Did Congress Designate Confederate Soldiers as United States Veterans?
In August 2017, a national debate about the display of Confederate flags and monuments once again gained steam after a protest of the planned removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a park in Charlottesville, Virginia turned deadly. Charlottesville In the wake of that incident, several cities (and protestors) moved to quickly take down monuments, statues, and plaques. Meanwhile, rumors appeared that Congress had passed two laws retroactively declaring Confederate soldiers United States veterans, which means that removing the statues is illegal. Some of the claims were bolstered by a link to an extremely dubious web site: statues illegal dubious Confederate soldiers, sailors, and Marines that fought in the Civil war were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, Approved 23 May, 1958. This made all Confederate Army/ Navy/ Marine Veterans equal to U.S. Veterans. Additionally, under U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by the 17th Congress on 26 Feb 1929 the War Department was directed to erect headstones and recognize Confederate grave sites as U.S. War dead grave sites. Just for the record the last Confederate veteran died in 1958. So, in essence, when you remove a Confederate statue, monument or headstone, you are in fact, removing a statue, monument or head stone of a U.S. VETERAN. The rumor also appeared as a meme on the Facebook page "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" on 16 August 2017: appeared meme   The same image was previously shared by the same Facebook page in a July 2015, just after a gunman in Charleston, South Carolina, killed nine black churchgoers. According to the meme, two acts of Congress (Public Law 810 of 1929 and Public Law 85-425 of 1958) bestows upon Confederate soldiers the benefits and status of a United States military veteran.  shared Charleston Public Law 810 refers to Part II, Chapter 23 of U.S. Code 38 which says that the government should, when requested, pay to put up monuments or headstones for unmarked graves for three groups of people: Code 38 (1) Any individual buried in a national cemetery or in a post cemetery. (2) Any individual eligible for burial in a national cemetery (but not buried there), except for those persons or classes of persons enumerated in section 2402(a)(4), (5), and (6) of this title. (3) Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War. No portion of the law appears to confer any privilege other than markers for graves of Confederate soldiers, nor does it grant Confederate soldiers status equal to those of veterans of the United States military. As of 1901, 482 individuals (not all soldiers) were already interred in the Confederate section of Arlington National Cemetery. interred In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers, but did not grant them U.S. veteran status. Public Law 85-425 was passed 23 May 1958, entitling the widows of deceased Confederate soldiers (what few were left by 1958) to military pensions: pardoned passed To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. A National Archives and Records Administration document details the matter of Confederate soldiers and pensions, and shows that the law seems to recognize those who fought for the Confederacy as veterans of a war, but not necessarily of the United States military. document The last recorded Confederate soldier deaths were in 1959, meaning that the 1957 law had negligible effects for those under its provisions, and in any event the law again conferred no status or other benefit to Confederate soldiers themselves.  1959 effects We reached out to several historians, none of whom wished to be quoted on the record. Several were dubious about the purported laws. One, a scholar who specializes in the Civil War and Reconstruction, told us that he, too, had trouble locating them: [It's] clear that Public Law 85-425, section 410 of 1958 was intended solely to provide a symbolic, Civil War Centennial gesture late-life pension to Walter Williams, the supposed only surviving Confederate veteran, and did not apply in any way to any other Confederate soldiers. Of course it turned out (as many people knew then) that Williams was not, in fact, a Confederate veteran  but the desire to still have a living link to the War proved more important than fact. I have been no more successful than anyone else in finding the supposed Public Law 810 passed in 1929. But, given my experience with other claims based on legislation introduced or passed in Congress during that era, I would surmise that any such law was symbolic and meant as a gesture. On the other hand, there was the 1906 Foraker Law that began Federal involvement in caring for Confederate graves. You have probably seen this VA publication [PDF] and consulted John Neffs important work, Honoring the Civil War Dead (University Press of Kansas, 2005) about that issue. Neff makes clear that Federal money spent on maintaining Federal graves always kept the distinctions between the graves  and the service  of Federal versus Confederate soldiers. PDF [There is, however] the decision in the case of Patrick G. Griffin, III vs. Department of Veterans Affairs issued by the US Court of Appeals 4th District ... the decision