Says that except for Donald Trump, every other major party nominee for the past 40 years has released their tax returns.
On Sept. 19, 2016, theWisconsin Democratic Partycalled onDonald Trumpto release his tax returns, issuinga statementthat quoted U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., as saying: The time is way past due for Donald Trump to release his tax returns, as every other major party nominee has done for the past 40 years. So, lets see if thats what every Democratic and Republican presidential nominee since 1976 has done. Wayback machine Baldwin has taken aim at Trump before, since he became the GOP nominee. In August 2016, werated Half Trueher claim that Trump has a long history of exporting jobs overseas. Trump-brand products such as his clothing have been made overseas, but those jobs were always abroad, not U.S. jobs that were moved. To back her current claim, Baldwins campaign cited editorials from theNew York Timesand theWashington Post, both of which said Trump would be the first major party candidate since 1976 -- 40 years ago -- not to release his tax returns. Also cited was an editorial from theBoston Globe, which said its been more than 40 years. But there is an exception. We checked anarchive of presidential tax returnsmaintained by the Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy. It shows that going back to 1976, all but one major-party nominee released at least one return. Only Republican Gerald Ford, who lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976, did not release returns (he released summary tax data), the archive shows. FactCheck.org also found Ford to bethe one exception. Joe Thorndike, the Tax History Project director at Tax Analysts, told us that Fords summaries were clearly not the same as tax returns. For instance, they didnt provide detailed information on things such as sources of income and charitable contributions. Moreover, its impossible to know what might be in a return unless you see the return. It's also worth noting that while some nominees have released numerous years of returns  1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole provided30 years worth others have not. In 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan released onlyone returnand in 2012, Republican Mitt Romneyreleased two. In the 2016 race,Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has released returns from 2000 through 2015. As for Trump, he has said he hasnt released his taxes because he is being audited. When he claimed he released the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics. You don't learn much in a tax return, PolitiFact Nationalsrating was False. Trump did release an extensive (and legally required) document detailing his personal financial holdings. But experts say tax returns would offer valuable details on his effective tax rate, the types of taxes he paid and how much he gave to charity, as well as a more detailed picture of his assets. Our rating Baldwin says that except for Trump, every other major party nominee for the past 40 years has released their tax returns. Shes almost right. During that period, the only major-party presidential nominee who didnt release returns was Ford, the Republican nominee in 1976. It's also worth noting that many nominees have released numerous years of returns, but some have released only one or two. We rate Baldwins statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3b799eb7-8454-41ff-a343-3c13c44e9c78
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On Sept. 13, 2021, rapper Nicki Minaj told her roughly 23 million Twitter followers that she knew of someone who supposedly got vaccinated against COVID-19 and then became impotent with swollen testicles. told her roughly COVID-19   The claim, which we address below, fueled news stories and social media chatter about a long-standing rumor: that COVID-19 vaccines can lead to infertility in both men and women. about a long-standing rumor That was not true, however. As of this writing, medical institutions  ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine  were aggressively attempting to combat false messages like Minaj's regarding infertility and vaccinations' alleged impact on reproductive systems, a process on which we elaborate below. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) American Society for Reproductive Medicine For people with female reproductive organs, the false theory stems from inoculations' real impact on recipients' immune systems. Vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer, for examples, use mRNA technology to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the virus that causes COVID-19, technically called SARS-CoV-2. mRNA technology fight the virus "mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein  or even just a piece of a protein  that triggers an immune response inside our bodies," the CDC states. That said, some people erroneously believe that those vaccine-producedantibodies could somehow mistake the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein withsyncytin-1  a different type of cellular formation that helps develop placentas and is vital for successful pregnancies. They operate under the false argument that the two proteins (SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and placenta protein) appear similar and, therefore, the inoculation's technology could easily confuse the two. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein However, as biochemistEdward Nirenberg explained in a December 2020 blog post, the formulas of molecules (called amino acids) that make the two proteins have very few similarities. For one, the SARS-CoV-2 strand is shorter than the placenta protein: The former has 1,273 amino acids, while the latter has has 538, as reported by India's National Magazine Frontline. Edward Nirenberg December 2020 ndia's National Magazine Frontline "There is no plausible reason  no medical or scientific mechanism  for this vaccine to interact with a woman's reproductive organs or have any interaction with an egg that's been released or fertilized," family medicine doctor Laura Morris said in a news bulletin by University of Missouri Health Care (MU Health Care)."For your immune system to get mixed up and attack the placental protein would be like you mistaking an elephant for an alley cat because they're both gray. news bulletin "There is one small similarity, but the overall construction of the protein is so completely different, your immune system is way too smart to be confused by that." Considering those biological facts, no reputable research has found COVID-19 vaccines complicate pregnancies or make it harder for women to conceive when studying the inoculations' impact on recipients' bodies. The CDC stated on its website, as of this writing: women to conceive   In other words, during clinical trials, unintended pregnancies occurred at similar rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, as Victoria Male, a researcher of reproductive immunology at Imperial College London, summarized in the British Medical Journal.And, atassisted reproduction clinics, fertility measures and pregnancy rates were also similar between the two groups. Victoria Male the British Medical Journal. Meanwhile, it was true that tens of thousands of people reported changes to their period cycle or unexpected bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations as reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC. reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC However, there was no evidence to link those menstrual changes to the vaccine recipients' fertility. Rather, the possible side effect appeared to be physical proof of how people's immune systems were responding to the vaccines  much like how some people have experienced a fever, chills, or headache after the shots. appeared to be Additionally, as Male wrote in the British Medical Journal, most people who reported the possible side effect said it was temporary and their cycles returned to normal the following month: wrote in the British Medical Journal, Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA [Pfizer and Moderna] and adenovirus vectored covid-19 vaccines [Johnson & Johnson],1 suggesting that, if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component. Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has also been associated with menstrual changes.9 Indeed, the menstrual cycle can be affected by immune activation in response to various stimuli, including viral infection: in one study of menstruating women, around a quarter of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced menstrual disruption. 1 9 Maleand the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) were calling for more research into the potential connection between menstrual changes and the vaccinations. Male National Institute of Child Health and Human Development While the possible side effect was largely "short-lived" and unrelated to fertility, Male wrote, understanding its full scope could help alleviate concerns among young women who falsely believe that the vaccinations could hurt their chances of future pregnancy. "Failing to thoroughly investigate reports of menstrual changes after vaccination is likely to fuel these fears," Male stated. All of this said, experts in reproductive health recommend vaccinations for everyone who's thinking about becoming pregnant, already with child, or breastfeeding just like the rest of the population (over the age of 12). For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) said in a joint statement: statement As experts in reproductive health, we continue to recommend that the vaccine be available to pregnant individuals. We also assure patients that there is no evidence that the vaccine can lead to loss of fertility. While fertility was not specifically studied in the clinical trials of the vaccine, no loss of fertility has been reported among trial participants or among the millions who have received the vaccines since their authorization, and no signs of infertility appeared in animal studies. Loss of fertility is scientifically unlikely. Furthermore, medical experts saypeople who know they're pregnant should get the shots as soon as possible. That populationfaces a higher risk of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 compared to everyone else. (See the CDC's full list of underlying medical conditions that could exacerbate a COVID-19 viral infectionhere.) people who know they're pregnant faces a higher risk here "We have no logical reason to believe that the vaccine impacts fertility in any way, but we have plenty of evidence that pregnant individuals who become sick with COVID-19 get sicker, on average, than non-pregnant individuals," Cecilia Stuopis, the medical director of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical, said in an update. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical Also, asidefrom COVID-19's attack on pregnant people's respiratory system, evidence suggests the virusmay be linked to potentially life-threatening pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, according to theMIT Medicalupdate. AndMayo Clinic highlighted research that indicated pregnant women with COVID-19 were more likely to have premature births, cesarean deliveries, or babies that need neonatal care. preeclampsia MIT Medical Mayo Clinic "If you're pregnant or trying to get pregnant, contracting COVID-19 is almost certainly more dangerous than getting vaccinated," Stuopis said. Now, let's pivot to sperm. As of this writing, reputable medical institutions, including the CDC, were refuting rumors about male infertility by pointing to a study at the University of Miami in which researchers recruited 45 healthy men between the ages of 18 and 50 with no underlying reproductive issues. The researchers examined the characteristics of their sperm, including the amount of them and how they moved, before and after the men got Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. study at the University of Miami In conclusion, the study stated: "No man became azoospermic after the vaccine," or unable to produce sperm. azoospermic Meanwhile, Ranjith Ramasamy, the director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at the university, highlighted evidence that suggests the virus  not its vaccinations  can affect sperm counts and cause impotency. He worked on a study, for example, that examined penile tissue samples from two men who had COVID-19, and found blood vessel damage that would make it hard for blood to enter the penis for an erection. Ranjith Ramasamy highlighted study "Interestingly, the male reproductive organs have been found to be vulnerable in moderate to severe illness, leading to reports of erectile dysfunction and orchitis," a condition that can result in swollen testicles, according to a summary byRamasamy and other researchers. condition Additionally, "the risk of infertility and erectile dysfunction increases with the severity of an infection," Daniel Nassau, a urologist at the university, told Frontline. Frontline The impact of COVID-19 infections aside, there was no scientific support for Minaj's claim that the vaccines  the technology that aims to combat the virus  caused impotency or orchitis among people with male reproductive systems."We've never seen that," Ramasamy toldThe Associated Press. The Associated Press Ashley Winter, a urologist specializing in sexual dysfunction at Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Oregon, also emphasized in an interview with thatnews outletthat there was no evidence to substantiate any concerns over the vaccinations' potential threat to male fertility. thatnews outlet "On a population level, hundreds of millions of men have gotten this vaccine, and there's no study showing reduced erectile function in men who have been vaccinated," she said. "Fundamentally, we just have no study linking the vaccine to either swollen testicles or erectile dysfunction." CDC. "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/underlying-evidence-table.html. "CDC Newsroom." CDC, 1 Jan. 2016, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0811-vaccine-safe-pregnant.html. Does the COVID-19 Vaccine Affect Fertility? Here's What the Experts Say. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/does-covid-19-vaccine-affect-fertility-heres-what-experts-say. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Nirenberg, Edward. "Are COVID-19 Vaccines Going To Cause Infertility?" Medium, 16 Dec. 2020, https://edwardnirenberg.medium.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-going-to-cause-infertility-939bbdb62b64. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. I Want to Get Pregnant; Should I Avoid Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine? | MIT Medical. https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/02/want-to-get-pregnant-should-i-avoid-vaccine. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Medical Experts Continue to Assert That COVID Vaccines Do Not Impact Fertility. https://www.acog.org/en/news/news-releases/2021/02/medical-experts-assert-covid-vaccines-do-not-impact-fertility. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Kresch, Eliyahu, et al. "COVID-19 Endothelial Dysfunction Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction: Histopathological, Immunohistochemical, and Ultrastructural Study of the Human Penis." The World Journal of Men's Health, vol. 39, no. 3, July 2021, pp. 46669. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.210055. Welle, Deutsche. "COVID-19 Vaccines & the Unfounded Tale of Infertility." Frontline, https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/covid-19-vaccines-and-the-unfounded-tale-of-infertility/article35739037.ece. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021. Ramasamy, Ranjith. "COVID-19 Could Cause Male Infertility and Sexual Dysfunction  but Vaccines Do Not." The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/covid-19-could-cause-male-infertility-and-sexual-dysfunction-but-vaccines-do-not-164139. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021. The photo montage displayed above is one of dozens circulating online since 2009, purporting to demonstrate that 50-plus years of rule by the Democratic Party wrought a level of destruction on Detroit comparable to that caused by the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Some versions have sought to make the case verbally, as well. For example:What has caused more long term destruction - the A-bomb, or Government welfare programs created to buy the votes of those who want someone to take care of them? Japan does not have a welfare system. Work for it or do without. These are possibly the 5 best sentences youll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.   The comparison of 2010 Detroit to 1945 Hiroshima is grotesquely forced, however, as is the implication that Democratic policies are wholly to blame for the Detroit's decline since World War II. We'll start our analysis with the images, some of which are inaccurately labeled. Beginning with the upper left-hand photo, it is, in fact, an aerial view of the hypocenter (ground zero) of the atomic bomb explosion over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, taken a few months after the fact. Here's a larger view of the image: hypocenter Working clockwise, the next image in the set supposedly depicts modern-day Hiroshima  except that it doesn't. It's actually a snapshot taken from the Landmark Tower Sky Garden in Yokohama, Japan much like this one from Flickr: Flickr   That having been pointed out, it's true that Hiroshima was rebuilt from its ashes and is now a beautiful and modern city. Nor is it too terribly hard to find an actual photo of it. rebuilt photo The photo at bottom-right  though taken in 2013, not 2010  does show a dilapidated building (of which there are plenty) on the east side of Detroit. It's the former Packard Automotive Plant, which closed in the late 1950s: plenty closed   However, the thing to note about the use of this image to portray Detroit as a locus of Hiroshima-like devastation is that all we actually see is one long-abandoned, crumbling building. It doesn't make the case. Lastly, we're shown a photo supposedly depicting Detroit in its mid-1940s heyday  except that it was taken in the mid-1930s. It's an aerial view of Navin Field (later Tiger Stadium): Navin Field   Granted, for the purposes of argument it doesn't really matter whether the above photo was taken in the '30s or '40s  the point remains that Detroit once had a teeming population, abundant jobs, and a booming economy. In 1950 it was the fourth-largest city in the United States, but no longer. The question is, who was responsible? There's no simple explanation (and therefore no single scapegoat at whom to point fingers) for Detroit's long, slow descent to bankruptcy. Scott Martelle, author of Detroit: A Biography, offered this capsule summary in an op-ed column published in 2011: column The collapse of Detroit has roots in intentional de-industrialization by the Big Three automakers, which in the 1950s began aggressively spider-webbing operations across the nation to produce cars closer to regional markets, and to reduce labor costs by investing in less labor-friendly places than union-heavy Detroit. Their flight was augmented by government policies that, in the 1970s and 1980s particularly, forced municipalities and states to compete with each other for jobs by offering corporate tax breaks and other inducements to keep or draw business investments, a bit of whipsawing that helped companies profit at the expense of communities. Another summary of Detroit's decline cited issues such as the city's dependence on a single industry (i.e., automobiles), decades of racial tensions, shortcomings of leadership (stretching back to the 1930s), and the lack of an efficient transit system. decline Did Democrats and Democratic policies play some role in the fall of Detroit? Surely they did. Every Detroit mayor since 1962 has been a Democrat, after all. But Republicans held the seat for the 12 years prior to that, from 1950 through 1961. The Packard plant whose hollowed-out remains were displayed above closed its doors during that time. Whatever blame is to be allotted to politicians must be shared by both Democrats and Republicans on the national level, as well. Detroit's decline since World War II took place during periods when both parties held the presidency and/or controlled Congress. Finally, the specific suggestion that Detroit's downfall was an unintended consequence of the spread of social welfare programs while Hiroshima's dramatic recovery is at least partially attributable to the lack of same in Japan is based on misinformation. Japan has maintained strong public health care and social welfare programs in one form or another since the 1920s. Yet Hiroshima was rebuilt and flourished just the same. maintained  Drury, Flora."A City Rebuilt from the Ashes."
Daily Mail Online.5 August 2015. Martelle, Scott."The Collapse of Detroit."
Los Angeles Times.27 March 2011. "Anatomy of Detroit's Decline."
