Salt Lake Tribune Endorses Obama
Claim:  The Salt Lake Tribune has endorsed Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] I just a posting stating that the Salt Lake City Tribune endorsed Obama for President and I wonder if this could be true! Subject: STUNNING BLOW TO MITT ROMNEY - Salt Lake Tribune Endorses Obama  Salt Lake Tribune endorses President Obama over Mitt Romney, who organized city's Olympics. Looking for the truth is this was even published or it is false  Is this true? "Salt Lake City Tribune endorses Obama for re-election" Origins:  Despite the significant ties Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has to Utah's Salt Lake City  including his prominent membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is headquartered in that city), and his work as the President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics  it came as a surprise to many people that the Salt Lake Tribune, the highest-circulation daily newspaper in Utah, endorsed his opponent, Barack Obama, in the 2012 presidential contest.  In a 19 October 2012 editorial entitled "Too Many Mitts," the Tribune cited the former Massachusetts governor's shifting positions on political issues and his refusal to provide specifics about his economic plans as its primary reasons for declining to endorse him for President: editorial From his embrace of the partys radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?" The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romneys next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor  their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear. More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out. [...] In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romneys domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust. Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first. The Tribune noted in a follow-up piece that their editorial endorsing Barack Obama "flooded the Trib's website and nearly logged an all-time high in unique visitors." Those who followed the 2008 presidential campaign closely might not have found the Salt Lake Tribune's endorsement of Barack Obama in 2012 too much of a surprise, as that newspaper endorsed him in the 2008 election as well.  (Contrary to common misbelief, the Deseret News, not the Tribune, is the Salt Lake City newspaper that is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)   endorsed Last updated:  24 October 2012    Means, Sean P.  "Mythbusting Site Confirms It: Tribune Endorses Obama."   The Salt Lake Tribune.  24 October 2012.    The Salt Lake Tribune.  "Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts."   19 October 2012.
Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 Following the 94th Academy Awards ceremony on March 27, 2022, a false tweet from Twitter user @fondasbian was posted with a decades-old video of actor Jane Fonda with the caption, "The Oscars only started providing closed captions in 2021." false tweet Twitter Jane Fonda Oscars While this misleading message was somewhat overshadowed by an incident involving comedian Chris Rock and actor Will Smith, that didn't stop the tweet from receiving tens of thousands of combined retweets and likes. Those shares only served to boost the false claim. an incident Chris Rock Will Smith The tweet in question claimed: "Jane Fonda signed her best actress speech in 1979 because the Oscars wouldn't offer closed captions. The Oscars only started providing closed captions in 2021." Jane Fonda Oscars Oscars   In the brief 30-second video from the 51st Academy Awards in 1979, Fonda did sign part of her acceptance speech for the hearing-impaired. She was accepting an award for best actress for her role in the 1978 film, "Coming Home." One of the main characters in the film is a disabled veteran. He was portrayed by actor Jon Voight. Fonda disabled veteran Jon Voight The full speech was uploaded to the official Oscars YouTube channel: the official Oscars YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_73XeE8fo&t=157sThe portion included in the tweet is bolded below: I'm so happy. I wanted to win very much because I'm so proud of "Coming Home," and I want many people to see the movie. I'm signing part of what I'm saying tonight because while we were making the movie we all became more aware of the problems of the handicapped. Over 14 million people are deaf. They are the invisible handicapped and can't share this evening. So this is my way of acknowledging them. The tweet in question claimed that the Oscars first started providing closed captions in 2021. In truth, the Oscars had been providing closed captioning for decades. Oscars Oscars On March 27, 1982, Wisconsin's Leader-Telegram newspaper published that a brand new way of providing captions during live television would be debuting at that year's Oscars: Leader-Telegram published Oscars A new method for providing closed captioning for hearing-impaired viewers will be unveiled by the National Captioning Institute during ABC-TV coverage of the 54th annual Academy Awards presentations March 29. Called Real Time, the method is a form of electronic computerized shorthand which will allow hearing-impaired viewers to receive closed captions throughout the entire telecast, including acceptance speeches the moment they are spoken. NCI spokesman John E. D. Ball said Real Time involves a courtroom style stenotype machine and a computer capable of transmitting phonetic symbols into words. Twitter user @bubbaprog pointed out that the March 27 tweet from @fondasbian was misleading. "This tweet has 5,000 retweets and it's completely false," @bubbaprog tweeted. "The Academy Awards were literally the first live program to utilize closed-captioning in 1982 and have been captioned ever since." pointed out tweeted It's true that the Oscars had featured closed captions during every ceremony since 1982. However, while the Academy Awards were the first program to utilize closed captions during a live broadcast, similar technology for prerecorded programs (not live) had already been partially implemented two years before. Oscars On March 16, 1980, the Chicago Tribune newspaper published that NBC, ABC, and PBS announced they would begin to "inaugurate a new service designed to enlarge the world of prime-time TV for Americans with impaired hearing." Chicago Tribune published According to the article, programs that received the first closed captions on American television were the "Wonderful World of Disney," ABC's "Sunday Night Movie," "Eight Is Enough," "Barney Miller," "Masterpiece Theater," "Once Upon a Classic," and "Mystery Theater." In sum, no, the Oscars did not wait until 2021 to start providing closed captions. The Academy Award ceremonies had been broadcast with closed captions since 1982 and were the first live program to utilize the technology. Oscars Claim:  Predators, pedophiles, and child trafficking rings are using Facebook to source new victims by friending trusting parents and mining images posted of their children. Example:  [Collected on Facebook, September 2014] A guy sends you a friend request. You don't know him, but he's got a cute profile pic, so you accept. It's baby girl's first day of school! She looks SO cute in her new outfit you just have to take a picture and put it on Facebook so all your friends and family can see. You're so excited dropping her off that you "check in" to her school on Fb saying "I can't believe how big she's gotten. Time sure flies. One proud momma/daddy right here!"... Meanwhile, the mystery guy whose friend request you hurriedly accepted earlier this morning is saving that picture you posted of your daughter in her cute new outfit to his phone and texting it to 60 other grown men across the world with the caption "Caucasian female. Age 5. Brown hair, green eyes. $2,500." Not only did you provide a picture of your little girl to a child trafficker, you've handed him the name and exact location of her school on a silver cyber platter. You go to pick her up at 3:00 this afternoon, but she's nowhere to be found. Little do you know, your precious baby girl was sold to a 43-year-old pedophile before you even stepped foot off campus this morning, and now she's on her way to South Africa with a bag over her head, confused, terrified and crying because a man she's never seen before picked her up from school, and now she doesn't know where her parents are, where she's going, or what's gonna happen to her. STOP ADDING STRANGERS ON FACEBOOK. Origins:  In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares. panic over internet strangers In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below: published Lil' Red Warriors deleted children's hairstyles Cyn Malvita  The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you. well-traveled warning This particular warning has some unpleasant undertones in its telling, suggesting that female users are too readily tempted by a "cute" potential predator to consider the safety of their children. It also tacitly condemns parents (mothers, presumably in particular) for even mentioning their children in hawking its highly improbable, sanctimonious premise. Facebook and similar social media sites have ushered in a new level of panic when it comes to internet safety, given that the social network requires users to supply accurate information about their true identities and real names to use the service. While many users flout this aspect of the site's terms and services, many others have been banned temporarily or permanently for using aliases in place of real names. Reading the circulating post above might lead one to believe that the danger is very real and omnipresent, but the scenario presented is one that is exceedingly unlikely. Among other implausibilities, this warning makes it sound as though the bad guys are stymied in their search for victims and don't know where to look for kids to abduct until they see pictures of them on Facebook. But potential abductors' seeing a Facebook photo of a particular child who attends a given school does nothing to facilitate the snatching of random children for sale to pedophiles  would-be kidnappers don't need Facebook photos, as they could simply lie in wait outside just about any school and try to grab children as such opportunities presented themselves. Aside from that, first and foremost, most schools nowadays do not release children to parties who have not been explicitly granted permission and had their names recorded on an authorized list, a fact to which any parent who has ever needed a friend to make a last-minute school pickup can attest. Secondly, while the risk of child abduction and trafficking may exist, children are far, far more likely to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family. PDF In the cases examined, abuse typically occurred over the course of years and involved "grooming" and other behaviors designed to created compliance. Child victims were not at risk of being immediately whisked to Africa by a strange Facebook user, but rather more likely placed in harm's way by the people meant to ensure their safety and care. On rare occasions child predators may mine publicly posted photos of children for personal use or trade, and posted Facebook pictures and locations might facilitate a kidnapping if the abductors were seeking to grab a specific child (rather than trolling for random victims), but no evidence suggests the posting of kids' photos on Facebook has resulted in a general increase of kidnapping or abuse of children. Last updated:  4 June 2015 In the summer of 2016, as Donald Trump made strong arguments against immigration and said that he would build a border wall and deport illegal immigrants, the following photograph circulated, showing the Republican presidential nominee alongside Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks:   