis  Claim: "What you are looking at is a $225 million complex, $225 million complex, of housing out of the Social Security budget for 1,300 units." False: No Social Security funds were used to redevelop Salishan. Claim: "All welfare housing. All Social Security housing for foreigners will get $2,642 a month. All of that comes out of the Social Security budget."  False: Of Salishan's renters, 97 percent are citizens of the United States, according to THA Executive Director Michael Mirra. "We know of no government program that pays $2,642 per month to foreigners," Mirra said. Claim: "The average income in here is about $13,000 per year, not including welfare, not including Social Security refugee pay, not including Women, Infants and Children."  False: The $13,000 figure is based on out-of-date 2000 Census data. As for the other sources, Mirra said: "We do not know of anyone who gets something called 'Social Security refugee pay.'"  Claim: "This school was built by Tacoma specifically to house foreigners and welfare recipients."  False. Lister Elementary School does not "house" any foreigners or welfare recipients.  Claim: "They mollycoddle these foreigners who come across the border illegally."  False. THA does not rent to people who are in this country illegally, and 97 percent of Salishan residents are U.S. citizens.  Claim: "And they don't pay taxes. This housing is free if you are on Social Security refugee pay."  False. Anyone who buys non-food goods and services in Washington State pays sales tax, and every Salishan household with earned income is subject to federal income taxes. Every Salishan rental household with an income pays rent. For complete information, we recommend reading the News Tribune's thorough debunking of the video. debunking Last updated:  28 July 2011 In December 2021, a video was circulated on social media that supposedly showed a "human sleeve," an artificial replacement body that would allow a person to "live" for eternity by using their stored consciousness. The conspiratorial website "Before Its News," for example, shared this video claiming that it showed a "whistleblowers" video of clones in Hollywood:   The video, which can be viewed below, does not show a "human sleeve" or a clone. This video features a marketing display for the show "Altered Carbon." A posting of the "human sleeve" video went viral after it was posted to TikTok in October.    This video shows a booth at the 2018 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. While the presenters at this booth acted as if they were showcasing new cloning technology, this was really just a marketing ploy by Netflix for their new show "Altered Carbon." The Wrap reported at the time: Wrap reported Wandering through the seemingly never-ending Las Vegas Convention Center on Tuesday, it was hard to miss the crowd gathered around around the PsychaSec display. Hosts draped in all-white were showing off two artificial bodies that, in a few years, humans could pay to trade their own crappy body for. At the same time, the host touted the companys ability to plant chips into a persons head and download every experience and memory theyve had. Sounds pretty trippy, right? Unfortunately, PsychaSec isnt real. But even the CIA wouldve had a hard time getting the booth hosts to admit it ...  I pulled aside another tall, attractive young host and told her just give me the truth: this is just a cool ad for Netflix. She kept smiling and towed the itll be out in a few years line. I then pointed out gullible people, like me, were walking away confused because they were displayed next to real products and wouldnt acknowledge Netflix at all. Finally, I got her to give me a wink, confirming its all a put-on. Thank you. Here's another video of this "Altered Carbon" advertisement that features the same two "human sleeves."  In Engadget's write-up of the event, they also noted that Netflix's "Psychasec" booth may have been a little too convincing: also noted Venture beyond tech whales like Samsung and Sony, beyond the rows of smart speakers and giant TVs, and you'll discover that there are weirder things to be found at CES. That might be why Netflix's trojan horse public relations move, establishing a fictional vendor booth deep within the Las Vegas Convention Center, worked a little too well. Well, I cheated. I was already briefed (through a press release) that "Psychasec" wasn't a genuine CES exhibitor, despite this full-fledged stall you see here. Nope, this is a fictional company from Altered Carbon, the next big-budget sci-fi series from Netflix, which seems to borrow heavily from Blade Runner, at least in visual delivery. The video of "human sleeves" does not show any real cloning technology. This video actually features a marketing stunt by Netflix for the series "Altered Carbon" that was put on display at CES in 2018.    Burch, Sean. Netflix Really Wants You To Believe #PsychaSec Is Real. https://www.thewrap.com/ces2018-netflix-really-wants-you-to-believe-psychasec-is-real/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Johnson, Lauren and 2018. The Most Disturbing Booth at CES Is Actually an Ad for Netflixs New Sci-Fi Show. https://www.adweek.com/performance-marketing/the-most-disturbing-booth-at-ces-is-actually-an-ad-for-netflixs-new-sci-fi-show/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Netflix Hid a Fake Biotech Booth in the Middle of CES. Engadget, https://www.engadget.com/2018-01-10-netflix-fake-ces-2018-altered-carbon.