ultimately affirmed the VAs contention that the Confederate prisoners buried at Point Lookout were buried and honored as American soldiers and, therefore (the issue before the court) there was no obligation to allow Confederate flags to fly over their graves. decision The cited ruling did not recognize the flag of the Confederacy as a legitimate American flag suitable for display in veterans' memorials. The Veterans' Affairs document to which the historian pointed, Federal Stewardship of Confederate Dead, contained historical context about Confederate burials and the evolution of federal involvement in the interment of their dead, and included President William McKinley's 1898 remarks to legislators in Georgia, noting that was a time when "no disabled Confederate veteran was eligible to live in a federal soldiers home, receive a pension, or, when they died, be buried in a national cemetery": The Department of War had been content to allow Northern cemeteries where Confederates were interred to languish. However, after the Spanish-American War (1898), the federal government, led by President William McKinley, in the spirit of national reconciliation and in the postwar glow of recent victory, proposed that a loving nation would reach out and care for the graves of fallen Confederates. Recognition of these places as hallowed ground and the individuals interred in them as deserving of honor began with the creation of the Confederate section at Arlington National Cemetery in 1900, and continued with the renewal through 1916 of 1906 legislation that authorized federal funds to mark all Confederate graves. Until the turn of the 20th century, United States government interment of Confederate soldiers generally involved deceased prisoners buried during the Civil War on Union lands. In 2013, The Atlantic reported that the United States government continued to follow through on its subsequent promises to provide for all Confederate war dead: reported Providing headstones for America's fallen soldiers is a tradition that goes back to laws passed in 1867 and 1873 that ordered the Department of War to properly establish national cemeteries and furnish graves with headstones ... It wasn't until the 20th century, though, that Confederate veterans were included in this tradition. It started with legislation passed in 1906, at first providing headstones for a very limited number of Confederate veterans, specifically prisoners of war, "who died in Federal prisons and military hospitals in the North and who were buried near their places of confinement." That mandate for the Department of War was expanded to all Confederate graves with a law passed in 1929. Responsibility for headstones was transferred to the VA in the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, which declared, "The Administrator shall furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of" a number of categories of veterans and those who'd served the country or were buried in a national cemetery, including specifically, "Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War." It's no coincidence that many of these changes in attitude and law, and the erection of so many Confederate monuments and memorials, occurred around the turn of the 20th century. They followed the federal withdrawal from the South in 1877, a strategic retreat from the failed policies of reconstruction. When a debate over Confederate monuments and flags came under the national spotlight in June 2015, codified changes in burials and pensions enacted in 1929 and 1958 were puffed up to suggest that a nebulous act of Congress, either in the 1920s or the 1950s, officially declared that Confederate soldiers were the same as United States veterans in the eyes of the federal government. However, no legislation either explicitly or implicitly granted Confederate soldiers status as United States veterans. Survivors of dead Confederate soldiers often took offense at measures appearing to equate them to Union soldiers, objections that died off as Southerners from the Civil War era did. Sturgis, Sue.  "Busting The Myth That Congress Made Confederate Vets Into U.S. Vets."
  Facing South.  24 July 2015. Weiss, Steven I.  "You Won't Believe What the Government Spends on Confederate Graves."
  The Atlantic.  19 July 2013. U.S. Code, Title 38.  "Part II, Chapter 23,  2306: Headstones, Markers, And Burial Receptacles."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. 85th Congress, H.R. 358.  "Public Law 85-424."
  23 May 1958. Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Andrew Johnson.  "Proclamation 179Granting Full Pardon And Amnesty For The Offense Of Treason Against The United States During The Late Civil War."
  25 December 1868. Arlington National Cemetery.  "Confederate Memorial."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. U.S.Department of Veterans Affairs,National Cemetery Administration.  "Federal Stewardship Of Confederate Dead."
  July 2016. National Archives and Records Administration.  "Pensions For Military Service In The Army Of The Confederate States Of America."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. Correction [25 August 2017]:  Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article stated that President Andrew Jackson pardoned Confederate soldiers.