While Donald Trump has battled accusations of racism throughout his 2016 presidential campaign (and throughout much of his career), his supporters have shared the above-displayed photograph as proof that Trump is not racist. When The American Mirror published this photograph on 4 September 2016, they asserted that Trump had never been accused of racism before he ran for president (which is demonstrably false) and argued that if Trump were a racist, he would have never posed for a photograph with Ali and Parks: The American Mirror false No one accused Donald Trump of being a racist until he decided to run for president and became a threat to Hillary Clintons return to power. In 1986, Trump joined several other prominent Americans, such as Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali, as recipients of an Ellis Island Award. One suspects if Trump was a racist, theres no way he would have posed for a photo with those two. The photograph is real. It was taken on 27 October 1986 by Getty photographer Yvonne Hemsey at a ceremony honoring the recipients of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. (Joe DiMaggio, Victor Borge, and Anita Bryant are also featured in the photograph.) Getty The Ellis Island Medal of Honor is awarded each year in celebration of "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity": Medal of Honor The Ellis Island Medals of Honor embody the spirit of America in their celebration of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity. They recognize individuals who have made it their mission to share with those less fortunate their wealth of knowledge, indomitable courage, boundless compassion, unique talents and selfless generosity; all while maintaining the traditions of their ethnic heritage as they uphold the ideals and spirit of America. As always, NECO remains dedicated to the maintenance and restoration of Americas greatest symbol of its immigrant history, Ellis Island. Trump was one of 80 individuals to receive the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 1986, the first year that the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations handed out the award. However,  1986 the fact that Donald Trump received the award and posed for a photograph says little about his motivations or whether or not he has racist tendencies, only that he received an award and participated in a ceremony meant to honor him (and others). Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was similarly honored with the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 1999. honored The New York Times.  "80 Named as Recipients of Ellis Island Awards."
  16 October 1986. In May 2019, Delta Air Lines came under scrutiny after a photograph emerged on social media that appeared to show a poster encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on video game consoles rather than union dues. Eoin Higgins, an editor and writer at the left-leaning web site Common Dreams, tweeted the photograph on 9 May. The poster contained the following text: "Union dues cost around $700 a year. A new video game system with the latest hits sounds like fun. Put your money towards that instead of paying dues to the union." The poster featured the Delta logo and the URL of the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com: lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG  Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019   The union in question, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), posted photographs of similar fliers encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on watching baseball and football instead of becoming union members: Oh wow. Theres another one. And its just as bad. Really, @Delta? #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019  Safe to say @Delta didnt hit a home run with this one either. Three strikes and youre out. Let em have it, Twitter. #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 10, 2019 May 10, 2019  These photographs prompted multiple inquiries from Snopes readers about whether the fliers were authentic and whether Delta was itself responsible for producing them. A spokesperson for Delta confirmed to Snopes that the airline had indeed created all of the flyers mentioned above, including the "video game" one, and that Delta was also behind the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com, which discourages employees  at times in provocative terms  from becoming IAM members: Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com   In a statement, the Delta spokesperson wrote: "The direct relationship we have with our employees is at the very core of our strong culture and it has enabled continuous investments in Delta people. Our employees have the best total compensation in the industry, including the most lucrative profit sharing program in the world. They want and deserve the facts and we respect our employees right to decide if a union is right for them. Delta has shared many communications, which on the whole make clear that deciding whether or not to unionize should not be taken lightly." In a press release on 9 May, the IAM criticized what it called Delta's "union-busting propaganda," writing: press release "Delta Air Lines all-out assault on their employees legally-protected right to unionize with the Machinists Union is confirmation that our campaign to bring the benefits of IAM-representation to more than 40,000 Delta ground workers and flight attendants is succeeding ... Delta has resorted to defaming and spewing lies and misrepresentations about the IAM. They also continually display anti-IAM propaganda in the workplace. These are all hallmark signs of how well the IAM campaigns are doing and how scared Delta is of their employees having a voice in their careers." International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.  "Press Release -- IAM Campaigns Strike a Nerve With Delta Bosses."
  9 May 2019. 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 15 January 2018, DailyWire.com, the right-wing web site headed by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, posted an article falsely reporting that "Mohammed" was the most popular name given to baby boys born in the Netherlands in 2017: article The mainstream media in the Netherlands reported last week that "Noah" was the most popular baby name for boys in the small European nation. "Noah and Emma were the most popular children's names in the past year," reported Nos.nl. "This is evident from the annual list of names of the Social Insurance Bank, which pays out the child benefit. Boys were named Noah 635 times, while 755 girls went through life as Emma since last year." The year before, "Daan" and "Anna" were the most popular names, the site said. But a journalist at Powned.tv did a little research on the report and found something completely different. Checking for "Mohammed"  and all its alternative spellings  the writer found that 636 babies had been given that name last year. PowNed.tv, the web site DailyWire.com aggregated their story from, is a Dutch blog owned by GeenStijl, a right-leaning site that boasts about being "needlessly offensive." Both GeenStijl and PowNed.tv have been criticized for posting anti-Muslim and anti-migrant content. criticized Baby names in the Netherlands are recorded by the Social Insurance Bank (SVB) for social service purposes, and each year SVB releases a list of the most popular names and ranks them. (For example, Noah and Emma were the most popular boys' and girls' names in 2017, while Daan and Anna were the most popular in 2016.) PowNed arrived at their conclusion that Mohammed was the most popular boys' name for 2017 by tallying all of that name's variations and then weighing that total against the number of newborns who were named Noah in 2017, a methodology that's flawed, for obvious reasons. SVB ranks names by specific spellings, so if the variant spellings of any one name are tallied together, that approach changes the ranking order. Thus, "Mohammad" may be a less popular name on its own than "Morris" or "Moos," but when all the different spellings of "Mohammed" are considered together, that name is more popular than either: ranks  It's true that if multiple variant spellings of the name "Mohammed" are entered into the SVB database, then the results document that 636 of the babies born in the Netherlands in 2017 were given that name. But if the same rule were applied to, for example, the names "Lucas" and "Daniel," it would be clear that Mohammed was hardly the most popular boy's name in 2017. Almost 2,000 Dutch children were named for some form of "Lucas," while more than 1,000 were given a variation of the name "Daniel" in 2017. The topic of migration in Europe has attracted the attention of nationalists and white supremacists, particularly since 2015, when the number of people seeking refuge from places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria spiked. European countries have been the targets of false stories claiming that migrants are creating rape capitals and "no-go zones." attention spiked rape capitals no-go zones DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified. For example, in the days after a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, the site helped spread a false rumor that "leftists" were digging up Confederate graves. In March of that year, the site spread a false claim that Democratic lawmakers refused to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow. In May 2017, the site falsely reported that Harvard University was holding segregated commencement ceremonies.  DailyWire.com spread false claim segregated The site was embroiled in another racial controversy after posting a video disparaging Native Americans in October 2017. After removing the video, Shapiro responded by apologizing but called the video 'satire.' controversy DutchNews.nl.  "Noah and Emma Top the List of Most Popular Dutch Baby Names."
