Give away a $100 gift card from Chipotle.
In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole  Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers   This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern.  First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.
Claim:  Actress Cindy Williams penned an editorial denouncing a proposed pay raise for the military. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2001] This is how we treat our public servants. One story among many! Salute to our Service Men & Women On 12 Jan, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year-citing that the stated 13% wage  gap was bogus. A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this!  Ms. Williams:  I just had the pleasure of reading your column of 12 Jan 00, "Our GIs earn enough," and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account.  Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), see that I make $1,117.80, before taxes. After taxes, I take home $ 874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 25,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for Saudi  I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone  obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them. Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece. But, tomorrow from Sarajevo, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish! A1C Michael BraggHill AFB AFNCC  IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN  FIGHTING MEN & WOMEN. THANK YOU. THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO'S EVER SERVED OR HAD A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES! THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL !!! Variations:  An August 2009 version changed the responding airman from one posted to Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, to one posted to Afghanistan, replying from Kabul. Origins:  The editorial critical of military pay raises alluded to above and the irate response to it penned by an airman at Hill Air Force Base are genuine, but the author of the original editorial has been mistaken for her (more famous) namesake. Actress Cindy Williams, who starred in the hit 1973 film American Graffiti and portrayed sweet, lovable Shirley Feeney on the popular 1970s sitcom Laverne & Shirley hasn't been writing newspaper articles denouncing our "overpaid" servicemen.  Back in January 2000,a different Cindy Williams, one who was then working as a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who had once served as assistant director for national security in the Congressional  Cindy Williams Budget Office, contributed an op-ed piece to the Washington Post (not the WashingtonTimes) in which she criticized a proposed 25% pay increase for military personnel (on top of a 4.85% raise that had just been enacted).  In her article, Ms. Williams maintained that claims that servicemen in the military suffered a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector were inaccurate, and that military personnel were already well paid compared to the average American.    The full text of the editorial ("Our GIs Earn Enough") by the non-actress Cindy Williams can be found here.  The response to that editorial which is reproduced in the example block above was indeed drafted by the airman named, although it was not itself published in Washington Post.    here The misidentification of the original article's author has caused considerable grief for Cindy Williams the actress: "I've done everything to try to squelch it, but nothing seems to work," says Miss Williams of "Laverne and Shirley" fame. "I have people writing and calling me, even my friends, asking: 'Are you against a pay raise for the military?' And I reply, 'You know me, I'd fight [in the military] if I could, because I am such a patriot.'" Ironically enough, much of the angry correspondence (even "hate mail") the actress has received has come from the military ranks. "It's been really worrisome," says the actress. "It's terrible to malign people like that. I don't know where to go to say I didn't do this." Versions of this article circulated since 2009 have stated that Cindy Williams (the one who actually did write the editorial) is the Obama administration'sAssistant Director for National Security in the Congressional Budget Office.  This is not correct  Ms. Williams  held that position from 1994 to 1997, during the Clinton administration.   Last updated:  8 October 2015    Williams, Cindy.  "Our GIs Earn Enough."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2000  (p. A19). Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. On 18 September 2016, the "Donald Trump for President" Facebook page posted a photograph of Hillary Clinton along with the claim that the Democratic presidential nominee had spent over $1 billion on negative attack ads targeting Trump, but she had spent no money at all on political ads touting her own political record and accomplishments:  The image asks viewers to "share if you agree," but its claims are not up for debate. They are false.  First, the Hillary Clinton campaign has not spent "over $1 billion on negative Trump ads on TV." Although Clinton has run a number of negative TV spots attacking her rival, she has not spent anywhere near $1 billion on such ads. Shortly after this image was published in September 2016, NBC partner Advertising Analytics released a report detailing how much money each of the candidates had spent on ads. They recorded that Clinton's campaign spent about $90 million on ads during the general election (up to 20 September 2016), while pro-Clinton groups had spent an additional $60 million or so: report Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate Donald Trump and pro-Trump outside groups in the 2016 advertising race. According to ad-spending data from NBC partner Advertising Analytics, Clinton's campaign has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, versus $17.3 million for Trump's campaign. That's more than a 5-to-1 advantage for Clinton. And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump. That's almost a 5-to-1 advantage. It's also false to say that Clinton has never released a political ad touting her own accomplishments. The Clinton campaign has issued a number of videos touting her accomplishments from her 30-plus years of public service, including one that highlighted her work with children and health care and another featuring President Obama talking about Clinton's many achievements (including becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party).  