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. On 16 February 2017, the web site FocusNews.info published a story based in part on the myth that First Lady Michelle Obama employed an absurdly extravagant staff. The first paragraph gives a quick indication as to its slant: story Michelle Obama will go down in history as the First Lady who spent more money than any other. In addition to her 214 personal assistants, 32 gardeners, 11 dog walkers and her own mother on the government payroll as a day care provider, Moochelle also purchased $11 million worth of new furniture, an airplane, four yachts and two limousines with taxpayer money. The story goes on to promote the claim that President Donald Trump ordered that Obama be billed for $11 billion, not only for the "new furniture" and other extravagances, but $10 billion for "vacations and the balance in food, clothing, liquor and cigarettes that should have been paid for out of their own pockets." Far from having "214 personal assistants," Obama had a staff of about two dozenpeople working for her during her tenure as First Lady. The allegation that her mother, Marian Robinson, would receive a $160,000 pension has also been debunked. staff debunked. Another site, LastLineOfDefense.org, published a similar "report" stating that Trump instead billed Obama's husband, former President Barack Obama, for a $2.1 billion "vacation scam" that would have paid for his family and staff to indulge in free trips until the year 2036. published Much like LastLineOfDefense.org, FocusNews.info does have a disclaimer regarding its content stating that the site "does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information," as seen below:   The disclaimer appears as a small pop-up, as well as its own separate section on the website. section President Barack Obama and his allies have increasingly focused on income inequality as a top policy challenge for 2014. A recent tweet by Ian Bremmer, a leading expert on the intersection between international relations and finance, seemed to provide some fuel for Obamas concern. Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%. We thought wed take a closer look at Bremmers numbers. We struck paydirt when we looked at the most recent data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California who has spent years studying inequality, most often with Thomas Piketty, a French economist. In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. So Bremmer can point to solid sourcing for his claim. However, not everyone is enamored of the Piketty-Saez approach. Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent. The Piketty-Saez method uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. This effectively boosts the measured income of the richest Americans, since they earn a lot of capital gains and they pay a lot of taxes. Meanwhile, for the 99 percent, the Piketty-Saez method excludes transfer income -- that is, payments from the government to individuals, including such items as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012. Also, Reynolds argues that way the Piketty-Saez numbers are calculated makes them subject to short-term fluctuations based on taxes. He suggests that the prospect of higher taxes in 2013 may have led to a surge of bonuses and cashing out of investments that would be subject to capital gains taxes -- something that also happened in 1992 and 1986. If true, this tendency would magnify an otherwise minor error in how Bremmer phrased his tweet. Bremmer tweeted that the figures covered the period 2009 to 2013; in fact, the Saez data, covers 2009 to 2012. The 2013 data are not available yet -- but they could look different due to the timing issue. (Bremmer told PolitiFact that he'd meant to communicate that the data went from 2009 to the start of 2013, but that could have been expressed more clearly.) In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper:  Time period Average real growth in income Real income growth for top 1 percent Real income growth for bottom 99 percent Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1 percent Full period, 1993-2012 17.9 percent 86.1 percent 6.6 percent 68 percent Clinton Expansion, 1993-2000 31.5 percent 98.7 percent 20.3 percent 45 percent 2001 Recession, 2000-2002 -11.7 percent -30.8 percent -6.5 percent 57 percent (of losses) Bush Expansion, 2002-2007 16.1 percent 61.8 percent 6.8 percent 65 percent Great Recession 2007-2009 -17.4 percent -36.3 percent -11.6 percent 49 percent (of losses) Recovery, 2009-2012 6.0 percent 31.4 percent 0.4 percent 95 percent  This table -- Saezs own data -- shows that the top 1 percent saw its inflation-adjusted income drop by 36.3 percent during the great recession, then recover by only 31.4 percent. In other words, the top 1 percent actually had a net loss between 2007 and 2012 -- a more modest net loss than the one suffered by the bottom 99 percent, to be sure, but a decline that muddies the easy story line. Even a scholar whos sympathetic to the Piketty-Saez approach acknowledges that its not the only way to look at the numbers. If you want the distribution of market income produced by the economy and as reported for income taxes, the Piketty-Saez numbers are the right numbers, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. But if you want to gauge the effect of government programs on the income distribution, especially for the poor or middle classes, the outcome is different and cannot be measured by Piketty-Saez number. Smeeding says that the degree of inequality is eased a bit once you take into account taxes and benefits. Still, he said, the top 1 percent still gets a bigger share, just not as big as the Piketty-Saez numbers show. Our ruling Bremmer tweeted that in the United States, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income increase by 31.4 percent between 2009 and 2013, compared to 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.He took those numbers from the respected, long-running analysis of income inequality by Piketty and Saez, but this research is not the only way to look at the question. Taking into account taxes and transfer payments would reduce -- though likely not eliminate -- the difference in income gains between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. In addition, Bremmer acknowledged that his phrasing about the time frame for the data could have been clearer. His statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Concerns about the countrys food supply are weighing heavily on many Americans as baby formula is hard to find and international conflict threatens commodities like wheat in some parts of the world. A social media post invoking those fears harks back to U.S. history to suggest that the government is purposely creating food shortages. In 1873 the U.S. government killed 1.5 million buffalo to starve Native Americans so they would become more dependent on the government, read one such May 11post. Fast forward to today, and the government is creating food shortages to achieve exactly the SAME goal! It was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) The post has a point about why so many buffalo were killed in the late 1800s, but it makes an unfounded comparison: Theres no evidence the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages. In the mid-1800s, more than 30 million buffalo roamed the plains; by the end of the 19th century, only afew hundredremained. The rapid population decline was due to overhunting, which was welcomed by U.S. officials as a way toforceNative Americans in the Great Plains region tosettle on reservations. Andrew Isenberg, an American history professor at the University of Kansas and theauthorof The Destruction of the Bison, said white hunters in the late 1800s likely killed far more than the 1.5 million buffalo mentioned in the post  a fact federal authorities knew. The U.S. federal government did not actively destroy bison in order to starve Indigenous people in the Great Plains into submission, he said. But the federal government stood by and refused to prevent the wasteful destruction of bison by private white hunters and then welcomed the result of the near extinction of the species: Indigenous peoples surrender to the reservation system. Bison skulls await industrial processing in Michigan in 1892. (Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library and Wikimedia Commons) Gen. William Sherman, who commanded the U.S. Army in the region, negotiated treaties with groups of Indigenous peoples in the Great Plains in the late 1860s, Isenberg said. The U.S. agreed to allow Native Americans to occupy large parts of the Great Plains so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase. Not long after those treaties were negotiated, Isenberg said, Sherman wrote a letter saying, it will not be long before all of the buffalos are extinct near and between the railroads. By 1873, welcoming the extinction of buffalo to suppress Indigenous peoples had become de facto government policy, Isenberg said. In an 1872 report, Interior Secretary Columbus Delanowrotethat the buffalos disappearance must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas, and compel them to abandon their nomadic customs, and establish themselves in permanent homes. Although the decimation of the buffalo population was ultimately the work of private hunters, the idea that destroying bison was a way to force the surrender of Indigenous people in the Great Plains was quite overt, Isenberg said. While there is concern about global food shortages because of the war in Ukraine, experts told PolitiFact in April that the U.S. isless vulnerableto food shortages than poorer nations that rely largely on imports. The U.S. food system has a good level of self-sufficiency, so currently, it is hard to imagine empty shelves in grocery stores, said Ohio State University agricultural economist Seungki Lee. And though claims have surfaced suggesting the U.S. government isintentionallycreatingfood shortages, we have found there is no evidence to back that up. A number of factors havecontributed tothe U.S. baby formula shortage, including arecallby a major U.S. manufacturer, existing supply chainissuesassociated with the COVID-19 pandemic and thehighlyconcentratednature of the formula market. View of almost empty baby formula shelves at a Duane Reade in New York City on May 11, 2022. (AP) A post claimed that the U.S. governments inaction over buffalo killing that harmed Native American populations in the 1800s shows it is now is creating food shortages so that Americans are more dependent on the government. Millions of buffalo were killed by hunters in the late 1800s as part of a de facto government policy meant to force Native Americans in the Great Plains to abandon their customs and accept the reservation system. This racist history, however, does not prove that the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages to force government dependence. We found no evidence to support that claim. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: What can parents do if they cant find baby formula in stores?