  12 January 2018. Al Jazeera.  "Rise of the Right: 'Anarchist' Media in the Netherlands."
  27 November 2016. GeenStijl.nl.  "LOL. Real Donald Trump Retweet Dumpertvideo."
  29 November 2017. O'Donnell, Katie.  "Anti-Immigrant Forces Gain Ground in Europe."
  Politico.  22 October 2017. Hinshaw, Drew.  "Polish Nationalist Youth March Draws Thousands in Capital."
  The Wall Street Journal.  11 November 2017. [Collected via e-mail, 2003] After anthropologist Susan McKinley came back home from an expedition in South America, she noticed a very strange rash on her left breast. Nobody knew what it was and she quickly dismissed it believing that the sores would leave in time. Upon her return she decided to see a doctor after she started developing intense pains. The doctor, not knowing the exact severity of the case, gave her antibiotics and special creams. As time elapsed the pain did not subside and her left breast became more inflamed and started to bleed. She decided to bandage her sores however as Susan's pain grew more intense she decided to seek help from a more certified doctor. Dr. Lynch could not diagnose the infection and told Susan to seek the aid of one of his colleagues who specialized in dermatology whom was sadly on vacation. She waited for two weeks and finally was able to reach the dermatologist. Sadly, a life changing event was about to unfold during her appointment.  To Miss McKinley's surprise, after she removed the bandages, they found larva growing and squirming within the pores and sores of her breast. Sometimes these wicked creatures would all together simultaneously move around into different crevices. What she didn't know was that the holes were in fact, deeper than she had originally thought for these larvae were feeding off the fat, tissue, and even milk canals of her bosom. The holes were 5 cm deep. She was operated on and the larva was removed from her breast. Therefore always take a slight rash serious and have the eggs removed before it is to late. Cheers and may the creatures leave you in peace. [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Read the article first before looking at the picture and film. This looks horrible. Oh my God!!!!!!! Ladies this could happen to you and Guys this could happen to your wife, girlfriend, partner so please BEWARE,and also warn others. (see the 2 files attached) It has been reported that this is happening in Zimbabwe as well, please make sure you iron your undergarments before you wear them and make sure that your clothes are ironed when they are dry and not damp. The picture is horrible but I felt that I should share with you. [Collected via e-mail, 2006] ALL, PLEASE WASH ALL BRAS, UNDERWEAR WHEN YOU BUY BEFORE WEARING THEM. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT PARASITE IS IN OUR CLOTHES WHEN WE BUY THEM. FORWARD TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW. LET ME FORE WARN YOU THIS IS SO SQUIMISH, I FEEL LIKE SOMETHING IS CRAWLING ALL OVER ME EVEN AS I SEND THIS TO YOU. BE AWARE. IT IS SO GROTESQUE.PLEASE WASH YOUR UNDERWEAR BEFORE WEARING. PREFERABLY IN BOILING HOT WATER. This is not for the weak, I have never seen anything like this. Read the article first before looking at the picture and film. This looks horrible. Oh my God!!!!!!! [Collected via e-mail, March 2007] YOU MUST READ BELOW BEFORE OPENING THE PICTURES. SHARE THIS WITH, DAUGHTERS, SISTERS, FRIENDS...ANY WOMAN My brother was recently telling me of a news story he heard regarding a flesh-eating bacteria found in new clothing shipments to the USA. These are the first pictures I have seen regarding that very subject. After seeing the attached photos, I understand the gravity of what he was telling me. This is something that is a very real and very serious concern as you will see. Ladies / gentelmens please make it a habit from this point forward to wash your just purchased undergarments before wearing them.Or spinning them in the dryer. This is sensitive. Please share with as many women and men that you know. Our undergarments are made in different parts of the country, sit in boxes and go through many hands and exchanges before we purchasethem for ourselves. TO ALL , PLEASE WASH ALL BRAS, UNDERWEAR ( ALL CLOTHING ) WHEN YOU BUY BEFORE WEARING THEM. YOU CAN THROW THEN IN THE DRYER FOR A QUICK SPIN TO KILL THE PARASITES TOO !! WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT PARASITE IS IN OUR CLOTHES WHEN WE BUY THEM. FORWARD TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW. The attached photos are not for the weak hearted. This item is another example of a common online phenomenon: Someone makes an image available, the picture begins to circulate through sharing, the original attribution or explanation for the image gets lost along the way (or was never provided), people begin to make up stories to explain the origin of the now-sourceless picture, and those fabricated explanations become attached to the image as it continues to circulate. We've seen this phenomenon before in the maggot photographs (disturbing image warning), only in this case it isn't just the explanation that's fabricated; the image is a phony one created through digital manipulation as well. maggot This image appeared on the internet back in June 2003 (on a web site with a collection of other manipulated photographs); at that time it carried no explanation at all and was soon attributed by others to some new type of "body modification." Not until a couple of months later did it pick up the story about an anthropologist named "Susan McKinley" who returned from a South American expedition to notice a "very strange rash" on her breast caused by "larvae" which were "feeding off the fat, tissue, and even milk canals of her bosom." No known medical condition causes a result like the one depicted here, and the breast tissue around the supposed "larvae infestation" (larvae of what?) is too healthy (no redness, inflammation, or necrosis) to be believable. This image appears to be the product of the melding of a photograph of a woman's breast and a picture of something similar to a lotus seed pod:   In 2005 someone combined the picture and text quoted in the example above with an existing video clip that seemingly showed maggot-like creatures being removed by forceps from a woman's infected breast, and in November 2005 we began seeing versions that claimed the patient had developed her condition due to the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005:  My aunt, Head Nurse at Tulane Memorial hospital in New Orleans Louisiana sent me this email. The attached video is that of a female patient who, due to the flooding of her home wore the same clothes for days. The contamination in the water was so bad she first broke out with a rash on her breast and then she had a lump on her breast and she popped it and puss excreted from the lump. After treating it herself for days she finally went to seek medical attention and when she did they foundserious infection! They later sedated the patient and found that these insects were within the fatty tissues of her breast and within the milk producing glands (sorry not a medic), she is also 3 months pregnant! And to think, we though Rita was bad on us! If you pay attention you can see them moving in and out, gross, but one of the issues they are now dealing with in New Orleans with patients. The referenced clip was a genuine video, but it had no connection to Hurricane Katrina. It showed the treatment of a Nigerian patient with breast lesions and multiple sinuses containing Tumbu fly larvae. (Fourteen separate larvae were eventually extracted from the breast.) The authors of a 2004 medical journal article on the case noted at the time that only "one case has been reported in the English literature." article In 2006, someone combined the following text with a series of photographs of patients experiencing what look like severe rashes, infections, and necrosis of the upper chest and breasts. The specific origins of these photos are unknown to us, but they likely depict the advanced stages of breast cancer. (WARNING: Viewers may find the pictures displayed in this link disturbing.) photographs An image macro purportedly showing two statements, one from former President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2016 and the other from President Trump at the same event the following year, was circulated on social media in February 2017:  The quotes depicted in the image margo are largely accurate, although President Trump's remarks were edited together from a few different portions of his speech. President Obama's speech at the 2016 National Prayer Breakfast is archived at ObamaWhiteHouse.Archive.Gov. The relevant portion of his speech can be seen at around the 1:50 mark of the following video, and we've reproduced the relevant text portion below (the bolded text was omitted from above-displayed graphic): ObamaWhiteHouse.Archive.Gov And on this occasion, I always enjoy reflecting on a piece of scripture thats been meaningful to me or otherwise sustained me throughout the year. And lately, Ive been thinking and praying on a verse from Second Timothy: For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. President Trump's 2017 National Prayer Breakfast speech was also archived by the White House. The above-displayed image macro condensed a larger portion of President Trump's speech into a brief paragraph. The entire speech can be seen in the following video, and we've reproduced the relevant text portion below (bolded text was omitted from above-displayed graphic): archived Thank you as well to Senate Chaplain Barry Black for his moving words. And I don't know, Chaplain, whether or not thats an appointed position. Is that an appointed position? I dont even know if youre a Democrat or if youre a Republican, but Im appointing you for another year  the hell with it. (Laughter and applause.) And I think its not even my appointment, its the Senates appointment, but well talk to them. Your son is here. Your job is very, very secure, okay? (Laughter.) Thank you, Barry. Appreciate it very much. I also want to thank my great friends, though, Roma. Wheres Roma? Beautiful Roma Downey. The voice of an angel. Shes got the voice  every time I hear it, that voice is so beautiful. Everything is so beautiful about Roma, including her husband because hes a special, special friend, Mark Burnett  for the wonderful introduction. So