children and health care achievements Even if we assume the original image referred only to paid television advertising, it's still wrong in light of examples such as a June 2016 Clinton TV spot that showcased several highlights of her political career: Claim:  The IRS is sending out unsolicited e-mail providing taxpayers with a web form to use to check on the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005]  You filed your tax return and you're expecting a refund. You have just one question and you want the answer now - Where's My Refund? Access this secure Web site to find out if the IRS received your return and whether your refund was processed and sent to you. New program enhancements allow you to begin a refund trace online if you have not received your check within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date. Some of you will also be able to correct or change your mailing address within this application if your check was returned to us as undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. "Where's My Refund?" will prompt you when these features are available for your situation. To get to your refund status, you'll need to provide the following information as shown on your return:  Your first and last name Your Social Security Number (or IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number)   Your Credit Card Information  Okay now, Where's My Refund? Where's My Refund? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we must tell you that our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must furnish us with records or statements for any tax for which you are liable, including the withholding of taxes by your employer.We ask for information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, and you are required to give us this information. We may give the information to the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, other federal agencies, states, cities, and the District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws.If you don't provide this information, or provide fraudulent information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. We may also have to disallow the exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on the tax return. This could make your tax higher or delay any refund. Interest may also be charged. Origins:   In  December 2005 we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <irs_notice@irs.gov>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds.   Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS web site,  but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN). phishing The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds.  Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at  1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS web site. Where's My Refund? Last updated:  20 December 2005    Sources:   Tri-Town News [Howell, NJ].  "IRS Warns of E-Mail Scam."   8 December 2005. Linda Chavez-Thompson kicked off her campaign for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor by assailing the personal wealth of incumbent Republican David Dewhurst, whos jet-fueled three winning statewide campaigns partly from personal funds.Chavez-Thompson, whose background lies in labor unions, said Jan. 4: I know I will be an underdog against Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, who is a comfortable millionaire. But most Texans are not millionaires. See her single out the Lone Star state's wealth stereotype at the 1:08 mark of the video at right, which was posted on YouTube by the Texas Tribune.Thanks go to Chavez-Thompson for stating the obvious. We here at PolitiFact aren't millionaires and expect most Texans aren't, either.Still, Chavez-Thompson caused us to wonder: How many Texans are millionaires? And are many Texans well off compared to people elsewhere?We found that the latest statistics on Texas millionaires date back a few years. In 2004, according to an Internal Revenue Service estimate posted online in 2008, Texas was home to 108,000 individuals whose net worth was $1.5 million or more. (Why the $1.5 million benchmark? We don't know, but we suspect that a meager $1 million doesn't go as far as it used to. )Karl Eschbach, the state demographer, peeked at the same analysis and offered a quick caveat: The estimate was reached before the nation entered a recession partly driven by plunging home values, fueling drops in net worth.In 2004, 1 in 208 Texans were in the $1.5-million wealth tier--about 1/2 of 1 percent of the state's nearly 22.5 million residents. Texas ranked 37th nationally in its share of individuals with net worth of $1.5 million or more. Connecticut ranked first, Florida second, the District of Columbia third.Eschbach noted that the wealthiest people in Texas were better off than their rich counterparts in most states. In 2004, Texas ranked 18th in the average net worth of individuals whose net worth was $1.5 million or more. The average net wealth of such Texans was more than $4.5 million.We also found a 2001 estimate, based on an IRS sampling of federal tax returns, suggesting Texas was home to 182,000 millionaires, amounting to less than 1 percent of its 21.3 million residents that year.California was the heady home to 572,000 millionaires, New York to 317,000 and Florida to 249,000Even Illinois had more millionaires, at 185,000, making us scratch our heads: When was the last time peacock-proud Texans had to fret about keeping up with residents of the Land of Lincoln?In her campaign kickoff speech, Chavez-Thompson didnt recap the less salutary fact that Texas families rated as poorer than families nationally. In 2007, according to the Census Bureau, half of American households had income exceeding $50,740 and half made less than that. Texas had a median household income of $47,548.Of course, Texas still had enclaves of wealth. According to the bureaus study, the Dallas suburb of Plano was a nationally prominent pocket of lucre, with a median household income of $84,492.At the other end of the scale, the state retained bastions of poverty along the Mexico border. Residents of El Paso County had median household incomes of $34,980 while residents of Hidalgo and Cameron counties had median incomes of $30,295 and $29,347, respectively, both ranking worse off than other U.S. counties.As of 2008, nearly 16 percent of Texans (3.8 million residents) lived in poverty, with 22.5 percent of children living in poverty, according to the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for government aid to low-income residents. Nationally, 13.2 percent of residents lived in poverty, including 18.2 percent of children.Eschbach said sizing up the state's wealth is no cinch.You have a lot of major corporations headquartered here. You've got a lot of wealth creation, Eschbach said. In that respect, we certainly aren't the wealthiest state or the poorest state. We do have a large representation of very disadvantaged people. At the same time, we have a robust economy.Much debate lies in the details. Yet to Eschbach and the rest of Texas, Chavez-Thompson's statement was no surprise.We rate her statement True. Editor's Note: The Associated Press reported that John Madden died at the age of 85 on Dec. 28, 2021. The fact check below pertains to a hoax that circulated online in 2014 and 2016. John Madden died   A rumor about Hall of Fame coach John Madden's alleged death started circulating online in April 2016:  The rumor started after the web site LockerDome put up a link to a fake news article, which was published on 29 April 2014 by the entertainment web site Empire Sports: NFL fans cover your eyes, Super Bowl winning head coach John Madden was found this morning dead at his Pleasanton, California home. Paramedics responded to a call made early this morning and found the 78 year old Hall-of-Fame coach sitting upright on his couch with a microphone in his hand. The Pleasantville Medical Examiner has not released the cause of death but no foul play is suspected. There was no truth to this story when it was initially published in 2014. There was still no truth to this fake news item when it recirculated two years later, at a time when John Madden was still alive and well at 80 years old (not 78). Empire Sports, like the related Empire News, is one of many "satire and entertainment" web sites that publishes only hoax stories: many Empire Sports uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases when public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental. LockerDome is an interest-based social network that started as a place for sports fans to gather online but later expanded to include other interests. LockerDome network Update [Dec. 28, 2021: Update to report that John Madden died on Dec. 28, 2021. In mid-March 2019, the social media network The Other 98% shared a meme featuring an image of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and text lauding her actions in the face of a deadly massacre targeting the Muslim community in the city of Christchurch: meme   Readers who were justifiably suspicious of content in a meme generated by a partisan source asked us whether its statements were true, and they were. Ardern garnered praise for guiding her country through grief in the wake of a mass shooting that claimed the lives of 50 people at two mosques on 15 March 2019 while Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian suspected of being a white supremacist, was charged in the slayings. partisan source Ardern did wear a hijab, or veil, while honoring victims of the massacre. Professional news photographers captured images of Ardern wearing a gold-trimmed, black head covering during her 16 March 2019 visit to the Canterbury Refugee Centre: photographers NZ Prime Minister @jacindaardern is a remarkable leader. Here, she addresses mourners after the #Christchurch terrorist attack. ? pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg @jacindaardern #Christchurch pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg  news.com.au (@newscomauHQ) March 18, 2019 March 18, 2019  It is also true that Ardern confirmed victims and their families would receive financial assistance from the New Zealand government, although it might be a reach to claim she personally offered such assistance. But in a speech given on 17 March 2019, Ardern assured victims that New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), an agency that provides financial assistance to anyone in New Zealand who is injured in an accident, would be on hand to help them: speech ACC is putting more staff on the ground in Christchurch, working alongside the Ministry of Social Development at the community hub at Hagley. For ACC -- as Ive said before immigration status is not a factor -- it is based on the event happening here in New Zealand. In an event such as this -- murder or manslaughter -- the family is eligible for a funeral grant of around $10,000. There are also one-off payments for the deceaseds partner, children and dependents, ongoing assistance provisions for things like childcare and of course compensation for the loss of income. MSD [Ministry of Social Development] is providing standard forms of financial assistance also, such as helping with immediate needs and things like one-off grants for food payments. It will also be working with individuals and families to consider ongoing needs, such as benefit support. The country is currently making preparations for funerals for the 50 deceased victims. preparations Garrand, Danielle.  "New Zealand Helping to Pay Christchurch Shooting Victims' Funerals, Regardless of Immigration Status."
  CBS News.  17 March 2019. Beehive.govt.nz.  "PM Statement on Christchurch Shooting."
  17 March 2019. The Straits Times.   "New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern Wants to Discuss Live-Streaming with Facebook After Mosque Attacks."