New York Times.8 December 2013. "Zombieland: The Abandoned Buildings of Detroit."
Beaumont Enterprise.18 July 2013. On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal." resolution The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, smart grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making green technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs" and "universal health care programs." proposal On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford" that would kill off entire domestic industries and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: criticized Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didnt actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government, Ocasio-Cortez said. What McConnells doing is that hes trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee  because he doesnt want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned. In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOPs action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. voted down A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a "100% retard" for failing to "even vote for [her] own bill":  The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: not voting cloture This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing. a version Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This "cloture" vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a "socialist" plan that would "uproot life as we know it." He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't "neglect" or "forget" to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution. Daly, Matthew.  "Senate Shuns Green New Deal Amid Claims of Bad Faith."
  Associated Press.  26 March 2019. Nilsen, Ella and Li Zhou.  "Senate Democrats Broadly Shut Down Republican Trolling on the Green New Deal."
  Vox.  26 March 2019. Grandoni, Dino and Felicia Sonmez.  "Senate Defeats Green New Deal, As Democrats Call Vote a Sham."
  The Washington Post.  26 March 2019. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "The Green New Deal and Why It's Happening Now."
  The Balance.  2 April 2019. Lavelle, Marianne.  "Senate's Green New Deal Vote: 4 Things You Need to Know."
  Inside Climate News.  26 March 2019. A directory photo (perhaps a school yearbook) of a man supposedly named "Peter Griffin" bears a strong resemblance to another Peter Griffin, the "big, boisterous lovable oaf" featured in the Fox animated TV series, Family Guy. Family Guy  However, the same photograph previously appeared on the internet with a legend identifying its subject as Justin Blair Spaeth.  Justin Blair Spaeth is a real person (who bears a physical similarity to the Peter Griffin character but does not share his name), as evidenced by these snapshots of a Back Stage Blue (the thespian troupe of Notre Dame High School) production of "West Side Story." these snapshots Back Stage Blue The altered image has been shared on websites and social media since at least 2005, including in Twitter ads that lead to listicles and slideshows, such as this one:   Spaeth's image with the words "Peter Griffin" is included in the tweet as clickbait, as it does not even appear in the long list on the advertised website. A photograph purportedly showing Ronald Reagan meeting with the leaders of the Taliban (Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement) at the White House has been shared online for many years, along with a purported laudatory quote from the 40th U.S. president, "These Gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America's Founding Fathers":  This enduring memeis wrong on more than one account. The group pictured here are notTaliban leaders, the photograph was not taken in 1985, and Reagan did not compare the pictured group to America's Founding Fathers. (In this particular meme, even the name "Reagan" is misspelled.)  photograph According to the Ronald Reagan Library, the above-displayed photograph was taken in 1983, and it captures then-president Reagan meeting with Afghan rebel leadersto discuss the Soviet presencein Afghanistan. taken leaders Afghanistan While the Reagan administration did help fund and equip the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (and rebel groups elsewhere) so that they could fight against the Soviet occupation, it is inaccurateto say that the former president met with the Taliban, as at that point that group did not exist: fund Mujahideen Taliban This photograph is from 1983, when Reagan and the CIA were dancing around the idea of arming Mujahadin fighters in order to fight back against Soviet incursion in Afghanistan. The result was a well-armed, well-trained group of jihadis who resisted (some say defeated) the onslaught of superior Soviet weaponry. Once the Soviets retreated, the U.S. lost interest and pulled the funding. Osama bin Laden took interest, and filled the vacuum, later fathering the Taliban. The rest, as they say, is history. The quote frequently attached to this photographisaparaphrased version of something said by PresidentReagan, but he was not speaking about either the Taliban or Afghan opposition groups at the time. He made thecomment about contrarebels in Nicaragua duringa speechat theConservative Political Action Conference in 1985: contra speech Conference They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I've spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they're fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance. We cannot turn away from them, for the struggle here is not right versus left; it is right versus wrong. In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote   That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin.  expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income.  According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021:  Source: Washington County Attorney's Office  However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.  could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. Claim:  Albert Einstein once declared compound interest to be "the most powerful force in the universe." UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Sangillo, 2006] There's an urban legend that Albert Einstein once said compounding [interest] is the most powerful force in the universe.  Whether or not he really said it, that line has become my financial motto. I strongly suggest you adopt it.  [Hartgill, 1997] When asked to name the greatest invention in human history, Albert Einstein simply replied "compound interest." Origins:  Many homeowners who have struggled to meet their  mortgages month after month, only to find after years of making payments that most of their money has gone to cover interest charges, have felt like cursing whoever came up with the concept of compound interest. In that vein, around 1980 (when the neutron bomb and soaring interest rates were prominent news topics) Johnny Carson once quipped during a Tonight Show monologue that "Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing  it's called the 17% interest rate."  Perhaps that explains why many of us seem to recognize a kindred spirit in the declaration by one of the greatest intellects of our time, Albert Einstein, that compound interest is "the most powerful force in the universe" or "the greatest invention in human history."  (Since no context is ever offered for this purported quote, readers might also fairly assume that its intent was to praise compound interest as a wonderful device that allows thrifty savers to realize a significant, low-risk return on their money.) compound But did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing?  The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons:  The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place.  (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)  Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity."  (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.") We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch. Last updated:  19 April 2011    Calaprice, Alice.  The New Quotable Einstein.   Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-691-12074-9  (pp. 294-295). The New Quotable Einstein     Dorfman, Dan.  "Fundamental Advice, Phenomenal Success."   USA Today.  2 August 1991  (p. B4).     Hartgill, David.  "Power of Compounding."   The Advertiser.  15 September 1997.     Havemann, Judith.  "Uncle Sam's Dual Standards."   The Washington Post.  23 January 1988  (p. A1).     Langworthy, David.  "Einstein Was Right  So Is 'Wealthy Barber.'"   The Houston Chronicle.  1 June 1998  (p. A20).    Sangillo, Karen.  "All About 'Free Money' and How to Earn It."   Bucks County Courier Times.  5 November 2006.    Shapiro, Fred R.  The Yale Book of Quotations.   New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.  ISBN 0-300-10798-6  (pp. 230-231). The Yale Book of Quotations    Topolnicki, Denise M.  "How You Can Beat the Five Threats to Your Retirement."   The Buffalo News.  8 November 1993  (p. 12). EDITORS NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True. The original article is archivedhere. We also wrote an explanation of our reporting and why we changed the ratinghere. During his State of the Union address on Jan. 24, 2012, President Barack Obama offered some evidence about the nations improving economy. He began by urging listeners to remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that werent, and personal debt that kept piling up. In 2008, the house of cards collapsed, he continued. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldnt afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other peoples money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didnt have the authority to stop the bad behavior. It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, weve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And weve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again. The state of our union is getting stronger. And weve come too far to turn back now. As long as Im president, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. We decided to look specifically at Obamas claim that in the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. We checked Obamas claim by using data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal agency responsible for compiling employment data. We found that the U.S. economy has seen 22 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, beginning in Feb. 2010. During that 22-month period, the number of jobs grew by almost 3.16 million, or about 143,000 per month. We should note that there has also been a job-growth streak for all jobs in the economy -- not just in the private sector -- but this run of positive jobs numbers has been shorter since job losses in the government sector have offset gains in the private sector for much of that time. If you include both private-sector and government jobs, the economy has seen increases in total jobs for 15 straight months, not 22. But since this isnt what Obama said, we wont consider this in our ruling. As