An image supposedly showing a "Beware of Artists" poster issued during the 1950s by Joseph McCarthy, a U.S. senator known for making accusations of treason and spreading fears of communism, is frequently shared on social media: frequently shared social media The poster reads, "Beware of artists. They mix with all classes of society and are therefore the most dangerous":   The McCarthy era certainly saw its fair share of propaganda posters, and artists  particularly filmmakers  were often the targets of Congressional investigations into "un-American activities." Although the poster displayed above may express the sentiments of that time, its phrasing did not originate in the 1950s. propaganda posters This warning about "dangerous" artists can actually be traced back to the 19th century. In 1845, Leopold I, King of the Belgians, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria in which he expressed a similar warning against artists (emphasis ours): letter expressed The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria. St. Cloud, 10th October 1845. My Dearest Victoria - All you say about our dear Albert, whom I love like my own child, is perfectly true. The attacks, however unjust, have but one advantage, that of showing the points the enemy thinks weakest and best calculated to hurt. This, being the case, Anson, without boring A. with daily accounts which in the end become very irksome, should pay attention to these very points, and contribute to avoid what may be turned to account by the enemy. To hope to escape censure and calumny is next to impossible, but whatever is considered by the enemy as a fit subject for attack is better modified or avoided. The dealings with artists, for instance, require great prudence; they are acquainted with all classes of society, and for that very reason dangerous; they are hardly ever satisfied, and when you have too much to do with them, you are sure to have des ennuis... Your devoted Uncle, Leopold R. We have not been able to determine who revised King Leopold's words into a more modern phrasing or exactly when posters bearing those words may have been created, but we found no record of such a poster's circulating during the 1950s. The earliest iteration of this image we've found (multiple online versions of this version employ different fonts, colors, and composition) only dates as far back as 2012. versions version different 2012 This "Beware of Artists" poster is a modern expression of a political opinion that has been extant since at least the mid-1800s. Queen Victoria.  The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty's Correspondence Between the Years 1837 and 1861.
  Longmans, Green, and Company, 1907. Schwab, Katherine.  "The NSA's Newly Declassified Propaganda Posters Are Wild."
  Fast Company.  6 August 2018. In August 2018, a number of social media users came across an image offering a purported newspaper clipping of an article entitled "Tech Billionaire Parenting" and wondered if the article, as well as the information contained within it, was genuine: image   This image presents a slightly paraphrased version of an article written by Alice Thomson entitled "Help Kids to Kick Social Media Addiction" which was published in The Times of London in March 2018, the original text of which read as follows: The Times The philanthropist Melinda Gates told me the same. Her children dont have smartphones and only use a computer in the kitchen. Her husband Bill, the Microsoft co-founder, spends hours in his office reading books while everyone else is refreshing their homepage. The most sought-after private school in Silicon Valley, the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, bans technical devices for the under-11s and teaches the children of eBay, Apple, Uber and Google staff to make go-karts, knit and cook. Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg wants his daughters to read Dr Seuss books and play outside rather than use Messenger Kids. Steve Jobss children had strict limits on how much technology they used at home. Its astonishing if you think about it: the more money you make out of the tech industry, the more you appear to shield your family from its effects. The general theme of this article, that several prominent tech billionaires advocated limiting their children's use of technology, is accurate and supported by various interviews and articles. Our only quibble is with the claim that Bill and Melinda Gates' children don't currently have smartphones. As far as we can tell, the Microsoft moguls didn't allow their children to possess smartphones of their own until they reached the age of 14, but as of this writing Jennifer, Rory, and Phoebe Gates are all now over the age of 14. In a June 2018 interview with The Mirror, Bill Gates explained some of his parental rules when it came to technology use by his children: The Mirror We often set a time after which there is no screen time and in their case that helps them get to sleep at a reasonable hour. Youre always looking at how it can be used in a great way  homework and staying in touch with friends  and also where it has gotten to excess. We dont have cellphones at the table when we are having a meal, we didnt give our kids cellphones until they were 14 and they complained other kids got them earlier. Melinda