Did Will Smith Donate $150,000 to a 'Terrorist Organization'?
On 9 September 2015, Minister Louis Farrakhan announced on Facebook that actor Will Smith and his wife Jada Pinkett Smith had donated $150,000 to help cover the cost of the "Justice or Else! Million Man March" event planned for 10 October 2015: Facebook event While neither Will Smith nor Jada Pinkett Smith commented on the announcement, their donation was seemingly confirmed on Twitter by Brother Jesse, a journalist and Million Man March supporter: Shortly after news of the reported donation broke, several conservative media outlets picked up on the story and asserted that Will Smith had donated to a "black Muslim" who planned to "kill all whites." Many of these stories were posted along with a photograph of Will Smith in a kaffiyeh: stories Reports have begun to surface that Smith and his wife, Jada Pinkett-Smith, have given a huge sum of money to Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the radical group Nation of Islam. Nation of Islam also has ties to the Black Panthers, a black power movement that borders on being terrorist organization. That should be interesting to explain on their tax returns. Farrakhan is proudly stating that Smith gave $150,000 to his Justice ... or Else! march. This march, which is theoretically supposed to honor the 20-year anniversary of Farrakhan's Million Man March, will take place on October 10 in Washington D.C. The reality is that this event will most likely be used to call for violence against the police and could well lead to rioting and more than a few arrests. The image of Will Smith in a kaffiyeh was not a genuine photograph of the actor. It was a piece of artwork created by Mohammad Kanoo: artwork His series "A Question of Identity" (2012) presents a range of recognizable international public figures  political leaders and celebrities  dressed in the traditional kandoorah and ghutra for the men, and for the ladies in the abayya and hijab, once again using disjunction as a means of engaging viewers. Using Photoshop, Kanoo gives us an idea of what politicians such as Barack Obama, George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, and celebrities like George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey and Paris Hilton, would look like "out of their comfort zone," that is, if they adopted an Arab sartorial identity. Will and Jada Pinkett Smith's reported donation would go towards sponsoring the "Justice Or Else! Million Man March" event, not to Louis Farrakhan personally. And while Minister Farrakhan is the leader of the Nation of Islam (and did once say that "if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us), those are the views of an individual and not the official position of the organization. say Farrakhan's controversial positions have inspired criticism of his involvement ever since the first "Million Man March" in 1995: criticism March supporters point out that instead of the stereotypes, often perpetuated by the media, of criminals, druggies or dropouts, most African-American men are hardworking people with families and communities. And many are troubled themselves by the reality that some black men have not measured up to their responsibilities. "I have taken the position that this march is directed first at the African-American community, and secondly at the nation at large," said Ron Walters, a professor at Howard University. But both the nation and the African-American community have reservations. Not with the message, but with the messenger: Farrakhan. The controversial head of the nation of Islam is, to many, a racist and separatist. A number of black churches, especially Baptists, have refused to endorse his march. "If it had originated from our end, we would be there," said Levi Chaplin of Pleasant Lane Baptist Church. "But we can't support somebody that talks against us in one breath, and in one breath hugs us. I mean, that's not right." Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith may have donated to an event sponsored by Farrakhan's organization, but the associated cause was supporting equal rights for the black community and not funding the murder of white people.
After numerous women came forward to accuse powerful Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, and rape in October 2017, social media users circulated photographs of Weinstein with various politicians in an apparent attempt to smear their characters. One meme went even further, purportedly showing President Obama bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Weinstein, President Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Bill Cosby and joking that it should be renamed the "sexual predator award": producer showing   Three women have accused Bill Clinton sexual harassment, rape, or sexual assault -- charges that he denies. Anthony Weiner was sentenced to 21 months prison for exchanging sexual messages with a 15-year-old girl. Dozens of women accused Bill Cosby of drugging, raping and assaulting them. women prison drugging, The only genuine image included in this meme is that of President Obama awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to President Bill Clinton during a ceremony in November 2013. The Washington Post reported at the time that: ceremony It was a ceremony rich in pageantry and politics: President Obama, at the nadir of his presidency, bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on a Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton ... Obama uttered fewer than 300 words about Clinton. But his remarks paid tribute to the sweep of his public life  from transforming education as governor of Arkansas to growing the economy as the 42nd president to leading relief efforts in the wake of global natural disasters. Obama said Clintons charitable foundation has saved literally hundreds of millions of people. He still remembers as a child waving goodbye to his mom  tears in her eyes  as she went off to nursing school so she could provide for her family, Obama said of Clinton. And I think lifting up families like his own became the story of Bill Clintons life. All three of the other images were created by taking a genuine photograph of a different recipient and then using digital manipulation to add the heads of Weinstein, Weiner, and Cosby. The photograph purportedly showing Obama with Weinstein, for instance, originally featured an image of Vice President Joe Biden:   Obama surprised Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during a ceremony in January 2017. ceremony The image purportedly showing Obama with Anthony Weiner was created using an image that originally featured actor Tom Hanks:   Hanks received his award in November 2016. award The image of Bill Cosby was also fake. The original image featured President Obama bestowing the Medal of Freedom on musician Bruce Springsteen:   Although the image of Bill Cosby with President Obama is fake, the comedian truly did receive the award in 2002 -- from President George W. Bush: award  Neither Weinstein nor Weiner has received a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Kim, Kyle.  "Bill Cosby: A 50-year Chronicle of Accusations and Accomplishments."
  Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2017. Kessler, Glenn.  "A Guide to the Allegations of Bill Clintons Womanizing."
  The Washington Post.  30 December 2015. The Economist.  "Anthony Weiner Is Sentenced to 21 Months in Prison."
  25 September 2017. Gittens, Hasani.  "President Barack Obama Honors Joe Biden with Surprise Medal of Freedom."
  NBC News.  13 January 2017. Rucker, Philip.  "Obama Honors Clinton and His Legacy with Presidential Medal of Freedom."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2013. Grant, Sarah.  "Watch President Obama Award Bruce Springsteen Medal of Freedom."
  Rolling Stone.  22 November 2016. Los Angeles Times.  "Harvey Weinstein Went From Power Player to Pariah in Less Than a Week. Here's How it Happened."
  16 October 2017. Grant, Sarah.  "Watch President Obama Award Bruce Springsteen Medal of Freedom."
  Rolling Stone.  22 November 2016. Lawler, David.  "Barack Obama Presents Medal of Freedom to Stars Including Tom Hanks, Bruce Springsteen and Michael Jordan."
  The Telegraph.  23 November 2016. In September 2018, several conservative web sites and the National Rifle Association (NRA) reported that Levi Strauss & Co., producer of the iconic Levi's brand of jeans, had partnered with businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg to "attack gun rights." The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) declared that Levi Strauss had left behind their "rugged image" and would be working with "a billionaire oligarch in an effort to empower the government to trample upon the fundamental rights of the American people." The conservative LifeZette website similarly wrote that: declared LifeZette The company plans to donate $1 million over four years through grants to anti-gun groups -- including the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg-fronted group -- and will also encourage employee contributions through offering to double-match all the monies they throw toward the anti-gun campaign. On 5 September the NRA-ILA posted a meme on Facebook asserting that "Levi Strauss turns their back on Second Amendment supporting customers": meme   It's true that Levi Strauss did announce in September 2018 they would be partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit organization that advocates for gun control measures and was founded and is heavily funded by Michael Bloomberg. founded However, the accounts highlighted above included subjective (and sometimes misleading) characterizations of the company's efforts rather than objective facts. For example, Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh wrote that the company was "stepping up [their] support for gun violence prevention," not that they were working to "attack gun rights." The latter characterization came from LifeZette and the NRA, not Levi Strauss itself. wrote Similarly, the NRA's Facebook meme claimed that the company had "[turned] their back on Second Amendment supporting customers," but none of the actions announced in September 2018 related specifically to customers rather than to the issue of gun violence in general. (In 2016, the company requested that customers not bring firearms into their stores as a safety measure.) requested Finally, LifeZette wrote that Levi Strauss would be donating money towards "anti-Second Amendment activities," but that is not at all how the project was characterized by Levis Strauss themselves, whose CEO stipulated that he did not favor repealing the Second Amendment. In a blog post on 4 September 2018, Levi Strauss announced three actions in support of gun violence prevention: blog post 1. The Safer Tomorrow Fund: Weve established this fund to direct more than $1 million in philanthropic grants from LS&Co. over the next four years to fuel the work of nonprofits and youth activists who are working to end gun violence in America. 2. Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety: We are partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety and executives from the business community, including Michael Bloomberg, to form a coalition of business leaders who believe that business has a critical role to play and a moral obligation to do something about the gun violence epidemic in this country. 3. Employee Support: We are doubling our usual employee donation match to organizations aligned with our Safer Tomorrow Fund. Additionally, were encouraging employees to utilize their five hours a month in paid volunteer time to get more politically active. In an op-ed column for Fortune magazine, Bergh addressed the potential concerns of gun-owning customers and stressed that he was not advocating getting rid of the Second Amendment and did not believe gun owners were irresponsible: column You may wonder why a company that doesnt manufacture or sell guns is wading into this issue, but for us, its simple. Americans shouldnt have to live in fear of gun violence. Its an issue that affects all of us -- all generations and all walks of life. So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas. I know that Americans, including many of our own consumers, employees, and other partners, hold a wide spectrum of views related to guns. Im not here to suggest we repeal the Second Amendment or to suggest that gun owners arent responsible. In fact, as a former U.S. Army officer, I took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But as retired four-star general Michael Hayden once said, There are some weapons out there that frankly nobody should have access to. And actually, there are some people out there who should never have access to any weapons. We cant insulate ourselves from every threat. We cant harden every place we gather -- whether it be our schools, workplaces, shops, churches, or entertainment venues. But we can take common-sense, measurable steps -- like criminal background checks on all gun sales -- that will save lives. On the whole, the claims made by the NRA and certain conservative web sites about Levi Strauss & Co's newly-announced gun control activities were largely accurate and based on real announcements made by the company. However, these reports were colored, and at times distorted, by subjective characterizations and misleading descriptions of what Levi Strauss had actually announced. National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action.  "Levi's Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights."