  17 March 2019. Fifield, Anna.  "New Zealands Prime Minister Receives Worldwide Praise for Her Response to the Mosque Shootings."
  The Washington Post.  18 March 2019. The Trump administration and Senate and House leaders have revealed a framework for tax legislation that proposes tax cuts for business, a reduction in tax brackets, and the elimination of several tax breaks. What the plan means for Americans remains to be determined. But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said that the amount of tax relief working families receive under the plan is entirely dependent on one thing: what happens to the child tax credit. The child tax credit, if we don't do it, there will be no tax relief for working families, Rubio said on WFLA on Oct. 15. How much tax relief working families get under tax reform is entirely dependent on whether or not we put in place an increase to the child tax credit. We wondered whether increasing the child tax credit will be the only way that working families can gain under the framework. What we found is that the child tax credit is indeed central in the current tax proposal. However, the plan is so tentative that its premature to say that will be the only way working families will see relief. Rubios team sought to back up his assertion with apress releasethat included two charts. Both charts relayed the same message: In order to help working families, a tax plan must increase the child tax credit and make the credit refundable. So in Rubios mind, expanding  not just increasing   the child tax credit is key in seeing working families prosper. The Trump-backed tax frameworkproposes increasing the creditfrom the current amount of $1,000 and raising the current income threshold at which the credit phases out. Experts agreed that expanding the child tax credit is one of the central provisions that will shape the impact that middle-income households will experience under the framework. Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the existing, $1,000 child tax credit is already quite large. Parents with children under the age of 17 are eligible for a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child. If they owe more than $1,000 in taxes, then the credit lowers their tax liability, or the total amount of tax left on their income. If parents owe less than $1,000 in taxes then the tax liability is reduced to zero. In its current form this tax credit is nonrefundable. Greenberg said that under current law, a married household with two children making $60,000 would owe about $3,733 in individual income taxes before taking the child credit into account. After taking the child credit into account, the households individual income tax burden would fall to about $1,733. (His math assumes that the household takes the standard deduction and does not claim any other major credits, exclusions, or other provisions.) Still, its not just about increasing the credit. Transforming it into a refundable credit is also important. In 2015, Rubio and Mike Lee, R-Utah, releaseda tax planthat connected the child tax credit to the payroll tax, which would have increased the refundability rate.At the time, experts were unsure whether this would have benefitted low-income families because it didnt include an expansion for them. Another reason why expanding the child tax credit is important is because the current framework eliminates the personal exemption  that is, the untaxed income pegged to the number of dependents on their return. This provision disproportionately benefits households with children. To compensate for eliminating it, the plan proposes increasing the child tax credit. It looks like theyll pay more under the current framework, but thats where the child tax credit comes into play, said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. It does its magic and wipes away that tax liability. Its worth emphasizing that the details of the child tax credit are a work in progress. Right now, the plan does not specify how much the credit would increase or which incomes level would qualify. More broadly,little is knownabout the thresholds of new income tax brackets, which could greatly affect the distribution of benefits. From the sketchy details we have of the basic (framework), its pretty fair to say the child tax credit is key, said Edward McCaffrey, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California. As a result, the credit has emerged as one of few options available to policymakers looking to change the tax burden on middle-income households. Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, bemoaned the focus on a specific tax break such as the child credit, favoring instead overall tax simplification. In that context, Edwards said, policymakers have lots of ways to cut taxes on moderate-income Americans. Maag, meanwhile, pointed to proposals outside the framework that would expand the earned income tax credit. For example, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a very large increase in that credit -- a refundable credit targeted at low-income working Americans -- that would provide benefits to low- and middle-income families Rubio said if tax reform efforts dont expand the child tax credit, there will be no tax relief for working families. Thats a bit overstated, since the tax proposal is in its early stages. That said, judging by whats in the initial framework, experts say that the child tax credit is one of the few levers that could significantly affect the size of the tax burden for middle-income households. We rate this claim Mostly True. Commenting on Gov. Greg Abbott pressing sheriffs to detain individuals living in the country without legal authorization, a reader brought up workers who groom the grounds of