for whether 2011 was the best job-producing year since 2005, hes right if youre counting private-sector jobs, and slightly off if youre counting all jobs. In 2011, the number of private-sector jobs rose by about 1.83 million (if you count from the January amount to the December amount) or 1.92 million (if you count from December to December). Either way, the increase in 2011 represented the highest one-year total since 2005, when the number of private-sector jobs increased by either 2.22 million or 2.31 million, depending on the time period used. If you use total jobs, the increase in 2011 was the biggest since 2006, not 2005. But here too, thats not the measure Obama used, so we wont consider it in our rating. Finally, there's another dimension. In his remarks, Obama described the damage to the economy, including losing millions of jobs before our policies were in full effect. Then he describes the subsequent job increases. This suggests that hes taking a degree of credit for the job growth, which runs counter to the reality that no mayor or governor or president deserves all the blame or all the credit for changes in employment. Our ruling Obama is correct on the numbers. By mentioning his policies, he's making a modest linkage that they deserve credit for the improvement when economists say they are just one factor. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True. On April 30, 2022, a Facebook user posted what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet in which Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence. You can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." However, we were unable to find any record that he ever tweeted or said these words. Facebook posted Tesla Elon Musk The Facebook post looked like this:  This quote had plenty of comments where users had simply posted, "So true!" We've found in the past that these two words can be a red flag indicating that the person to whom a quote was attributed might not be its true originator. found The first instance of Musk's name being attached to the quote appeared to occur on April 29, 2020. On that day, a Twitter user replied to a tweet from Musk with a similar quote about confusing "education with intelligence." Days later, on May 4, another user tweeted the same quote, giving credit for the statement to Musk. From there, it was shared for the next two years as if Musk had actually said the words. Musk replied Musk tweeted Musk During our research, we found other instances of the same quote attributed (in some instances, verbatim) to physicist Richard Feynman, author Mark Twain, and film actors Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman. Richard Feynman Mark Twain Jack Nicholson Clint Eastwood Morgan Freeman A quick search of Google Books and Newspapers.com showed that various people had been cautioning others to not confuse education with intelligence since at least the 1920s. Google Books Newspapers.com For example, in a 1922 issue of the "Printer's Ink" periodical, one line read, "Do not confuse education and experience." The next sentence discussed "intelligence." issue In 1932, author Sadie Myers Shellow wrote in the book, "How to Develop Your Personality," the words, "Many people confuse education and intelligence." book In 1941, a witness on the stand during a New York Court of Appeals hearing said the words, "I never confuse education with intelligence. They are two different things." said On March 29, 1952, Dr. George W. Crane answered questions in a column titled, "The Worry Clinic." It was printed in The Charlotte News, a North Carolina newspaper. In one answer, Crane said, "You readers must never confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.' A mountaineer who cannot read may still have high mental horse power or intelligence. You can thus have a brilliant mind, yet never have graduated from grammar school." printed On Dec. 7, 1977, Max Rafferty answered several questions in a column printed in The Pensacola News, a Florida newspaper. One of his answers to a reader identified as "N.J.S." was similar to the quote that was misattributed to Musk. It said, in part, "Don't ever confuse education with intelligence, N.J.S. Some of the biggest jackasses I've ever known had doctoral degrees." printed Musk Basically, we found dozens of examples of various people from past decades expressing the same thought about education and intelligence that would later be attributed to Musk. Rafferty's words in the 1977 newspaper column came fairly close, with "doctoral degrees" taking the place of "bachelor's degree." Musk In sum, no, Musk did not tweet or originate the words, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence," nor did he say, "you can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." Musk Crane, Dr. George W. The Worry Clinic. The Charlotte News via Newspapers.com, 29 Mar. 1952, https://www.newspapers.com/image/618394675/. New York Court of Appeals. Records and Briefs. 1941. Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/New_York_Court_of_Appeals_Records_and_Br/gi--1CvP1asC. Printers Ink. Decker Communications, Incorporated, 1922. Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Printers_Ink/z_BDAQAAMAAJ. Rafferty, Max. Not from Heaven: Popular to Be Morally Rotten? The Pensacola News via Newspapers.com, 7 Dec. 1977, https://www.newspapers.com/image/265300424/. Shellow, Sadie Myers. How to Develop Your Personality. Harper, 1932. Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_to_Develop_Your_Personality/QhNWAAAAMAAJ.