  7 September 2018. LifeZette.  "Levi Strauss Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights."
  9 September 2018. Ho, Catherine.  "Inside the Bloomberg-Back Gun Control Group's Effort to Defeat the NRA."
  The Washington Post.  20 June 2016. Bergh, Chip.  "Levi Strauss CEO: Why Business Leaders Need to Take a Stand on Gun Violence."
  Fortune.  4 September 2018. Levi Strauss & Co.  "Ending the Gun Violence Epidemic in America."
  4 September 2018. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. Claim:  A badly behaved dog wreaks havoc while two fellows stand by silently, each thinking it's the other guy's pooch. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1989] A woman is invited to call at the home of a woman who is wealthier than she is. From the moment she is invited, the caller is unsure about how to behave  how to sit, how to take tea, etc. And matters are made worse when the time of the visit arrives. A large, lively, dirty, beast of a dog is sitting in the front yard, and when the hostess welcomes the caller into the house, the dog follows her inside. While the caller tries to respect the social amenities, that darn dog does not. It tracks mud about the room, sniffs the cookies, and paws the furniture. The caller makes small talk, but the conversation becomes strained. Still, both parties keep a stiff upper lip, observing proper etiquette. Finally, the visit comes to an end. As the caller rises to leave, the hostess, with one eye on the wreckage, remarks icily, "And don't forget to take your dog!" "My dog?" the caller says. "I thought it was yours!"  [Regis, 1987] In January 1946 Bigelow came down to Princeton for an interview with Von Neumann. He was a couple of hours late . . . Julian Bigelow got out of the car and walked up to the house.  "Von Neumann lived in this elegant lodge house on Westcott Road in Princeton," Bigelow says. "As I parked my car and walked in, there was this very large Great Dane dog bouncing around on the front lawn. I knocked on the door and Von Neumann, who was a small, quiet, modest kind of a man came to the door and bowed to me and said, 'Bigelow, won't you come in,' and so forth, and this dog brushed between our legs and went into the living room. He proceeded to lie down on the rug in front of everybody, and we had the entire interview  whether I would come, what I knew, what the job was going to be like  and this lasted maybe forty minutes, with the dog wandering all around the house. Towards the end of it, von Neumann asked me if I always traveled with the dog. But of course it wasn't my dog, and it wasn't his either, but von Neumann  being a diplomatic, middle European type person  he kindly avoided mentioning it until the end."  [Mahoney, 1983] In passing I must make mention of a funny situation in which I became involved while visiting Field Marshal Lord Alexander and his wife at their home near London.  I motored there to have luncheon with them, and as I emerged from my car, a huge dog appeared in the driveway.  Dogs always made a dead set for me, and I wasn't worried when it began jumping around and wagging its tail.  But I did feel some concern when it followed me to the doorway and walked in as if it owned the house. A family pet, I felt sure, as it settled down to a corner of the living room as Lord and Lady Alexander greeted me warmly.  At luncheon the dog settled down at my feet and the begging for food began.  Lady Alexander's attention became riveted upon me: "Mr. Mahoney," she said charmingly, "I wish you would send your dog outside." And not until then did it dawn upon me that they thought the stray dog was mine! Origins:  Though this story has often been told as an actual event in an important person's life, its first appearance came in a 1924 Lucy Maud Montgomery book, Emily Climbs. In Chapter   12, Emily's call on socially-superior Miss Janet Royal is interrupted by the antics of a very large muddy dog that follows her into the elegant parlor, where it proceeds to act up.  to the legend, only after the beast has made a shambles of things and Emily is about to leave does the subject of the dog's ownership arise, each girl thinking up until that time the horrid thing belonged to the other. From those early beginnings, the "Not my dog" anecdote has gone on to reach a succession of new audiences, as new storytellers emerge and claim it as their own. Burt Reynolds is rumored to have told this story (starring himself as the embarrassed visitor) to Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show in the 1980s. A common element in this story is unequal status between visitor and visited. The one who comes calling feels inferior for reasons relating to social standing, comparative wealth, or the celebrated householder's achievements. Whatever the cause, he comes hat in hand, filled with a determination to make a good impression  a certain recipe for social disaster! The story is one of horrific embarrassment; the faux pas being perceived as being that much more flamboyant because it plays out before someone looked up to. That matters are straightened out before the visit ends by the caller blurting out, "My dog? I thought he was yours!" doesn't change the  momentary flash of mortification experienced or the knowledge that the sought-after host had sat there for quite a while thinking decidedly evil thoughts about his guest. The story is also a poke at the strictures of etiquette. Neither host nor guest feels it would be proper to comment negatively on the dog's behavior, so both endure the worsening state of affairs in stoic silence. The legend underscores common misperceptions about etiquette, that the rules of polite behavior are often impractical and adherence to them results in ridiculous situations a more direct approach would head off at the pass. Those who resent the genteelly-voiced demands of Miss Manners and long for less structured, more direct forms of social interaction get to savor a moment of self-congratulation through this story because it proves right what they've been saying all along. As old as this story is (1924, remember?) it continues to pop up, and even at times changes in dramatic ways. We picked up the following non-canine version of the tale during our Internet travels, again proving that no story can't stand a little improving: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] The story goes along the lines of a young Indo-asian couple who after a non-arranged marriage, decide to get a house together. A few weeks after they move in, the husband returns from work to find an older woman in the living room of the house. Knowing they have broken with tradition by having a non-arranged marriage, the husband greets his mother-in-law, only to receive a hard silent stare. She is evidently not happy at their recent union. That evening the old woman joins the couple at the dinner table, and continues to join them for every meal for the next month, never uttering a word. Eventually the once-close couple become hostile to one another, unhappy that 'Mother' has been allowed to move in with them. They stop talking and avoid one another. A few days later the situation escalates into an argument about the old woman. The creepy truth is revealed as the wife exclaims "My mother? I thought she was yours!" Barbara "vinegar mother" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 August 2011 Curses! Broiled Again!   