the Texas Capitol. Illegal immigrants mow the grass around the Capitol,said a Facebook commentposted Nov. 10, 2015, in reaction to theAustin American-Statesmans summary of the papers Nov. 5, 2015,news storyabout Abbott telling Texas sheriffs he might withhold criminal justice grant aid if they dont fully comply with federal requests for detaining criminal immigrants held in their jails. The newspaper published that comment, among others, prompting us to wonder: Do undocumented workers really mow the Capitol lawn? We attempted to reach the commenter to see how he reached his conclusion and didnt hear back. Nationally, according to a July 2015web postby the Pew Research Center, undocumented immigrants make up 5.1 percent of the nations labor force. In the U.S. labor force, the post says, there were 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012. Among the states, Nevada (10%), California (9%), Texas (9%) and New Jersey (8%) had the highest shares of unauthorized immigrants in their labor forces. Closer to home, we reached the State Preservation Board, which manages the Capitol and nearby state facilities. By email, spokesman Chris Currens said the board contracts with a private company to care for the grounds and that company is required to use the onlinefederal E-Verify system, authorized by Congress in 1996, which enables users to determine whether employees are citizens or have a required visa to work legally here. In short,the government says, employers submit information taken from a new hire's Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification Form) through E-Verify to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to determine whether the information matches government records and whether the new hire is authorized to work in the United States. U.S. employers submit the Form I-9 for each employee; on the form, an employee must attest to his or her employment authorization. In addition, agovernment summarysays, the employee must present his or her employer with acceptable documents showing who they are and that theyre eligible to work in the country. Documents that fit the description, according to the form, include passports and permanent resident or alien registration cards. A note: E-Verify may be a flawed method of weeding out ineligible workers. In a July 2015report,the Cato Institute pointed out that a government-commissioned analysis estimated that 54 percent of unauthorized workers submitted to E-Verify were incorrectly found to be work authorized because of rampant document fraud. The citedWestat report, published in 2009, elaborated: This finding is not surprising, given that since the inception of E-Verify it has been clear that many unauthorized workers obtain employment by committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify. An upshot,Alex Nowrastehof Cato told us by phone, is that even if workers cleared E-Verify, that doesnt mean theyre legal. Back to Texas: In December 2014, then-Gov. Rick Perry ordered agencies to use E-Verify. Perry told reporters then that 17 agencies already employed the system. Currens told us the State Preservation Board initially placed a clause requiring contractors to use E-Verify in April 2009 and grounds contracts have included the clause ever since. Also, Currens noted, each contract requires the contractor to certify that each employee is in compliance with federal immigration laws. The current Capitol groundskeeping contract, which is withClean Scapes, an Austin company, requires the contractor to subject employees to pre-employment and annual criminal background checks. The company also must obtain photocopies of the workers drivers license or state-issued photo identification and Social Security card or Resident Alien work visa/identification card. And the company  must provide documentation showing that this request has been met for all employees working on preservation-board-overseen properties. We asked the agency for the latest documentation. By email, Currens sent anundated noticeto the board from Marilu Sanchez, a Clean Scapes human resources specialist, stating the company had run E-Verify for six employees, each one listed by name. Currens said the notice was submitted to cover the workers at the Capitol in the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, 2015. By phone, Carmen Zayas, a Clean Scapes vice president, said the landscaping company has long checked all its workers through the E-Verify system. People are always going to make assumptions about the landscaping industry employing immigrants without legal permission to live here, Zayas said. We take that process as seriously as anyone can. By email, Currens told us the board is confident that the groundskeeping workers have proper legal status. Our ruling A Facebook comment published in theAmerican-Statesmansaid: Illegal immigrants mow the grass around the (Texas) Capitol. If so, such immigrants have fooled the federal E-Verify system and the agency that oversees the Capitol grounds. We rate the claim False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. As violence escalated in Israel and Palestine in early October 2023, many online readers noticed an unusual promotion posted on the official X account for the state of Israel: six months of free mental health services with the company BetterHelp for people in Israel affected by the war. In a viral TikTok, user pearlmania500 shared a screenshot of the post from X, expressing surprise at the announcement: Israel declared war, and then they declared a collab with BetterHelp. [...] What the f*ck is next? HelloFresh for Ukraine? UberEats for Syria? pearlmania500   This was indeed a real post on X, published by the verified account of the state of Israel. The full