true. So true. I said to the agent, Im sorry. The only thing more  I actually got on the phone and fired him myself because he said, you dont want to do it, itll never work, itll never, ever work. You dont want to do it. I said, listen  but I really fired him after it became the number-one show. It became so successful, and he wanted a commission, and he didnt want to do it. Thats what I really said. (Laughter.) But we had tremendous success on "The Apprentice." And when I ran for President, I had to leave the show. Thats when I knew for sure I was doing it. And they hired a big, big movie star  Arnold Schwarzenegger  to take my place. And we know how that turned out. (Laughter.) The ratings went right down the tubes. Its been a total disaster. And Mark will never, ever bet against Trump again. And I want to just pray for Arnold, if we can, for those ratings, okay? (Laughter.) The gist of this image macro was that President Obama's speech focused on scripture while President Trump's speech focused on TV ratings, but President Trump did talk about other subjects  including the death of a U.S. Navy SEAL in Yemen  and quote a piece of scripture (John 15:13) during his remarks: No one has inspired me more in my travels than the families of the United States military, men and women who have put their lives on the line every day for their country and their countrymen. I just came back yesterday from Dover Air Force Base to join the family of Chief William Ryan Owens, as Americas fallen hero was returned home. Very, very sad, but very, very beautiful. Very, very beautiful. His family was there. Incredible family, loved him so much. So devastated  he was so devastated. But the ceremony was amazing. He died in defense of our nation. He gave his life in defense of our people. Our debt to him and our debt to his family is eternal and everlasting. Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends. We will never forget the men and women who wear the uniform, believe me. (Applause.) Thank you. From generation to generation, their vigilance has kept our liberty alive. Our freedom is won by their sacrifice, and our security has been earned with their sweat and blood and tears. God has blessed this land to give us such incredible heroes and patriots. They are very, very special, and we are going to take care of them. (Applause.) One could cherry-pick other portions of both speeches to create the impression that both Presidents Trump and Obama had focused equally on scripture during their remarks:  Trump, Donald.  "Remarks by President Trump at National Prayer Breakfast."
  The White House.  2 February 2017. Obama, Barack.  "Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast."
  The White House.  4 February 2016. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.  Here's a screenshot supposedly showing a post from McDaniel on March 15 and a snippet from his obituary a month later:   McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media.  died The New York Daily News wrote:  wrote An Ohio man has tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his states coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWines stay-at-home order madness. If what Im hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesnt have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post circulated widely on social media. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize McDaniel, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.  McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media, but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him.  In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same.  Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our believed husband, father, soon to be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook have turned into national news. The news has opened the flood gates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.  As each day passes, we all are learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have all learned that the early actions taken by our National and State government were indeed the right action to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John was still here with us he would acknowledge the national crisis we're are in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly he is not with us and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Further, we will never be able to erase from our hears and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share. While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. rampant We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax."  bad medical advice conspiracy theories. fake news said Brown, Bruce.  "Its Dangerous for Public Officials to Cry Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic."
  Miami Herald.  27 March 2020. Egan, Lauren.  "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax.'"
  NBC News.  28 February 2020. Carter, Andrew.  "Marion Man Dies After Contracting Coronavirus; Local Cases Climb to 276."
  Marion Star.  16 April 2020. Dillon, Nancy.  "Ohio Man Dies From COVID-19 After Criticizing Governors Coronavirus Lockdown as 'Madness.'"
  New York Daily News.  21 April 2020.