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 55-57). Too Good To Be    Mahoney, Patrick.  Barbed Wit & Malicious Humor.  New York: Citadel Press, 1956.  (p. 100).    Regis, Edward.  Who Got Einstein's Office?   Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1987  (p. 110).   Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths.  London: Virgin Books, 1996.  ISBN 0-86369-969-3  (pp. 105-106). Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 39). The Big Book of Urban Legends Claim:  Monies given to the September 11 Fund are being used to defend suspected terrorists. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] It may be time for the 9-11 charity relief-fund police to begin phase two of their oversight campaign. If you haven't already heard about it, you're not going to believe this. You've probably read that some of the Sept. 11 relief money was granted to an organization defending people suspected of involvement in the very crimes that made these charitable efforts necessary. The offending organization, the "September 11th Fund," was established by the United Way and the New York Community Trust to receive and distribute donations to help victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. We're not talking about pocket change here. The Fund gave $171,000 to the Legal Aid Society, which is assisting in the legal defense of eight terror suspects now detained in Brooklyn, N.Y. That's like the Heart Association donating to the Society of Sedentary Butter Eaters. Actually, it's worse, because sedentarybutter-eaters harm themselves . . . they don't murder innocent people. Are you outraged yet? If not, there's more. The Fund, far from chastened by criticism from those outraged at the above, is up to further mischief. CNSNews.com now tells us that the Fund has made more than a million dollars worth of grants to various left-wing political groups  CNSNews' characterization, not mine, but it is undeniably correct. Origins:  The above are the opening paragraphs to a 20 November 2001 World Net Daily article written by David Limbaugh, titled "For the Victims?" It circulates in its shortened form (as quoted above) on the Internet rather than as the lengthier original article that continues onto other topics. original article In turn, information touted in the World Net Daily article was drawn from an 8 November article appearing on the National Legal and Policy Center web site. This NLPC press release states a 1 November Wall Street Journal article revealed that the LAS was providing civil legal assistance to eight detainees in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The WJS article did indeed say "[New York's] Legal Aid [Society] represents eight [suspected terrorist] detainees  some of whom are still housed in the unit known as 'SHU'  all of them Arabs." The misunderstanding behind this whole matter thus originated with the Wall Street Journal, although it was the NLPC who gave it legs. article Officials of the September 11th Fund deny the allegation that they are funding the legal defense of terrorists. The New York Legal Aid Society echoes that denial, and its statement about the charge (as found on its web site) says:  On November 8, 2001, the National Legal and Policy Center charged that a six-week, $171,000 grant from the September 11 Fund to The Legal Aid Society was used to represent persons in detention accused of terrorism. This charge is not true. Grant funds have been used solely for advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers affected by the attack on the World Trade Center. The New York Legal Aid Society did receive $171,000 from the September 11th Fund, but the money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the tragedy who needed help getting access to wills, bank accounts, and insurance. The society also helped staff a family assistance center and provided consultation on a telephone hot line. In addition, attorneys from the Legal Aid Society's immigration unit interviewed several people detained by immigration officials because they had invalid passports or visas.  None of the financial assistance has gone to help terror suspects with their legal problems, although that last item  the interviewing of several foreign nationals who have been held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because of invalid paperwork  lays the groundwork for this misunderstanding. The LAS has in the past routinely involved itself in immigration matters, so its agreeing to talk to several INS detainees  some of whom were Arabs  after September 11 was business as usual for them, not a case of their "defending terrorists."  Likewise, that the LAS advised a few key detainees "You'll have to get your own attorney; we won't be representing you" can hardly be interpreted as the LAS' mounting a legal defense of terrorism suspects. According to the New York Legal Aid Society's statement about those meetings (also as found on its web site): After September 11, the Immigration Court asked the Society's Immigration Unit to interview a number of detainees of Arab or Middle Eastern descent because they had no legal counsel. The Society complied with the Immigration Court's request, conducted some interviews, and referred most cases to the private bar. Society Immigration Unit staff accepted three cases for representation and facilitated a settlement for one of these cases. We have recently learned that the other two cases involve issues beyond immigration violations, and our Immigration staff therefore cannot provide further immigration assistance. Accordingly, these two remaining cases have been reassigned to private counsel. The Legal Aid Society's civil staff has not represented and would not represent anyone on matters related to perpetrating the World Trade Center attacks. In other words, two of the three cases accepted by the LAS turned out to involve more than immigration matters, so the LAS immediately backed away from them once it knew there was more involved. (Reading between the lines, one can arrive at the conclusion these two detainees are being held in relation to the September 11 attacks, but the LAS statement does not come right out and say this.) The one case the LAS did retain was strictly an immigration case, as its policy is that "neither the Immigration Unit, nor the Society's Civil Division of which the Unit is a part, ever represents persons whose detention is predicated on issues other than alleged immigration violations." The Society firmly asserts it "is grateful to the September 11 Fund and to all others who have supported our disaster recovery work. These funds have been used properly, and have not been used to represent individuals accused of wrongdoing in the tragedy." The National Legal and Policy Center appears to view the New York Legal Aid Society's behavior as reprehensible, however. Dan Rene, spokesperson for the NLPC, said in a interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "If the Legal Aid Society, which has an annual budget of $135 million, received any money from the September 11th fund, it should have no involvement with the detainees and should devote 100 percent of its time to helping victims."  Rarely has a more foolheaded statement appeared in a newspaper.  Those who can't afford lawyers yet require legal representation don't fade from existence because a legal aid society has accepted a grant and agreed to provide additional services to a specific group of clients. By far the greatest demand on any legal aid society will be the provision of legal representation to the underfunded, making the devotion of "100 percent of its time to helping [Sept. 11] victims" a notion only a lunatic would entertain. Should a mother fighting for custody of her child be put on indefinite hold because a September 11 victim's will needs to be probated? Should an elderly man victimized by his landlord be told he'll have to make do with an unheated apartment for the winter because staffing a legal hotline for September 11 victims is the only business this particular legal aid society can concern itself  with?  A legal aid society is first and foremost a legal aid society. Its acceptance of an additional mission doesn't alter or erase its primary purpose for being, nor does it wipe from existence those who need its help. This particular Society has a history of involvement with INS detention cases. This is part of what it does, and that didn't change in the post-September 11 world, nor did INS proceedings for all manner of needy folks suddenly go away. The NY LAS should not be expected to turn away INS detainees it would at any other time have routinely seen and assisted just because some terrorism suspects might have immigration problems and thus might be included with harmless detainees. It's a "baby and the bathwater" issue  the better response is to sift through all the cases and reject the unsuitable ones rather than to reject them all out of hand, in effect punishing the innocuous for having been incarcerated at the wrong time. More information about what this particular  legal aid society does and who it helps can be found in its FAQ. FAQ The larger question of how monies donated to The September 11th Fund should be administered continues to trouble many. A number of the organizations that were the recipients of the beneficience of a nationwide outpouring of donations provide aid to victims, victims' families, and the wounded community of New York City in numerous ways other than direct payment to the families of victims. Some find fault with that, and some don't. (A constantly updated list of projects funded can be found on The September 11th Fund site.)  list of projects Debate over what services should be underwritten by the Fund helps speed along tales of fundular wrongdoings, imagined or actual. Though the cause for concern in this particular instance was unfounded, real anxieties find voice through the expression of such stories. In other words, we pass along such gossip because at some level we're disturbed by the handling of the September 11th Fund, even if that sense of unease amounts to nothing more than merely wondering if things are being handled properly.  As long as that sense of unease continues, so will the stories. Barbara "uneasy riders" Mikkelson Additional Information:   September 11th Fund FAQ     Statement About 'Detainee' Allegation  (NY Legal Aid Society)Last updated:  16 March 2008     Sources:   Crist, Gabrielle.  "Fund Officials Deny Sept. 11 Web Rumor."   Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  21 November 2001.     Cohen, Laurie.  "Detainees on INS Breaches Held in Solitary Status."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 November 2001.     Miller, Steve.  "Sept. 11 Fund Aids Defense of Detained Arabs."   The Washington Times.  9 November 2001  (p. A3).     Ruiz Patton, Susan.  "United Way Defend Sept. 11 Fund."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  10 November 2001  (p. A4). FACT CHECK: Do crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into slavery?     Claim: Crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into sexual slavery.   MOSTLY  Example: [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] Crown Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning https://t.co/u0fabfCANc https://t.co/u0fabfCANc  Phillip Hernandez (@Flipy602) September 8, 2015 September 8, 2015  Origins: On 8 September 2015, the web site IJ Review published an article with the misleading headline "'Crown' Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning": article For thousands of women across the United States their tattoos are a constant reminder of the men who enslaved them for profit. Sex trafficking in the United States affects countless women, and many are left with the scars and marks of their former pimps. A CNN interview with a victim and survivor of sexual slavery and addiction named Jennifer Kempton helped shed light on these tattoos. The article (and several subsequent republications of it) attributed its claims to a 2 September 2015 CNN piece titled "Sex-trafficking survivors use new ink to reclaim their lives." That report profiled Survivor's Ink, a group devoted to assisting victims of sex trafficking to remove or cover tattooed brands acquired in the course of their victimization: piece [Founder Jennifer] Kempton said the new ink changed the way she looked at herself, but she still had three other brandings. There was one on her neck, one on her back and one right above her groin that said "Property of Salem," a trafficker who played a major role in bringing Kempton into the life she had now left behind. She told a human trafficking advocate about the "property of" tattoo. The advocate contacted a family member who agreed to pay for her to have the rest of her brandings covered. This was the beginning of Survivor's Ink. Kempton wanted other survivors to experience the freedom she had found, so she started a nonprofit organization that pays for trafficking survivors to have their branding tattoos covered by new tattoos of their choosing. Both CNN and IJ Review linked to Survivor's Ink's Facebook page, which contained photo albums illustrating before and after tattoos. Notably, only a single crown was featured among the tattoos depicted, casting the "here's what it means" headline into doubt.  