Gates also penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in August 2017 in which she warned about putting a computer in a child's pocket at too early of an age. Gates seemed to acknowledge that her children had cellphones at the time but said that she "probably would have waited longer" if she had the chance to do it again: Washington Post Still, as a mother who wants to make sure her children are safe and happy, I worry. And I think back to how I might have done things differently. Parents should decide for themselves what works for their family, but I probably would have waited longer before putting a computer in my childrens pockets. Phones and apps arent good or bad by themselves, but for adolescents who dont yet have the emotional tools to navigate lifes complications and confusions, they can exacerbate the difficulties of growing up: learning how to be kind, coping with feelings of exclusion, taking advantage of freedom while exercising self-control. Its more important than ever to teach empathy from the very beginning, because our kids are going to need it. As for the remainder of the text at the head of this page, it appears wholly accurate. A number of Silicon Valley parents truly do send their children to the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, where an emphasis is placed on pen and paper rather than digital screens. News outlets such as the New York Times and the Guardian have reported on that school's technology policy in relation to the student body's connection to Silicon Valley: New York Times Guardian The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard. But the schools chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home. Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools dont mix. This is the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans. The web site for the Waldorf School of the Peninsula also includes a page in which they describe their "Media & Technology Philosophy": page Waldorf educators believe it is far more important for students to interact with one another and their teachers, and work with real materials than to interface with electronic media or technology. By exploring the world of ideas, participating in the arts, music, movement and practical activities, children develop healthy, robust bodies, balanced and well-integrated brains, confidence in their real-world practical skills and strong executive-function capabilities. In the high school curriculum, Waldorf embraces technology in ways that enhance the learning process, by using it as a tool, rather than replace the role of the teacher. Students quickly master technology, and many Waldorf graduates have gone on to successful careers in the computer industry. The claim that "Steve Jobss children had strict limits on how much technology they used at home" is supported by a 2014 New York Times article which labeled the Apple founder a low-tech parent: article [N]othing shocked me more than something Mr. Jobs said to me in late 2010 after he had finished chewing me out for something I had written about an iPad shortcoming. So, your kids must love the iPad? I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The companys first tablet was just hitting the shelves. They havent used it, he told me. We limit how much technology our kids use at home. Im sure I responded with a gasp and dumbfounded silence. I had imagined the Jobss household was like a nerds paradise: that the walls were giant touch screens, the dining table was made from tiles of iPads and that iPods were handed out to guests like chocolates on a pillow. Nope, Mr. Jobs told me, not even close. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's reported desire to have his daughter read Dr. Seuss and play outside comes from an open letter he wrote after the birth of his second daughter in August 2017: letter But rather than write about growing up, we want to talk about childhood. The world can be a serious place. Thats why its important to make time to go outside and play. You will be busy when youre older, so I hope you take time to smell all the flowers and put all the leaves you want in your bucket now. I hope you read your favorite Dr. Seuss books so many times you start inventing your own stories about the Vipper of Vipp. I hope you ride the carousel with Max until youve tamed every color horse. I hope you run as many laps around our living room and yard as you want. And then I hope you take a lot of naps. I hope youre a great sleeper. And I hope even in your dreams you can feel how much we love you. Gates, Melinda.  "Melinda Gates: I Spent My Career in Technology. I Wasnt Prepared for Its Effect on My Kids."
  The Washington Post.  24 August 2017. Richtel, Matt.  "A Silicon Valley School That Doesn't Compute."
  The New York Times.  22 October 2011. Bilton, Nick.  "Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent."
  The New York Times.  10 September 2014. Jenkin, Matthew.  "Tablets Out, Imagination In: The Schools That Shun Technology."
  The Guardian.  2 December 2015. Abramson, Alana.  "'Childhood Is Magical.' Read the Letter Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan Wrote to Their Baby Daughter."
  Fortune.  28 August 2017. Stillman, Jessica.  "Why Steve Jobs and Bill Gates Both Severely Limited Their Kids' Tech Use."