post, published on Oct. 10, 2023, stated: Thank you to all of the incredible Israeli companies, volunteers and individuals who are coming together to help as many people during this horrific time. @betterhelp, a company which offers therapy is providing 6 months of free therapy to those affected by the war in Israel. stated  The conflict began on Oct. 7, 2023, when the Palestinian militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel from Gaza, resulting in the deaths of 1,400 Israelis, as of the time of this writing. Israel subsequently declared war and attacked and blockaded Gaza, actions that resulted in the deaths of more than 2,000 Palestinians, as of this writing. There are at least 200 known Israeli hostages taken by Hamas militants. Experts, according to The New York Times, believe the hostages are being held in underground tunnels in the Gaza Strip. Hamas' attacks came after months of surges in violence against Palestinians by the Israeli military. Gaza is presently facing a humanitarian crisis as a result of Israeli strikes. launched 1,400 attacked 2,000 200 believe months presently We looked up BetterHelp's "Israel Support" page. There is no restriction on who receives therapy from the service, which states on the website that it "is available to anyone impacted, regardless of location and nationality." The company does, however, require users to submit a valid payment method to prevent abuse, adding that the card will not be charged. The website directs users to a questionnaire asking them to put in their identifying information, including marital and economic status.  Israel Support states (Screenshot via BetterHelp.com) Chris Stenrud, a spokesperson for Teladoc Health, a telemedicine company that acquired BetterHelp in 2015, reached out to us to emphasize, "This is an independent initiative, and we have not worked with the Israeli government on this or any other organization. The support is not limited to Israelis and applies to anyone affected by the war, anywhere." acquired We should note that Alon Matas, the founder and president, according to his profile on Teladoc, has led product development and strategy for startups, enterprises and the Israeli Defense Forces. profile Teladoc We should also note that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said that BetterHelp had previously shared customers health data  which it had promised to keep private, including information about mental health challenges  with companies like Facebook and Snapchat. In March 2023, BetterHealth agreed to settle with the FTC by returning $7.8 million to customers, and an FTC order restricted how they could share consumer data in the future.  said March 2023 Given that this was a real post from the verified account of the state of Israel, we rate this as a Correct Attribution. "Alon Matas, President BetterHelp." Teladoc. https://www.teladochealth.com/about/leadership/alon-matas/#:~:text=Alon%20Matas%20is%20the%20president,operations%2C%20partnerships%20and%20product%20development. Accessed 17 Oct. 2023. "2021 Investor Day." Teladoc, 18 Nov. 2021, s21.q4cdn.com/672268105/files/doc_presentations/2021/Teladoc-Health-2021-Investor-Day-Final.pdf. Al-Mughrabi, Nidal, et al. Israeli Strikes on Gaza Intensify as Humanitarian Crisis Deepens. Reuters, 16 Oct. 2023. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-border-crossing-set-reopen-israeli-troops-prepare-ground-assault-2023-10-15/.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. BetterHelp Shared Users Sensitive Health Data, FTC Says. AP News, 2 Mar. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/betterhelp-ftc-health-data-privacy-befca40bb873661d1f8986bb75d8df07.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. "Israel-Hamas War News. CNN, 15 Oct. 2023, https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-15-23/index.html.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. Gaza and West Bank Death Toll Reaches 2,383 Palestinians - Ministry. Reuters, 15 Oct. 2023. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-west-bank-death-toll-reaches-2383-palestinians-ministry-2023-10-15/.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. Gettleman, Jeffrey, and Tamir Kalifa. For Hostages Families, an Endless Loop of Hope and Despair. The New York Times, 16 Oct. 2023. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/world/asia/israel-hostages-families-hamas-gaza.html.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. Were Israeli Babies Beheaded by Hamas Militants During Attack on Kfar Aza? Snopes, 12 Oct. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/12/40-israeli-babies-beheaded-by-hamas/.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1711683167986327901. Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. Netanyahu, Gantz Agree to Form Emergency Unity Govt and War Cabinet. France 24, 11 Oct. 2023, https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231011-%F0%9F%94%B4-live-israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza-continue-death-toll-mounts-on-both-sides.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. Two Palestinians Killed during Israeli Military Raid in West Bank Refugee Camp. PBS NewsHour, 24 Sept. 2023, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/two-palestinians-killed-during-israeli-military-raid-in-west-bank-refugee-camp.Accessed 16 Oct. 2023. Oct. 17, 2023: The story was updated to include a statement from Teladoc Health that offers BetterHelp services and that emphasized it did not have a partnership with the Israeli government.  Oct. 17, 2023: The claim at the top of this story was clarified to state this was a promotion, not a collaboration. We also included more details on the founder of BetterHelp in the body of the story.