photo albums It's likely that some pimps chose a crown as the brand forcibly inked upon their victims. But nothing in the CNN report suggested that crowns are universal (or even common) among tattoos forced on unwilling sex workers. Moreover, crown tattoos are a popular choice among the inked. We found no evidence that crown tattoos were linked to sex trafficking before 7 September 2015; however, we located a number of proudly-displayed, intentionally-chosen crown tattoo examples: crown tattoos #Blue Crown #Tattoo By Iuri Chmel #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP #Blue #Tattoo #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP  Tattoo Ideas (@tattooideas__) August 24, 2015 August 24, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black-And-Grey Crown and Scepter pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) August 20, 2015 August 20, 2015  Upper back tattoo of a crown by Murat Bilek. Tattoo artist: Murat Bilek#littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w #littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w  Little Tattoos (@little_tattoos) August 12, 2015 August 12, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown One Love pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3 #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) July 14, 2015 July 14, 2015  Even if a small fraction of the crown tattoos (shared across the internet in body modification galleries) were coerced, the vast majority of folks with a crown tattoo were not victims of sex trafficking; the presence of one is definitely not "disturbing" proof its owner was once enslaved.  Last updated: 8 September 2015 Originally published:  8 September 2015 Scam:  Scammers pose as census workers to elicit personal information from unsuspecting victims. Origins:  Many modern scams involve the obtaining of personal information (e.g., names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers), data which fraudsters can use in a variety of ways to loot the bank accounts and credit lines of unsuspecting victims.  Unfortunately, scammers often find easy pickings, because some people still offer up such information indiscriminately; and even those who are more cautious about providing personal information only to appropriate authorities are often fooled by crooks who falsely pose as official representatives of agencies  such as financial institutions, law enforcement, and government. The census undertaken by the federal government in the United States once every ten years can provide ample opportunities for identity theft scammers.  Most citizens know that U.S. Census Bureau officials will be contacting them in person, on the phone, or by mail to verify their addresses and gather information (e.g., name, age, gender) about persons in their households, so during the census period they may let down their guards and more willingly provide information (or entry to their homes) to unauthorized strangers posing as government officials.  Reports of con artists taking advantage of these circumstances were not uncommon during previous censuses and have already started rolling regarding the upcoming 2010 census, as these reports from 1990, 2000, and 2009 (respectively) demonstrate: census An 80-year-old North Carolina woman was tied up and robbed by two men she thought were census workers. Con artists claiming to be census employees charged Houston residents $50 after helping them complete their forms. Isolated incidents of con artists posing as census workers have occurred during every census, said Ray Bancroft of the census promotion office.  In the North Carolina case, the woman initially allowed only one man into her home and was having a "nice conversation" with him when the doorbell rang and the man told her it was his partner, said Tom Smith Jr. of the Charlotte, N.C., census office. "They tied her up and commenced taking some valuable things from the house as well as her car," Smith said, adding that the woman was not physically injured. In the Midwest, about a dozen people have complained that "someone has come around saying they're taking a census, not saying the U.S. Census Bureau, and then they ask demographic type of questions, generally including some income questions," said Marvin Postma, director of the Kansas City census region office.  Con artists posing as census takers have attempted to get Social Security numbers and gain entry into local homes, according to the Better Business Bureau president. "Those are the two things that are most prevalent. It's happening throughout the United States," said Jere L. Bennett, president of the local BBB office. Mr. Bennett said his office has received phone inquiries during the past month about fake census enumerators  people who contact residents by telephone and in person  wanting information.  Some senior citizens in Congressman Bill Foster's district recently received what appears to be a scam letter in the mail that solicits credit card information and donations while falsely appearing to be authored by the U.S. Census Bureau. The eight-page mailer starts with a header identifying the letter as being sent by the "National Census of Senior Citizens" and the "Council for Retirement Security." The letter describes itself as an advocate for senior citizen interests and asks a number of questions about political issues before soliciting a minimum contribution of $14.58 or more by providing credit card information. Since the first phase of the 2010 U.S. Census is already underway, reminders about how to ensure you provide information only to official Census Bureau representatives  and provide only the types of information they are authorized to collect  are especially timely.  The web site of the Better Business Bureau (BBB) offers some good advice on this topic: BBB If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag and a confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their badge before answering their questions.  However, you should never invite anyone you dont know into your home.  Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify address information. Do not give your Social Security number, credit card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need it for the U.S. Census.  While the Census Bureau might ask for basic financial information, such as a salary range, it will not ask for Social Security, bank account or credit card numbers, nor will employees solicit donations.  Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail or in person at home.  However, they will not contact you by e-mail, so be on the look out for e-mail scams impersonating the Census. Never click on a link or open any attachments in an e-mail that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.  Last updated:  11 September 2009    Sources:   Fuller, James.  "'National Census' Scam Targets Senior Citizens."   [Chicago] Daily Herald.  