  Inc.  29 October 2017. PolitiFact has rapped Rob Portman for certain claims made during his U.S. Senate campaign. Weve credited Portman, too, for truthful statements. Thats the nature of the Truth-O-Meter: We play it as it lays.Which brings us to Portmanslatest television ad.In the 30-second spot, Portman points to out-of-control federal spending, dangerous deficits and an economic stimulus plan that he says isnt working. Since the $800 billion stimulus passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs, Portman says in the commercial.The claim about the stimulus program not working has been batted about repeatedly. The White House said when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009, that unemployment would peak at 8 percent. Yet it is now 9.6 percent nationally, and 10.7 percent in Ohio.A number of economists say that even more jobs would have been lost were it not for the government spending to stimulate the economy. TheCongressional Budget Offices last quarterly evaluationsaid the stimulus increased national employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. There have been mistakes, missteps and gaffes documented in the spending programs, however, and Portman and other Republicans say the spending was poorly focused. This central question will be for historians and economists in the future to settle.Were merely taking note of Portmans claim because of this: He uses a lower number -- 100,000 jobs lost in Ohio since the stimulus passed -- than he used previously. When he put the figure at 150,000 in June,the Truth-O-Meter ruled it Half True-- because only 127,900 jobs had actually been lost, judging by the most widely accepted measure.That was based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures through May, the most current at the time. The numbers come from surveys of employers and are adjusted as the data becomes more complete. Using updated data, BLS now shows the post-stimulus job losses in Ohio came to 130,000 for the period Portman claimed in his earlier statement..But now its October and Portman is using a lower figure when he speaks. As he said in his newest ad, and repeated during an Oct. 8 debate at the City Club of Cleveland, since the stimulus bill passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs.Yet heres the thing: Portmans rhetoric might actually be too cautious now. As measured by the latest BLS figures, which go through August and are preliminary, Ohio has 149,200 fewer jobs now than when the stimulus passed. Thats exquisitely close to 150,000.What happened?The state steadily lost jobs through 2009 but the numbers started improving early in the year, continuing through May. The summer saw a retraction, however, reducing Ohios employment count by a total of 19,200 jobs during June, July and August.So Portman was accurate and then some with his recent, more cautious statement. The Half True ruling nevertheless stands for his June claim, because PolitiFact doesnt believe in fortune-telling and Portmans numbers were in fact off when he made that statement.But we give credit where credit is due. So the Truth-O-Meter takes a turn to the right and rules on Portmans newest claim: True. Comment on this item. Would raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour destroy up to 3.7 million jobs in the United States? Thats what GOP House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy claimed in the headline of apress releaseon Tuesday as Democrats in Congress began debating the move. On Twitter the same day,McCarthy wrotethe wage hike could put nearly 4 million Americans out of work. This is a screen shot of the headline from McCarthys press release. The Biden Administration last month proposed raising the federal minimum hourly pay from $7.25 to $15, with increases of about $1.50 every year for five years. To make that happen, Congressional Democrats introduced theRaise the Wage Act of 2021last month and began considering the legislation in the House Committee on Education and Labor this week. Heres what McCarthy said in the body of the press release: At this critical point, the Democrats big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour  a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previouslyfoundcould cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs. President Joe Biden initially included the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. But he predicted last week it would be left out due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats. Given the debate over raising the wage and its impact on jobs, we decided to take a closer look at McCarthys claim in this fact check. Our Research In his press release and tweet, McCarthy linked to ananalysisof the wage proposal by the Congressional Budget Office published on Monday. The CBO, a nonpartisan research service, predicted the wage hike would eliminate jobs, but would also raise wages for an estimated 17 million people and lift 900,000 people out of poverty. It doesnt say anything about destroying an estimated 3.7 million positions as McCarthy claimed. Instead, the CBO said the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers. The report goes on to say theres a one-third chance the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthys number. Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment, the report adds. A spokesperson for McCarthy did not respond to questions. Deborah Kilroe, a spokesperson for the CBO, said McCarthy likely got his figure from aJuly 2019 CBO reportthat also examined raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That older analysis predicted the median estimate for job losses would be 1.3 million. Meanwhile, it said there is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. That last figure lines up with McCarthys statement of nearly 4 million workers, but it comes from the high-end of an old report and ignores what the CBO published this week. Last month,FactCheck.org found Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul also distorted the facts on this topic. The senator told Fox News that the government estimates are close to 4 million people will lose their jobs, if the minimum wage hike goes through. FactCheck.org examined the July 2019 CBO report [the current report had yet to be published] and found Paul cherry-picked the high-end of that report. Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs. McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBOs new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added theres a one-third chance the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthys claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Several times over the last few years social Facebook posts have appeared proposing that users who followed instructions to "like" and "share" them could win myriad prizes in a purported giveaway sponsored by Ellen DeGeneres: Facebook posts  <!-- --> The Ellen DeGeneres Show does run segments involving prize giveaways that may have online components, including ties to official social media accounts, but not ones involving randomly choosing viewers who "like" and "share" posts stemming from counterfeit Facebook accounts such as the one shown above. prize giveaways Any legitimate promotional offer using Facebook should be tied to an account bearing a blue badge indicating the account has been verified by Facebook as authentic:As we have noted on previous pages about similar hoaxes, these counterfeit promotional posts exhibit a number of red flags, primarily that the underlying pages are not endorsed by any official channel associated with Ellen DeGeneres:The first clue that the giveaways following this format are not on the up-and-up is that the pages to which Facebook users are directed are ones created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only are the secondary Facebook pages involved new, they are also not linked with automobile companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure, but no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment is discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims.The aim of schemes such as the celebrity giveaway hoaxes are typically to rapidly build a large Facebook following in order to sell pages with high "like" counts to third parties. While such hoaxes appear to present little risk to participants, liking and sharing the false information is not entirely safe: in addition to advancing the interests of and encouraging social media scammers, page likes potentially enable user data mining by scammers.  And in some cases, the giveaway hoaxes lure victims into downloading malware-bearing files.  Any legitimate promotional offer using Facebook should be tied to an account bearing a blue badge indicating the account has been verified by Facebook as authentic: blue badge  As we have noted on previous pages about similar hoaxes, these counterfeit promotional posts exhibit a number of red flags, primarily that the underlying pages are not endorsed by any official channel associated with Ellen DeGeneres: hoaxes The first clue that the giveaways following this format are not on the up-and-up is that the pages to which Facebook users are directed are ones created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only are the secondary Facebook pages involved new, they are also not linked with automobile companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure, but no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment is discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The aim of schemes such as the celebrity giveaway hoaxes are typically to rapidly build a large Facebook following in order to sell pages with high "like" counts to third parties. While such hoaxes appear to present little risk to participants, liking and sharing the false information is not entirely safe: in addition to advancing the interests of and encouraging social media scammers, page likes potentially enable user data mining by scammers.  And in some cases, the giveaway hoaxes lure victims into downloading malware-bearing files. Although Boeing may someday introduce a commercial airliner designated with the number 797, and although the company's Phantom Works (advanced research and development) unit may have researched the potential of blended-wing-body (BWB) aircraft design for military applications, Boeing is not currently developing a blended-wing aircraft for commercial use, nor does the image displayed below represent any aircraft (or prototype thereof) designed or produced by that company: Phantom Works researched BWB   Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre.The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747s 211 feet,and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come. There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbuss $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380s 570 mph (912 km/h)The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy. This image is a conceptual picture from a Popular Science article about the future of aviation (one which proved so popular that it was made available for purchase in poster form) and has been circulated since at least early 1996 in fictitious articles proclaiming it to be Boeing's response to competition from the Airbus A380 in the commercial airliner business. articles A Boeing company blog produced by Randy Baseler, former vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, tackled this subject back in November 2006: tackled From Boulder, Colorado, Walter brings up a topic we frequently get questioned about: the "blended wing" concept. Earlier this year an image of a blended wing "797" made the rounds of the Internet, and got speculation swirling that Boeing has this in the works. Is there any truth to the emails showing a blended wing 1,000-passenger concept that is dubbed a Boeing 797? Makes sense that the airline industry would head this direction some day, but it just sounds too good to be true! Yes, too good to be true, indeed, Walter. Someone was having a bit of fun with PhotoShop perhaps. Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand. Glen, from Warrington, Pennsylvania brings up the same subject: Is there a blended wing in the works? Are there floor plans of it? No, not for a commercial airplane. But having said that, I should point out that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development group, tells me it is conducting research on the BWB concept with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. They're working to better understand what they describe as the BWB's "fundamental edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics" and structural characteristics. The Air Force is interested in the BWB concept for its potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft. As part of the research, Phantom Works has built a scale model for wind-tunnel testing of the concept's low-speed flying characteristics. There also are plans to flight-test the scale model next year. In 2017, Boeing released a teaser image at the Paris Air Show hyping a medium-range, "middle-market airplane" under development that industry observers unofficially christened "Boeing 797," but that was neither the real name of the aircraft nor did the visualization include a blended-wing design. image Baseler, Randy.  "Air Mail."
  Randy's Journal.  1 November 2006. Ostrower, Jon.  "World Gets First Peek at Boeing '797.'"
  CNN Money.  20 June 2017. Boeing.  "Boeing to Begin Ground Testing of X-48B Blended Wing Body Concept."
 27 October 2006. NewTechSpy.  "Boeing to Take on Airbus with (1,000 Seat) Giant 797 Blended Wing Plane."
  24 April 2006. In March 2020, Facebook posts offering free coupons supposedly worth $50 in merchandise from Walmart began circulating with the claim that the company was celebrating its anniversary:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupon:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users are then required to click a button to share the "offer" with all their Facebook friends before they can retrieve their coupon. Those who comply by spamming their friends are then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button. However, there is no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook (including previous examples targeting Walmart customers), this one is a scam. We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: other free merchandise offers targeting These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Better Business Bureau.  Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook.
  14 April 2017. Calls to boycott the National Rifle Association intensified in the days following a school shooting in Parkland, Florida that left seventeen people dead on 14 February 2018. In response, a number of companies responded by ending partnership programs that provided discounts to NRA members: ending   Shortly after Delta announced that it would stop offering discounts to NRA members, some argued that Planned Parenthood should be the actual subject of nationwide boycotts, despite not being involved directly or indirectly with the Parkland, Florida shooting in any way. One meme summed up that argument by stating without attribution that Planned Parenthood kills hundreds of babies a day, while the NRA has never directly killed anyone: meme   This number appears to be derived from figures provided by the organization in 2015, which said that Planned Parenthood offices had performed 323,999 abortions in total the year before. However, that interpretation is dependent on subjective interpretations of when life supposedly begins; abortions are not counted as a "cause of death" by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. performed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Georgia State Senator Michael Williams took issue with Delta's decision (the company is headquartered in Atlanta) and during an appearance on CNN said that the airline should also rescind its discounts for other organizations: If they're going to pull the discount for NRA members, why not pull it for Planned Parenthood or some of the left organizations out there? When CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Williams what evidence he had that Delta Air Lines offered discounted rates to Planned Parenthood members, adding that the network had examined these allegations and found no information to verify the claim, Williams explained that he "looked it up on Google" and did not know of the exact source  but that he would provide it at a later date:  We searched for any credible sources to back the claim that Delta Air Lines offers a discount to members of Planned Parenthood (along with the official definition of what a member of Planned Parenthood might be: Did he mean donors to the nonprofit? Patients who do not donate? Some combination of the above? Is there a membership card?) but all we found were unverified claims in the comment sections of various articles and in random social media messages: comment sections social media   Shortly after Williams appeared on CNN, Planned Parenthood denied his claims: Being a Planned Parenthood supporter doesn't come with corporate perks and discounts. People stand with Planned Parenthood because they support reproductive health and rights. https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As  Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) February 28, 2018 February 28, 2018    On 28 February 2018, Williams released a statement on Twitter: released   This statement offers no supporting evidence and, in fact, does nothing to address the original claim Williams made during his CNN appearance. Instead, it moves the goalposts completely by saying that while Delta does not contribute directly to Planned Parenthood, it indirectly supports the organization instead, by donating to groups such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, we found some holes in this argument too. For example, American Airlines, not Delta Air Lines, is the official partner of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Delta does host an annual fundraiser for breast cancer research, but the airline donates the proceeds to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, not Susan G. Komen: Last month, Delta celebrated its 12th anniversary of the Breast Cancer One survivor flight, kicking off the airlines Breast Cancer Awareness month throughout October and continuing the tradition of building awareness and raising funds for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. This years flight honored 140 breast cancer survivors who flew from New York to Los Angeles. