Marco Polo on Muslims
Claim:  Marco Polo said: "The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] A quote attributed to Marco Polo.  Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant whose travels are recorded in the Book of the Marvels of the World, was the first to leave a detailed chronicle of his travel experience through Central Asia and China. "The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." Is this accurate and attributed to Polo? Origins:  The Book of the Marvels of the World, more commonly known in English as The Travels of Marco Polo, is a travelogue compiled in the 13th century by Rustichello da Pisa.  The work was based on accounts told to da Pisa by Venetian merchant traveler Marco Polo when the two men were imprisoned together in Genoa and comprises tales of Polo's world travels and his experiences at the court of Kublai Khan.  The  Book of the Marvels of the World includes descriptions of a number of different cultures and comments about the religion of Islam, but neither Marco Polo nor the compiler of his travel tales wrote a "militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." The referenced quote has been circulating on the Internet for several years and seems to have originated in an article titled "The Alien Concept of Free Speech" published on a web site called Islamic Scriptures Unveiled.  That article offered up several quotes from "great thinkers" about Islam, including the phrase that has since been attributed to Marco Polo. But credit for that quotation was given to a professor of philosophy named Dr. M. Sabieski, not the famous Venetian traveler.  originated It's uncertain when Marco Polo's name became incorrectly attached to the "militant Muslim" quote, but it probably started after the Islam Watch web site reproduced the quotes used in the "Alien Concepts of Free Speech" article in August 2008. Islam Watch changed the order of many of the quotes and placed Marco Polo's name below the words originally attributed to Sabieski: reproduced  These quotes have subsequently been copied and pasted to various blogs over the years, and somewhere along the line Dr. M. Sabieski's name was elided.  An e-mail circulated in January 2015 under the title "Marco Polo Got It Right" included the quote superimposed over an image of Marco Polo: Marco Polo got it right. Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant whose travels are recorded in the Book of the Marvels of the World, was the first to leave a detailed chronicle of his travel experience through Central Asia and China.  There is no mention of "moderate" or "militant" Muslims in Book of the Marvels of the World. Marco Polo's name apparently became attached to the quotation now credited to him only because his name appeared in close proximity to the statement when it was reproduced online in 2008.  So that's the end of that, right? Well, the origins of the quote are still something a mystery, as no reliable information about Dr. M. Sabieski, the professor of philosophy who was originally credited for these words, is currently available. Last updated:  23 January 2015
In November 2023, multiple Facebook ads were displayed to users that led to an article that bore the People magazine logo and claimed that Sheryl Underwood, the longtime co-host of "The Talk," would be leaving the TV talk show to work on expanding her own line of keto gummies for weight loss. However, this was not true. Underwood has nothing to do with any keto gummies for weight loss, nor did People magazine ever publish any such story. Underwood was simply the latest person in a long line of famous people who had had their image and likeness used without permission to sell keto gummies. Further, this false rumor that mentioned Underwood led to a dangerous scam that could potentially cost victims thousands of dollars per year. a long line of famous people One version of the Facebook ad claimed, "Producers are furious that she came forward." The headline in the ads read, "Sheryl Abandons 'The Talk' After Confessing Her Trick." Two of the false Facebook ads that promoted the scam. These ads led to a fake People magazine article on scam websites including emperorsland.pro, sizzlingpear.pro, mindfulmovement.pro and chillytreats.info. (We were unable to provide an archived link to the article since scammers design these websites so that the scam version of the page is cloaked from prying eyes  that is, unless users specifically came from a Facebook ad.) This is not a true story, nor did People.com ever publish any such article. The fake People magazine article, which was nothing more than fiction and a scam, began as follows: Sheryl Underwood Confirms She Is Leaving 'The Talk' After Her Accidental 'Live' Confession On-Air... The host said that it was 'time for a break', but she may actually have bigger things in mind. (People) - Sheryl Underwood, the 60-year-old host on CBS's show 'The Talk', shocked everyone when she announced her departure from the show after 12 record-breaking years on-air. Sheryl, who has earned the reputation of being one of the most business savvy women in the industry, made sponsors (and CBS) FURIOUS. Why? Because Sheryl failed to disclose her new weight loss line to the network. Sheryl's new company is actually a HUGE competitor to CBS's current sponsor Weight Watchers because Sheryl's product is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than Weight Watchers's competing product. According to sources, CBS made Sheryl decide on which direction she was going to focus on in the future. Being so turned off by the reaction of the network and their power move she has decided to pursue her new weight loss line and dream. The scam article went on to falsely claim that other celebrities had joined with Underwood to promote the products, whether they be Belly Blast Keto Gummies, Total Fit Keto Gummies or other products. It is a fact that no celebrities have ever endorsed keto gummies that are purportedly intended for use in weight loss. Websites that promote sales of keto gummies for weight loss usually lack information about the true creators of the products and the source of where they were packaged. In the past, some consumers who fell victim to these scams told Snopes that the post office box numbers included in return addresses for the products don't exist. The rabbit hole for keto gummies goes even deeper, however. Two odd scenarios have been laid out by numerous victims of the scams, which usually involve monthly subscription fees often reported as being around $200 or more, or around $2,400 per year. Some consumers said that they never ordered the products but kept receiving shipments that they had no way of returning, due to fake return addresses. On the flip side, other customers said that they received charges for the products on their credit card statements despite never having ordered them, and then never received any products in the mail. Further, listings for keto gummies for weight loss on Amazon.com and Walmart.com often feature the words "Shark" and "Tank," although not consecutively as "Shark Tank." The two words are included in product listings on Amazon.com and Walmart.com so that any customers searching online for keto gummies with the words "Shark Tank"  after those same customers saw false claims that said the TV show's investors endorsed the products  would then fall victim to the scam and purchase the products based on the "Shark Tank" lie. Again, to be clear, no investors associated with "Shark Tank" ever endorsed gummies. false claims If any readers have been victimized by these scams, we recommend contacting your credit card company immediately, reporting fraud to the FTC and also searching the U.S. Better Business Bureau's (BBB) website to perform a search for the product name associated with the purchase on your account or the product that arrived at your doorstep, so that you can find the company or LLC connected with the scam. reporting fraud to the FTC website Liles, Jordan. Shark Tank Keto Gummies Weight Loss Reviews Are a Scam. Snopes, 14 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-keto-gummies-weight-loss-reviews/. U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted on May 31, 2020, that the United States would be designating "ANTIFA" as a "Terrorist Organization." Trump's tweet appeared in response to growing protests after the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck on May 25:   Trump and several top officials, including U.S. Attorney General William Barr, have been blaming, without evidence, antifa and other groups they call "agitators" for the protests that have taken over cities across the United States. Barr also said in a statement that "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly." blaming statement But the United States currently does not have a process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations, which makes Trump's ability to enforce such a designation highly unlikely. Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is an amorphous movement of people who are opposed to fascism. They do not comprise an organized group, do not have a visible leadership, and acknowledge that they are secretive, so it is impossible to know how many people even count themselves as members. Anti-fascists lean strongly toward the left of the political spectrum, and many of them refer to themselves as socialists, anarchists, communists, or anti-capitalists. The positions of various antifa groups can also be difficult to define, but many of them support oppressed community members and protest against amassing of wealth by corporations. anti-fascist,  comprise refer positions Some antifa movements date their origins to the battle against European fascism in the 1920s and '30s. The BBC cited Mark Bray, the author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook," as an authority in noting that "[Bray] says the modern American Antifa movement began in the 1980s with a group called Anti-Racist Action. Its members confronted neo-Nazi skinheads at punk gigs in the American Midwest and elsewhere. By the early 2000s the Antifa movement was mostly dormant -- until the rise of Donald Trump and the alt-right." Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook Antifa groups are not monolithic and employ a range of tactics. Many condemn the use of violence, but according to BBC News, some groups engage in aggressive confrontations, especially with far-right groups on the streets. Extreme factions have carried pepper spray, bricks, knives, and chains with them. BBC News Trump claimed members of the movement were responsible for acts of vandalism during the May and June 2020 protests against police brutality in the U.S., but in at least one case a white supremacist group was found to have posed as antifa on Twitter. Groups associated with both right and left, not just antifa, are being accused of inciting violence and looting during the protests. In most cases it is difficult to ascertain that antifa is solely responsible for the lawless activities occurring at some protests, and the culprits are still being investigated, as Keith Ellison, Minnesota's attorney general, observed on NBC's "Meet the Press": posed as antifa associated "The truth is, nobody really knows ...Theres been a lot of videotape taken by demonstrators of people who are very suspicious, who really did start breaking windows ... There have been other photographs of cars with no license plates. Very suspicious behavior. It would all have to be investigated, he said. Without any official structure to the group, or much evidence linking antifa to specific acts of violence, it would be difficult to prove that that body of activists is behind anything, Faiza Patel, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security program, said: "As far as we know, antifa doesnt have bank accounts or assets or infrastructure ... Also there havent been any deaths attributed to anti-fascist violence, and one of the hallmarks of foreign terrorist organizations  a designation the U.S. government does make  is the acknowledgement of attacks that involve many fatalities." said Trump's ability to designate anti-fascists as a terrorist group is also highly suspect given that only foreign groups can be labeled as "terrorist" organizations under U.S. law, and "domestic terrorism" is not currently a federal crime in the U.S., according to the New York Times: foreign groups domestic terrorism A federal law defines terrorism as crimes of violence that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government policy. But it distinguishes between international terrorism, which must have a foreign or transnational nexus, and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily on American soil. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries is a federal crime, giving the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors jurisdiction to take the lead. There is no equivalent crime of domestic terrorism, so law enforcement officials deal with such offenses using other laws that do not have terrorism in their labels, such as the state-level crime of murder. A 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on domestic terrorism similarly stated that: 2017 report The federal government does not generate an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations or individuals. The development of such a list may be precluded by civil liberties concerns (i.e., inclusion in a publicly available list may impinge on a groups exercise of free speech or its other constitutionally protected activities). However, a lack of official lists or processes to designate groups or individuals as domestic terrorists makes it difficult to assess domestic terrorism trends and evaluate federal efforts to counter such threats. In 2011, an unnamed [Department of Homeland Security] official cited in a news report stated that unlike international terrorism, there are no designated domestic terrorist groups. Subsequently, all the legal actions of an identified extremist group leading up to an act of violence are constitutionally protected and not reported on by DHS. The CRS report also noted that although the U.S. does not officially designate domestic terror organizations, it does record individual terrorists and threats in its Terrorist Screening Database: While the government does not provide an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations, it does include domestic terrorists (along with international terrorists) in its Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the Terrorist Watchlist ... While not naming specific groups, DOJ and the FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats. DOJ has identified domestic terrorism threats to include criminal activity by animal rights extremists, ecoterrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as sovereign citizens and unauthorized militias, black separatists, white supremacists, and abortion extremists. In an interview with Snopes, Patel said that a number of different crimes can be designated as acts of terrorism: There is no single crime of either domestic or international terrorism. But both types of terrorism can be prosecuted under a number of statutes which constitute crimes of terrorism. The crime of hijacking an airplane, for example, is an act of terrorism. In fact, the government has available 51 different criminal statutes which can be applied domestic terrorism. It does not  and should not  have the ability to designate a domestic organization. This would allow the government to target political activity as terrorism, which is exactly what the White House and the Justice Department are trying to do by threatening to go after protestors under the guise of targeting Antifa. The State Department makes a list of designated "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (FTO) available on their website. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), enforcing the terrorist designation for FTOs involves blocking assets, prosecuting individuals, and imposing immigration restrictions on FTOs, their members, and their supporters. Foreign Terrorist Organizations Government Accountability Office Patel added that the Secretary of State can designate foreign terrorist groups, but this triggers a range of consequences: "most important of which is the ability to prosecute anyone who provides the group with material support, no matter how minimal. In addition property and assets of persons linked to terrorism can be blocked, but only under a law that requires a connection to a mainly foreign threat." Thus, as a large, decentralized entity with no infrastructure or assets that we know of, designating and targeting antifa as a domestic terrorist organization could, according to some experts, create a dangerous scenario, as Patel told us: If persons who identified as 'Antifa' suspected of committing crimes that violate any of the federal crimes of terrorism or other criminal they could of course be properly investigated and prosecuted. The FBI has more than ample authority to investigate individuals they suspect of being engaged in criminal activity. The problem is the FBI's rules are so loose they can also investigate people who are not suspected of criminal activity, so these powers are easily abused. The FBI has a long history of investigating environmentalists and anti-war activists and recently fabricated a new terrorist threat of black identity extremists and it would be altogether surprising if they didnt spy on the protestors. The paucity of evidence directly connecting antifa to acts violence during protests, combined with the structureless nature of the group and the fact that the U.S. currently has no legal process for designating domestic terrorist organizations, leads us to rate this claim as  Al Jazeera.  "Trump Says US Will Designate Antifa 'Terrorist Organisation.'"
  31 May 2020. BBC Radio 4.  "Seven Things You Need to Know About Antifa."
  26 October 2017. Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas and Sandra E. Garcia.  "What Is Antifa, The Movement Trump Wants to Declare a Terror Group?"
  The New York Times.  2 June 2020. Congressional Research Service.  "Domestic Terrorism: An Overview."
  21 August 2017. Hoffman, Jason, and Evan Perez.  "Trump Tweets Antifa Will Be Labeled a Terrorist Organization But Experts Believe That's Unconstitutional."
  CNN.  31 May 2020. MacFarquhar, Neil.  "Many Claim Extremists Are Sparking Protest Violence. But Which Extremists?"
  The New York Times.  31 May 2020. Robertson, Lori.  "Trump Cant Designate Antifa  Or Any Movement  Domestic Terrorist Organization."
  FactCheck.org.  1 June 2020. Savage, Charlie.  "What Could a Domestic Terrorism Law Do?"
 &nbsp ;The New York Times.  7 August 2019. The United States Department of Justice.  "Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism."
  31 May 2020. United States Government Accountability Office.  "COMBATING TERRORISM: Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation Process and U.S. Agency Enforcement Actions."
  June 2015. U.S. Department of State.  "Foreign Terrorist Organizations."
  Accessed 02 June 2020. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In October 2020, a claim started to circulate social media positing that Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Joe Biden said that he grew up in Section 8 housing:  This claim is based on something Biden said during an ABC News town hall on Oct. 15, 2020. But while Biden did mention Section 8 housing during this event  a reference to a section of the U.S. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 that offered assistance to low-income Americans  he never said that he lived in Section 8 housing.   Section 8 housing What Biden did say was that he used to live in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing. Here's a transcript of Biden's comment from ABC News: transcript Look, this is the way every other, how do most, like my dad, he lost his job up in Scranton and it took him three years to be able  he moved down to Delaware to Claymont (inaudible), a little steel town. And sent us home to our grandpop to live with him. We finally got back, we lived in apartments. Became Section 8 housing much later, it wasn't -- it was just normal apartments. But it took him five years to be able to buy a home. Biden made this comment while he was responding to a question about why the Black community should support his bid to win the presidency. This portion of the town hall begins at the 1:24:50 mark of the following video. Biden's comment about Section 8 housing can be seen at 1:30:45.  Biden did not say that he used to live in Section 8 housing. He said that he lived in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing.  Semuels, Alana.  "How Housing Policy Is Failing America's Poor."
  The Atlantic.  24 June 2015. ABC News.  "Read the Full Transcript of Joe Biden's ABC News Town Hall."
  15 October 2020. Reuters.  "Fact Check: Biden Did Not Say He Lived in Section 8 Housing."
  19 October 2020. Topic:  A discussion of the history and various types of chain letters. Origins:  The practice of circulating letters to other parties beyond their original recipients has existed for centuries, so pinpointing the exact origin of chain letters is problematic. While all manner of written materials (letters, speeches, eye-witness accounts, polemics, recipes, cures, prayers) have in the past been circulated to ever-widening circles of recipients, the first full-fledged chain letter recorded by Daniel W. VanArsdale in his massive archive of the genre is dated 1888. If we accept that a true chain letter must contain within its text an explicit instruction to the reader to make copies of the mailing and put them into the hands of a specified number of new recipients, that 1888 date is a defensible notch on the timeline of  first archive  history to point to as the moment of origin. If, however, we're willing to settle for an implied instruction topass the item to others for their benefit, protection, or well-being, certain written communications dating to the Middle Ages could fairly be considered the first of this sort. In them, their writers set down what they believed to be useful cures, on the understanding that such missives were to be recopied by those who received them then distributed to those people's loved ones, who in turn would themselves recopy these wisdoms to hand to their nearest and dearest. These letters were also sold by peddlers and fortune tellers. The cures detailed therein were typically combinations of recipes for simple nostrums and special prayers to be recited as the concoctions were mixed or administered. Our modern world sees chain letters of a variety of descriptions circulated by surface mail, fax machine, and in e-mail. While folk cures and accompanying prayers have dropped from favor (as medical information and resources became easier to access, such intelligences became less vital), other sorts of "Send this to five of your friends!" mailings emerged to fill this gap.  Contemporary chain letters fall into five broad categories:  Money-generating (aka pyramid or Ponzi schemes) Luck-generation (or ill luck avoidance)  Altruistic Something for nothing Humor Money-generating (pyramid or Ponzi scheme) chain letters hold out the promise of untold riches to those gulled into participating in their circulation. In their most common form, recipients are instructed to send a token set dollar figure ($5, for example) to the name at the top of the group's roll call, strike that name and address from the list of those involved, add their own to the base of the register, recopy the amended letter, and mail it to five of their acquaintances. If all goes according to plan, their small investment will reap them a fortune once their names percolate to the top of the list. (Pyramid schemes exist in many forms and go by many names. Deserving of particular mention are "gifting circles" or "gifting clubs" wherein folks pay substantial chunks of cash [$5,000, for example] to be included on a chart of like-minded investors, the object being that as new people are added behind them, they will move higher on the diagram one tier at a time until ultimately they occupy the top spot, at which moment they will receive the pool of money accumulated behind them.  Such endeavors have operated under the names of "Elite Activity," "Women Empowering Women," "The Dinner Club," "Spirit of Giving" and so many more that we couldn't possibly ever list them all.) So much can go wrong with pyramid contrivances that their pitfalls hardly needs explaining. First, for pyramid investments to work, the world would need an endless supply of people, each of them with money in hand and determined to participate in the process. Because each level of the pyramid increases exponentially the throng of investors involved, the numbers soon lose meaning. For instance, suppose the money-generating come-on you received in the mail displayed five names. If everyone in the chain had followed instructions and mailed it to five of their friends, by the time it reached you it had already been through 3,905 pairs of hands, and that only provided the first person listed was the one who began the progression. Add one more level (either from having a sixth name on the roll or through one of the names having already been moved off from the top), and the number involved jumps to 19,530. Add two, and it reaches 97,655. Second, not everyone is honest, so there will always be those who will simply insert their names near the top of the roll rather than at its base. Names added honestly, therefore, will fail to move up past this ever-changing invisible ceiling (as new people enter the chain, they too will try this trick). Also, that someone receives the circular and passes it along to five acquaintances does not necessarily mean he sent his requisite sum to the name heading the roster.  However, the biggest argument against money-generating chain letters is their illegality. Missives that request money or other items of value and promise substantial returns to the participants are against the law. Sending them through the mail (or delivering them in person or by computer, but mailing money to participate) violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 1302, of the Postal Lottery Statute.  At various times the unscrupulous have tried to circumvent the aspects of money-generating chain letters that render them illegal. One common attempt is the inclusion of the additional step of having participants send recipe cards or other relatively-worthless small items along with the cash, thereby transforming the process into a legitimate enterprise wherein those particular trifles are being vended. Another is to go the opposite way, that is, label all monies involved as "gifts" (see section above about gifting clubs). Yet another is to process as much of the proposition as possible via non-postal routes. However, no matter what technology or plausible-sounding subterfuge (e.g.; sale of credit reports or mailing lists) is used, if at any point anything passes by surface mail, the entire maneuver becomes illegal. Says the USPS: USPS Recently, high-tech chain letters have begun surfacing. They may be disseminated over the Internet, or may require the copying and mailing of computer disks rather than paper. Regardless of what technology is used to advance the scheme, if the mail is used at any step along the way, it is still illegal. An example of a "money generating" chain letter: [Collected via surface mail, 1975] DO YOU NEED $8,000? ? ? ? ? ?Let Bill Nelson tell you how I have run one of these promotion letters  four times in the past year. The First time I received $7,000 in cash and around $7,800 the other three. It this letter is continued as it should be, everyone profits!  Yes, and don't worry about financing or paying money back.  After the first time, you'll see what I mean, and next time you will be more eager and glad.  Now, let me give you the complete story and details.  Please forward them and in about 30 days you will be $8,000 richer.  This letter will pay up to $8,000 because there are only four names at all times.  Three moves and you are in a position to receive one dollar from each participant.  This chain letter was initiated by William Neham from Nashville, Tennessee, for the purpose of investment capital.  But, now this has been expanded.  Your participation is one dollar to the first person or firm in the Number One position below, while omitting the name to whom you sent the dollar.  Then, move the list of names up one place and place your name at the bottom.  Mail a copy of this letter to 20 new prospects.  MAIL YOUR LETTERS within 48 HOURS AND DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN.  When your name reaches the Number One position, it will be your turn to collect the fees. They will be sent to you by 8,000 persons like yourself.  Please DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN BECAUSE IT REALLY WORKS!!  In fact, I guarantee it, provided you do not break the chain and follow the simple rules above.  Try it and see.  You are investing ONLY, ONE DOLLAR, and that is all you can lose.  Be sure to copy this letter completely. Don't leave any of it out.  Send your report to Imperial Sales Company, 3096 Ivey Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee 37914.  Let us know when your fee was sent and how much you received within nine days.  We have at the present time almost 100% return to the people carrying out this letter promotion.  The majority received $7,800.  If four names should be listed on your promotion, the one in Number One position is omitted, after you send him your one dollar. Then, put your name and address in the Number Four position.  $8,000 is capital absolutely free!  Send letters only to people who have secretaries or whom you personally consider "Doers." Look  20 times 20 times 20 equals 8,000!!!!. While money-generating chain letters flourish in both the off- and online worlds, "Make Money Fast!" hustles have become so much a part of online culture that they have spawned any number of parodies. This next example is one such howler we particularly treasure: [Collected on the Internet, 1998] MAKE CLUBS FAST Recent evidence has come to light that suggests that pyramid style chain letters may have pre-dated Dave Rhodes by a considerable margin. Palaentologists recently deciphered the following, painted on a cave wall on the slopes of Kilimanjaro. MAKE SPIKY CLUBS FAST!!! Hello, not-tribe-member. Urk name Urk. Many moons ago, Urk in bad way. Urk kicked out of cave by Thag. Thag bigger than Urk, Thag take Urk spiky club, Urka (Urk wo-man). Urk not able kill deer, must eat leaves, berries. Urk flee from wolves. Today, Urk big chief. Urk have best cave, many wives, many spiky clubs. Urk tell how. WHAT DO: make one spiky club and take to cave places below. Add own cave place to bottom of list, take cave place off top. Put new message on walls many caves. Wait. Many clubs soon come! This not crime! Urk ask shaman, gods say okay. HERE LIST: 1) UrkFirst caveOlduvai Gorge few) Thag (not that Thag, other Thag)old dead treeby lake shaped like mammoth few) Ogbig rock with overhangnear pig game trail Many) Zogriver caveswhere river meet big water Urk hope not-tribe-member do what Urk say do. That only way it work. While Urk and his quest for spiky clubs leaves a smile on our faces, the second sort of chain letters provokes the opposite response: a worried frown. Even the most rational and level-headed can't help but feel a bit uneasy when they drop luck-generation chain letters into the nearest trash bin. This type of imploration, which promises good luck even as it threatens ill fortune to rain down on the heads of those who fail to speed it on its way, tends to follow a standard outline. (Not all chain letters of this ilk scrupulously adhere to this formula; certain elements may be omitted in some of the entreaties you encounter.)  Invocation:  The letter begins with an admonition to pray, trust the Lord, or kiss someone as an expression of love.  Origins:  A description of the person who began the letter (a priest, a saint, a sea captain, a doctor) and where (Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands) is given. Often included is a claim of the letter's having been around the world a stated number of times.  Success Story:  Accounts of the happy circumstances of a few people who followed instructions to send the letter on its way are given, with their rewards (financial windfall, sudden luck in matters of romance, miraculous recovery from illness) described in glowing detail.  Punishment Story:  Accounts are given of the setbacks or tragedies (job loss, broken heart, injury or death) that befell a few people who ignored the letter or threw it away.  Instruction and Promise:  The recipient is told how many copies of the letter to distribute and is reassured that good luck will swiftly follow. An example of a contemporary "luck generation" chain letter sent by e-mail.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] CASE 1:  Kelly Sedey had one wish, for her boyfriend of three years, David Marsden, to propose to her.  Then one day when she was out to lunch David proposed!  She accepted, but then had to leave because she had a meeting in 20 min.  When she got to her office, she noticed on her computer she had e-mail.  She checked it, the usual stuff from her friends, but then she saw one that she had never gotten before. was this letter.  She *simply deleted it without even reading it all. BIG MISTAKE!  Later that evening, she received a phone call from the police. It was about DAVID!  He had been in an accident with an 18 wheeler.  He didn't survive. CASE 2:  Take Katie Robbenson. She received this letter and being the believer that she was, she sent it to a few of her friends but didn't have enough e-mail addresses to send out the full 10 that you must. Three days later, Katie went to a masquerade ball. Later that night when she left to get to her car to go home, she was killed on the spot by a hit-and-run drunk driver. CASE 3:  Richard S. Willis sent this letter out within 45 minutes of reading it.  Not even 4 hours later walking along the street to his new job interveiw with a really big company, when he ran into Cynthia Bell, his secret love for 5 years.  Cynthia came up to him and told him of her passionate crush on him that she had had on him for 2 years.  Three days later, he proposed to her and they got married.  Cynthia and Richard are Still married with three children, happy as ever! This is the letter: You must send this on in 3 hours after reading the letter to 10 different people.  If you do this, you will receive unbeleveably good luck in love.  The person that you are most attracted to will soon return your feelings. If you do not, bad luck will rear it's ugly head at you. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!  You have read the warnings, seen the cases, and the consiquences.  You MUST send this on or face dreadfuly bad luck. *NOTE*  The more people that you send this to, the better luck you will have. P.S.  I did not make this up,someone sent it to me and I am passing it on!  You Send it by clicking forward on the side The avoidance of ill luck features in numerous chain letters, especially the "crazed killer" sort prized by prepubescent girls who delight in forwarding "a crazed killer or vengeful spirit will come for you if you don't forward this message to others" tales. These next examples were sent by text message via cell phone: [Collected via e-mail, September 2009] A picture of a girl with a graduation cap on the caption read: "Hi, my name is Alexis, I am 7 years old about 1 year ago me and my dad got into a big fight, he slit my throat and threw me down the sewer.  There was this girl named Alissia and she got the same text message you are getting now and she just erased it and didn't think about it.  Later on, around midnight, she heard laughing coming from her bathroom and she quickly sent that message to 10 people.  Later on that night, her parents heard laughing and cutting.  When they came it to check in the bathroom, Alissia's blood was everywhere.  Now that you have read this message about Alissia's death, I must kill you too unless you send this message to 10 people  no send backs.  I'll be waiting for you at midnight if you don't do this.  don't ignore this. once a little girl was so obsessed with taking pictures of herself and one day she took a picture of herself and when she looked at herself she thought something wasn't right. she heard a girl laughing and turned... this was the last picture she took before she went missing. they found her in the backyard with scratches and blood everywhere... one girl named Aliie dint belive this and deleted it. that night she heard laughing and went and forwarded this message, but it was too late. an hour later her parents found her in the bathtub covered in blood. fwd this to ten ppl or she will be waiting under your bed at 12 tonight. if you don't belive it, then save the pictures and zoom in to the right bottom corner. NO SEND BACK!!!!Piggy back 09 Altruistic chain letters are those that present themselves as seeking benefit for others rather than the financial enrichment or improvement of luck of their recipients/forwarders. Into this category fall prayers for the suffering and collections made on behalf of charitable groups or the needy themselves. While this form of the genre might indeed be the oldest (according to Daniel W. VanArsdale, the first full-fledged chain letter was of this sort; it called for the donation of dimes to "poor whites in the region of the Cumberlands"), the Internet has added new expressions of it. Many "dying child" hoaxes circulate online, each of them asserting every forward of their supplications will result in  benefactors (either named charities or corporations or unnamed millionaires) directing set sums towards the care of the stricken youngsters. While these lack the specificity of "Send this to four people" instructions (they instead direct recipients to "Forward this to everyone you know"), the languishing children are imaginary, and the forwarders add nothing of themselves to the mix (neither prayers nor donations), they are a close enough fit with the altruistic class of chain letters to be considered a legitimate variant.  first dying child Closer yet are the myriad prayer requests (e.g., the Delaney Parrish appeal) that have sprung to life on the Internet. While the "Send this to ten people" command is still absent ("Send to as many as you can" and its ilk being used instead), the people being pled for often do exist, with their travails often as described, and those moved to keep the chain going are adding something of themselves (their petitions to God) to the process.  Delaney Parrish Similarly, various appeals of the "dying child intent upon collecting specific items" nature (e.g.; the Craig Shergold appeal for business cards) are also close fits.  While not all entreaties of this sort are on the up-and-up, a fair number are  the children and their situations are real, as are their requests. Those participating in these chains not only pass along the requests to their circles of acquaintance but also themselves donate the items requested and transport them to the youngsters.  Craig Shergold Moving to the "something for nothing" category, we find online appeals aimed at augmenting the bank accounts or wardrobes of their participants, bringing them fame, or entertaining them. Of the first sort, the granddaddy of them all is the e-mail tracking hoax: Bill Gates is testing an e-mail tracking program and for taking part by forwarding his note you will receive $1,000. (Or Disney will reward you with a trip for two to Disney World. Or Nike will give you free shoes. Or Veuve-Clicquot will bless you with some gratis champagne. Or Applebees will treat you to a dinner for you and your date. Or, well, the list is endless.) These differ from "money-generating" chain letters in one important way: those involved do not themselves send any of their own money or possessions to anyone else, they merely forward the leg-pulls in the expectation that by doing so the promised goodies will come their way. e-mail tracking A less mercenary example of a "something for nothing" chain letter that plays upon the urge to seek fame rather than fortune is the Guinness World Book of Records hoax which states as its goal the establishment of a world record. For years, children have been gulled into participating in these mailings by the promise of their names being listed in that fabled book if the chain is kept alive long enough for a record to be set. More recently a snail mail version has supplemented the e-mail jape of the same design, so the hoax exists in both the offline and online worlds.  Guinness "Something for nothing" e-mail chain letters that hold out as the forwarders' reward the promise of entertainment are a form of practical joke of the "Made you look foolish" variety. Potential victims are told their sending these e-mails to the requisite number of new people (as spelled out in proposition) will cause them to receive the next installments of intriguing stories they have become caught up in reading or their computers to spontaneously begin playing either humorous animated clips (e.g. Ronald McDonald beating up the Taco Bell dog) or videos of lusted-after celebrities caught off-guard doing naughty things. But of course the promised carrots never arrive; the next chapters of novelettes fail to mail themselves and videos don't spring to life. We detail a great many such hokey come-ons in our Clip Artless article. Clip Artless We now come to the final category of chain letter: Humor. Though these offerings mimic the form taken by their money-generating cousins, those who receive them don't mistake them for anything other than jokes. These mailings are solely meant to provoke rueful smiles or outright guffaws among those they are happily flung to; they are not intended to prompt recipients to actually mail off the items or persons described in hopes of getting back a great many more of like nature. For instance, one well-known humor chain letter instructs dissatisfied wives to bundle up their good-for-nothing husbands and mail them to the woman whose name appears at the head of the list; when the senders' names arise to the top spot they are guaranteed to receive thousands of similarly-discarded spouses, some of which might prove worth keeping (the implication being that most will not). Yet don't break the chain, admonishes the letter  one woman who did got her own husband back! husbands Barbara "return to sender" Mikkelson Additional information:      Ponzi Schemes  (Securities and Exchange Commission)      Pyramid Schemes  (Securities and Exchange Commission)      Gifting Clubs  (Federal Trade Commission)  Last updated:  27 September 2009    Sources:   Degh, Linda.  Legend and Belief.   London: Souvenir Press, 1978.  0-285-63396-1  (pp. 189-193).    Waring, Philippa.  A Dictionary of Omens and Superstitions.   Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001.  0-253-33929-4  (p. 52). Hillary Clinton is attacking DonaldTrumps tax plan, saying it actually benefits the hedge fund managers Trump had promised to cut down to size. Now, before releasing his plan, Trump said, Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. And he added, Theyll pay more,  Clinton said. Then his plan came out. And it actually makes the current loophole even worse. It gives hedge-fund managers a special tax rate thats lower than what many middle-class families pay, Clinton continuedin the June 21, 2016, speech. And I did have to look twice because I didnt believe it. Under Donald Trumps plan, these Wall Street millionaires will pay a lower tax rate than many working people. Trumps plan does roll back one high-profile advantage for hedge fund partners. Is Clinton right to say they still come out ahead? Trump took an aggressive position on tax rates for hedge fund managers during his fight for the Republican nomination. In an interview with CBS in August, Trumpcalledthem paper pushers who did not build this country. In a Republicandebatein September, Trump said his tax plan would make them pay more. The hedge fund guys wont like me as much as they like me right now. I know them all, but theyll pay more, Trump said. After the Republican debate, Trump released the outline of histax plan. Trumps plan eliminates the so-called carried interest tax loophole, which allows general partners in private investment firms (including most hedge fund managers) to treat some of their income as income from investments, or capital gains, subject to a top tax rate of 23.8 percent, instead of the much higher tax rate for ordinary income (43.4 percent). Under Trumps plan, income from carried interest would no longer be treated as capital gains. Tax rates for ordinary income tops out at 25 percent under Trumps plan. This looks like a hike in line with Trumps promises. Except. Along with private equity and venture capital funds, many hedge funds are structured as partnerships. Under Trumps plan, income through a business partnership is taxed at a rate of no more than 15 percent, significantly less than the 23.8 percent they previously paid, according to ananalysisof Trumps tax plan from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Eliminating the carried interest loophole actually helps these hedge fund managers under Trumps plan. If carried interest was still treated as capital gains, it could be taxed at the top rate for capital gains in the plan (20 percent), higher than the fixed 15 percent tax for partnership income. Trumps plan presents the discounted rate for partnership income as a way to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. It also helps large businesses and wealthy financiers who structure their businesses as partnerships, including the hedge funds managers he attacked in his campaign. Clinton also said that rates for hedge fund managers would be lower than for middle-class families under Trumps plan. Defining the middle class can be tricky, but in thePew Research Centers rangeof $42,000 to $125,000 for a household of three in 2014, a substantial number of middle-class households would make enough to qualify for a marginal tax rate of more than 15 percent if Trumps plan were enacted. Not all of these people would pay more than 15 percent overall, according to Bob Williams at the Tax Policy Center, and it would be difficult to say how many middle-income people would pay more than hedge fund managers once the many different variables involved played out. But some would, Williams wrote in an email. In May,Politicoreportedthat the Trump campaign had engaged two economists to craft a new tax plan. The Trump campaign has not confirmed whether they plan to re-write their tax plan, and did not respond toPoliticosrequest for comment. The tax plan announced in September remains on Trump's website, and is the basis of this article. The Trump campaign did not respond to our request for comment on this article. Our ruling Clinton said Trumps proposed tax rate for hedge fund managers makes the current loophole even worse. She has a point. By setting a lower tax rate for income from business partnerships, Trumps tax plan would benefit many hedge fund managers. Though the plan would cut tax rates for middle-class families as well, the cuts that would apply to most hedge fund managers are steeper and their resulting tax rate is lower. Trump promised that his tax plan would roll back advantages for hedge fund managers. Instead, in most cases, it would improve their position. We rate the statement True. In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party.   It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim,  Hahn, Steve.  "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan."
  AARP.  26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?"
  Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org.  "IRS Definition."
  3 March 2011. AARP. org.  "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity."
  Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA."
  1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young. Claim:  Macy's is giving out $200 gift cards to users who follow three simple steps on Facebook.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014]Macy's has a giveaway of $200 on Facebook.  Is it legitimate?   Origins:  In November 2014 a popular survey scam targeting Facebook users and major retailers emerged with a new variation, this time promising a $200 Macy's gift card for users who completed three short steps after clicking a link on the social network. The $200 Macy's gift card link was  virtually identical to prior scams dangling the lure of $200  Costco gift card, $100 Kohl's gift cards, and $200 Kroger  gift cards. Costco Kohl's Kroger In all the scams, users were redirected to a page which appeared to be both legitimately branded by the named retailer and nearly identical to Facebook's pop-up "like and share" functionality. However, the prompts were phony, associated with neither Facebook nor the referenced big-name retailers. On 10 November 2014, the official Macy's Facebook page was deluged with queries about this purported giveaway. The brand's social media managers responded, confirming the Macy's $200 gift card offer was fake and all legitimate contests were run through Macy's official page: Macy's Currently, we are not running any giveaways. Any official Macy's contests are shared by us, through our official Facebook page and other social channels. Thank you again for asking! -Chris at Macy's As noted in an earlier Facebook scam giveaway post, the Better Business Bureau offered three tips to avoid similar scams on social networks: three tips Don't believe what you see. It's 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 there's a link to their privacy policy.  Watch out for a reward that's 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. The bulk of big giveaways from stores such as Macy's are conducted through the brand's official social media channels and rarely require users to provide personal information. Chances are if you've been redirected off an official Facebook page for any given brand, the giveaway claim is not on the up and up. Last updated:  10 November 2014 In the early months of 2024, as U.S. President Joe Biden ramped up his campaign for reelection in November, a controversial, years-old quote attributed to him was resurrected on social media. Biden, whose public verbal blunders are so legendary he has described himself as a "gaffe machine," allegedly told a racially mixed audience at a Danville, Virginia, campaign rally in 2012 that the Republican Party was going to "put y'all back in chains." gaffe machine That notorious statement, which surfaced in late April and early May 2019 (shortly after Biden announced his 2020 candidacy), was cited anew on platforms from X to TikTok as an instance of his "playing the race card" to disparage Republicans: X TikTok  (@PatriotsStevie / X)   Although it's unclear, based on contemporaneous press coverage of the event, whether the audience was most accurately described as "predominantly" or "largely" Black (more about which later), Biden did in fact utter the words attributed to him at an Aug. 14, 2012, rally attended by a racially mixed crowd that included hundreds of Black attendees. The following report is from the New York Times blog "The Caucus," posted the same day as the event: The Caucus Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. created a stir at a campaign speech in Virginia when he told the crowd that Mitt Romney's policies would enable the banking and financial sectors to "put you all back in chains." The remark came roughly two-thirds of the way through Mr. Biden's 30-minute speech, which was delivered to a crowd that included many African-Americans at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, Va. "Romney wants to let the  he said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street," Mr. Biden said. "They're going to put you all back in chains." The moment was captured for posterity in a C-SPAN video. C-SPAN video We would probably not be talking about this today had Biden's remark not been widely interpreted as a direct reference to slavery. As such, it drew instant condemnation, beginning with the Romney campaign, which released a statement saying: "After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Governor Romney, the Obama campaign has reached a new low. The comments made by the vice president of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama campaign will say and do anything to win this election." Romney himself echoed that statement in a speech he gave later the same day in which he held President Barack Obama responsible. "His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency," Romney said at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio. "Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower." Though he didn't specifically mention race, Romney accused Obama of pursuing a strategy of divisiveness: "Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces." Media pundits and campaign surrogates were more explicit in their criticism of Biden. In an opinion piece for Breitbart, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said the vice president's statement was "race-baiting at its finest." Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, declared on "Face the Nation" that it was "an absolutely blatant appeal to racism." Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, also a Republican, accused Biden of "play[ing] the race card." Some Democrats agreed with the criticism. "First of all, without question they were appeals to race," said former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder. "The important thing I got out of this was Biden separated himself from what he accused the people of doing. As a matter of fact, what he said is they are going to do something to y'all, not to me. Not us. So he was still involved with that separate American." said CBS News reported that then-U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called Biden's comment "stupid" during a radio interview: reported "Was he talking about slavery? You bet your a** he was. Was he using the vernacular? Yes, he was," said Rangel, a longtime New York Democrat who is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. "Did he think it was cute ... Yes, he did. Was it something stupid to say? You bet your life it was stupid." Rangel added that if an African-American had made the joke, "We would have been laughing, because we would know that deep down, they may be beating the hell out of us but they ain't thinking about putting us into any chains." Ebony magazine contributor Jamil Smith agreed with Rangel's perception that Biden was "using the vernacular," or "code-switching," as Smith called it, "to acclimate to a particular environment or audience." Phonetically rendered, this is what Biden actually said: "They gonna put y'all back in chains." But the vice president stood by the remark in an Aug. 14 campaign stop in Raleigh, North Carolina, insisting that the message he was trying to convey wasn't about race, but rather the negative impact the opposition party's vow to "unshackle Wall Street" would have on middle-class Americans: The last time these guys unshackled the economy, to use their term, they put the middle class in shackles. That's how we got where we are. Nine million jobs lost, wage stagnation, 16 trillion dollars in wealth you all lost, in your home equity, in your 401ks, and your pension plans  you're the ones that got nailed. All of America except for the very few. And I'm told when I made that comment earlier today in Danville, Virginia, the Romney Campaign put out a Tweet, you know Tweets, and went on the air, went on the airwaves saying "Biden's outrageous in saying that  I think I said, instead of unshackled, unchained or  anyway, outrageous to say that, that's what we meant. I'm using their own words. I got a message for them, if you want to know want to know what's outrageous, it's their policies, and the effects of their policies on middle class America, that's what's outrageous. Biden had, in fact, used precisely the same trope before to characterize the impact of Republican economic policies on the middle class. The day after a Republican primary debate in October 2011, Biden said, referring to economic conditions under the George W. Bush administration: "The last time we liberated the economy under their proposals, the last eight years put the middle class in chains. My lord, how many times we have to go back to that horror movie?" said Obama took Biden's side, defending the Danville speech in an interview with People magazine: interview Biden's comment sparked Romney to call the Obama campaign one of "division and hate and anger." But Obama, speaking to PEOPLE in Dubuque, Iowa, seemed unrattled by the controversy. He said Biden's words needed to be considered in context; that he was only saying "you, consumers, the American people, will be a lot worse off if we repeal these [Wall Street reform] laws as the other side is suggesting." "In no sense was he trying to connote something other than that," Obama added. The racial composition of the audience is relevant to this debate, though not decisive, partly because estimates in the press were rough and contradictory. Although it was consistently reported that approximately 900 people were in attendance, and we know, from both press reports and video of the event, that a significant percentage of the attendees were Black, the media couldn't agree on whether more Black people were present than white people, fewer Black people than white people, or roughly the same number of each. The majority of mainstream news outlets reported that the audience was "predominantly," "largely," or "mostly" Black. Among these were the Los Angeles Times, Politico, CBS News, Fox News, The Daily Beast, National Public Radio, and NBC News. Significantly fewer outlets reported that the audience was "about 50%" Black. Some described it as "racially mixed." A small minority of venues said the makeup of the crowd was "partially" Black. We asked Tiffany Holland, a reporter who live-blogged the event for the Richmond Times-Dispatch website, for her impression of the racial makeup of the crowd. "If memory serves, the crowd was about half-African-American and half-white," she said in an email, adding that in her experience, Democratic Party events in Danville usually drew a "healthy mix of diversity." But she also said that this was just the impression she came away with, and could be remembering it wrongly. In any case, even if only 50% of the attendees were Black, Biden would have found himself gazing out over an audience that included hundreds of Black faces. The crowd need not have been "predominantly" Black to inspire a politician so inclined to engage in racial pandering. That Biden uttered the sentence "They gonna put y'all back in chains" before just such a crowd stands confirmed. Whether it should taken as a racially charged, pandering reference to slavery we leave it to readers to judge for themselves. Berg, Rebecca.  "Biden Warns Romney Policies Would Put Crowd 'Back in Chains.'"  The New York Times ("The Caucus" blog).  14 August 2012. Cain, Andrew.  "In Danville, Biden Says Romney's Policies Will 'Put Y'all Back in Chains.'"  Richmond Times-Dispatch.  14 August 2012. Condon, Stephanie.  "Rangel: Biden's Gaffe Was Clearly About Slavery."   CBS News.  24 August 2012. Holland, Steve and Jeff Mason.  "Biden Draws Romney's Ire with 'Chains' Comment."   Reuters.  14 August 2012. Holland, Tiffany.  "Biden: We Need to Finish What Obama Started."   Richmond Times-Dispatch.  14 August 2012. Montopoli, Brian.  "Joe Biden Clarifies 'in Chains' Remark."   CBS News.  14 August 2012. O'Neil, Luke.  "I Am a Gaffe Machine': A History of Joe Biden's Biggest Blunders."   The Guardian.  25 April 2019. Rainey, James.  "Joe Biden Used 'Chains' Metaphor Before to Hit Republicans."   Los Angeles Times.  15 August 2012. Roberts, Allison.  "Before VP Visit, Lots of Prep."   GoDanRiver.com.  17 August 2012. Schwarz, Gabriella.  "Biden Hits Cain's '9-9-9' Plan."   CNN.  12 October 2011. Shapiro, Ben.  "Biden in 49% Black Danville, VA: 'They Gonna Put Y'All Back in Chains."   Breitbart.  14 August 2012. Shield, Gerry.  "Republicans Blast Biden for 'Chains' Remark."   New York Post.  20 August 2012. Smith, Jamil.  "Biden 'Unchained.'"   Ebony.  17 August 2012. Tau, Byron.  "Obama Defends Biden on 'Chains' Remark."   Politico.  15 August 2012. Westfall, Sandra Sobieraj.  "President Obama: No Apologies, No Scolding for Joe Biden's Remark."  < em>People.  15 August 2012. Wise, Scott.  "Doug Wilder Criticizes Biden, 'Chains' Comment."   WTVR.  16 August 2012. C-SPAN.  "Vice President Joe Biden in Danville, Virginia.   14 August 2012. MSNBC.  "Obama Campaign Backs Biden's Controversial 'Chains' Remark."   16 August 2012. Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens  On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians  they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States  with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True. In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a "slush fund" to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers. Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a "slush fund" which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees. Unlike a "slush fund" which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports  for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under "Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance." In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97. here   Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to "Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances," then click on the report for the Legislative Branch). viewed here Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type: compilation A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act], such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA. In at least one of the high-profile cases, that of accusations of harassment leveled against Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), settlement money was paid by his congressional office budget, not the Treasury fund overseen by OOC. The meme is false  the money isn't paid from an illegal "slush fund." It's unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements. However, allegations of sexual abuse and harassment against powerful men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. Conyers and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), NBC News anchor Matt Lauer and in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump, have raised awareness of how rampant the problem is and how secretive and bureaucratically-cumbersome the process is for handling complaints against legislators -- at the expense of taxpayers. This has prompted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Callifornia) to draft legislation to make the OOC's process more transparent and user-friendly for victims of harassment. (A spokesperson for Speier said the way the system currently works "is obviously created to protect the institution over the victims.") As it stands, people seeking to file complaints of harassment on Capitol Hill have to wait a minimum of 90 days after filing their initial incident report with OOC, during which time they must receive mandatory counseling and mediation, then wait an additional 30 days in a "cooling off" period. According to documents provided by Speier's office, the bill (dubbed "Me Too" after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements. Me Too some men Schor, Elana."Congress Sexual Harassment System, Decoded."
Politico.21 November 2017. Hartmann, Margaret."Representative John Conyers Settled Sexual-Harassment Complaint Using Taxpayer Money: Report."
New York Magazine.21 November 2017. Lee, MJ, et al."Congress Paid Out $17 Million in Settlements. Here's Why We Know So Little About That Money."
CNN.16 November 2017. Bennett, Jessica."The #MeToo Moment."
The New York Times.30 November 2017.