7 May 2009.     Skorneck, Carolyn.  "Count on Scam Artists to Profit from Census."   Chicago Sun-Times.  29 May 1990.     Walker, Clarissa J.  "Bureau Warns of Census Scam."   The August Chronicle.  11 April 2000. The Trump administration has had its share of embattled nominees, but President Donald Trump's pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency in March 2018 is controversial even by those standards.  Trump nominated the agency's deputy director, Gina Haspel, on 13 March 2018. But her record has come under question both in the U.S. and abroad because of her service while stationed at a secret CIA facility in 2002, leading to allegations that she committed war crimes (with commentary appearing, naturally, in meme form):   A human rights advocacy group  the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)  has called for Haspel to be taken into custody if she travels to the continent. The group has petitioned federal prosecutors in Germany since 2014 to issue a warrant, saying: saying: Those who commit, order or allow torture should be brought before a court  this is especially true for senior officials from powerful nations. The prosecutor must, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, open investigations, secure evidence and seek an arrest warrant. If the deputy director travels to Germany or Europe, she must be arrested. Andreas Schller, director of the group's International Crimes and Accountability Program, has said that ECCHR does not expect that Haspel will actually face a warrant; its goal, he said, is that German officials recognize Haspel's alleged actions: said If you allow her to come here, you are making a clear political decision that you prioritize that over your obligations under the Convention Against Torture They can't say they didn't know who was coming here. Haspel, who first joined the agency in 1985 during President Ronald Reagan's administration, was reportedly in charge of a secret "black site" prison in Thailand at which a prisoner and terror suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was waterboarded. She also allegedly supported the destruction of videotapes in 2005 capturing waterboardings at the prison. (However, a report stating that she was in charge of the facility, code-named "Cat's Eye," at the time another suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was tortured was retracted.) reportedly retracted. The use of waterboarding  or "enhanced interrogation," as officials called it at the time  was banned in 2009 by President Barack Obama. Five years later, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report criticizing the practice. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who was the committee chair at the time, wrote in the foreword to the report: banned report CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values. In March 2018, Feinstein called on the agency to declassify documents related to Haspel's role in the program: called As we move forward with the nomination process for Ms. Haspel, my fellow Senators and I must have the complete picture of Ms. Haspel's involvement in the program in order to fully and fairly review her record and qualifications. I also believe the American people deserve to know the actual role the person nominated to be the director of the CIA played in what I consider to be one of the darkest chapters in American history. Two of Feinstein's GOP Senate colleagues, Rand Paul of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona, have also called for Haspel to explain how involved she was with the agency's interrogation program while it was active. Paul McCain Michaelson, Jay. "Could CIA Nominee Gina Haspel Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?"
  The Daily Beast. 19 March 2018. Senator Dianne Feinstein. "Feinstein to CIA: Release Haspel Torture Documents."
  15 March 2018. Goldman, Adam. "Gina Haspel, Trump's Choice for C.I.A., Played Role in Torture Program."
  New York Times. 13 March 2018. Bonner, Raymond. "Correction: Trump's Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah."
  ProPublica. 15 March 2018. MacAskill, Ewen. "Obama: 'I Believe Waterboarding Was Torture, And it Was a Mistake.'"
  The Guardian. 29 April 2009. Paul, Rand. "Why I'm Against Gina Haspel."
  Politico. 18 March 2018. Sen. John McCain. "Statement by SASC Chairman John McCain on Leadership Changes at State Department & CIA."
13 March 2018. In late November 2023, Facebook users shared variations of a viral warning about a relatively new iPhone feature called NameDrop, also known as "Bringing Devices Together." The posts hinted that NameDrop, dubbed by Apple as "a new AirDrop experience," was dangerous, and said that users needed to take action to protect their privacy and security. Multiple U.S. police department Facebook pages also shared the warnings, which perhaps was one of the reasons that we received so many reader emails about this rumor. U.S. police department Facebook pages We reviewed multiple versions of the same warning about NameDrop on iPhone devices. One such warning read as follows: warning IMPORTANT PRIVACY UPDATE: If you have an iPhone and have done the recent iOS 17 update, they have set a new feature called NameDrop defaulted to ON. This feature allows the sharing of your contact info just by bringing your phones close together. While you do need to accept the transfer, if you would prefer to shut this off go to: Settings, General, AirDrop, Bringing Devices Together. Change to OFF. PARENTS: You may consider changing these settings after the update on your childrens phones, also, to help keep them safe as well! Despite the virality of these warnings, here's the truth: These posts are based on a misunderstanding of how the NameDrop feature works with an iPhone, just like so many other technological scares that in past years were also virally shared on Facebook. Barring the possibility of any future security holes being uncovered by users, the NameDrop feature was designed with multiple layers of protection. NameDrop is a feature that allows two users to hold their iPhone devices very close to each other in order to share a phone number or email address. This also works with an iPhone and an Apple Watch or two Apple Watches. NameDrop Basically, instead of asking a friend for their contact details or handing your device to a friend to have them input their information, NameDrop allows this exchange of basic data to happen in a much easier, yet still secure, manner. The feature was first included in the software update known as iOS 17. It released in September 2023 after being announced in June. iOS 17 announced  Apple says that, for NameDrop to work, users' devices must be "within a few centimeters" of each other to initiate the first step of the process. Also, both users must be signed into iCloud. Users can then select if they want to share their phone number or email address and must tap a "Share" button to complete the exchange of one of the two pieces of basic contact data. To be clear, no contact information is automatically shared when two devices are brought together without a user taking action. Further, NameDrop does not work unless the devices are already unlocked. Think of the following scenario: You sit down in a cozy coffee shop with your phone in your purse or on the table. Another customer is sitting several tables away. That other customer isn't going to be able to initiate the NameDrop feature on your phone because the devices are further apart than the "within a few centimeters" of proximity specified by Apple. Even if that other customer walks by and bumps into the purse or your phone on the table, if your phone is locked with a passcode or other security feature, they couldn't even begin initiating the NameDrop feature. Further, even if your phone is unlocked, you would still have to tap some buttons in order for the person to receive your contact details. In other words, there are multiple layers of security that were implemented for the NameDrop feature that are meant to protect users. The only way a person could misuse the NameDrop feature on your phone is if they take your unlocked phone away from you without your permission and initiate the sharing of contact information. However, this does not make the NameDrop feature unsafe. It simply means that you need to not allow strangers to take your unlocked phone away from you. All of the data we've detailed above led us to our rating of False, meaning that, as the authoritative tech blog Wired.com put it in the headline of their article, "No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17." article If users, including parents, still wish to turn off the NameDrop feature, simply navigate on an iPhone to "Settings," "General" and then "AirDrop." To disable NameDrop, toggle the "Bringing Devices Together" feature to off. This screenshot shows NameDrop ("Bringing Devices Together") enabled. Parents can learn more about parental controls for Apple devices on the company's website. website Apple Announces Powerful New Privacy and Security Features. Apple Newsroom, 5 June 2023, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/apple-announces-powerful-new-privacy-and-security-features/. Combs, Mary-Elisabeth. Heres Everything to Know About NameDrop on iPhone. CNET, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/heres-everything-to-know-about-namedrop-on-iphone/. Hardwick, Tim. iOS 17: How to Share Contact Details With NameDrop. MacRumors, 14 Sept. 2023, https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/ios-share-contact-details-with-namedrop/. iOS 17. Apple, https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/. Rogers, Reece. No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17. Wired, 27 Nov. 2023,https://www.wired.com/story/apple-iphone-namedrop-ios17/. Use NameDrop on iPhone to Share Your Contact Info. Apple Support, https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/namedrop-iphone-share-contact-info-iph1b6c664b7/ios. New Jersey often ranks high on lists in categories ranging from beach quality to education.Unfortunately, according to Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, the state tops another list  one with a particularly dubious ranking.New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation and not by a little, Greenwald (D-Camden) said in an April 1 interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record. They are the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average.New Jersey having high property taxes isnt new. But are they more than double the national average? Greenwalds statement is largely on the money, PolitiFact New Jersey found.Lets first explain the source of Greenwalds data and how tax rankings are reviewed.Greenwald got his data from a 2009 list compiled by the business-backed Tax Foundation in Washington, DC. The 2009 data shows that New Jersey ranked number one in three key tax metrics: median property taxes paid on homes; taxes as a percentage of home value; and taxes as a percentage of income.Nick Kasprak, a Tax Foundation analyst and programmer, said taxes as a percentage of home value is the most relevant statistic of the three because it can apply to most people, ranging from those who own condominiums to those in McMansions.Its a good way of comparing apples to apples across the states, Kasprak said of the metric, adding that the Tax Foundations numbers are estimates and come from the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey.So how long has New Jersey worn the highest property taxes banner?That depends on the metric. We found that New Jersey property taxes have topped the rest of the nations at least back to 2004 when looking at median property taxes paid on homes and taxes paid as a percentage of income.When looking at all three Tax Foundation metrics for years 2004 through 2009, New Jerseys median property taxes paid on homes was more than triple the national average; more than double the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of income; and at least one and-a-half times the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of home value.Brigid Callahan Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, said comparing states by property taxes alone is disingenuous because states fund certain needs differently. For example, some states use property taxes to fund education, others do not.In reality, we need to look in total at the entire tax burden, Harrison said. The implication is that New Jerseyans pay the highest taxes in the country, right? Thats what people think. What Im saying is that New Jersey pays a very high tax burden. What we need to do is look at the total tax burden: gas tax, sales tax, security, user fees, certainly property taxes and sales taxes as well.Jon Bramnick, leader of the Assembly Republicans, agreed property taxes are high but credited a slowing of their growth to Gov. Chris Christies implementation of a 2-percent property tax cap, changing arbitration procedures for police and firefighters, and other measures.We obviously have to have mergers, shared services and consolidations across New Jersey, Bramnick said, adding that a bipartisan effort is key. These are the factors that you have to have to continue down that road. If you do, you will see a slowing of property taxes.Our rulingGreenwald said in a TV interview that New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average. He was referring to 2009 statistics from the Tax Foundation. Statistics from 2004 through 2008 show the state leads the nation in two of three key metrics, according to the Tax Foundation. New Jersey led in all three metrics in 2009. Greenwalds overall point is clear: when it comes to property taxes, New Jersey is king. We rate this statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.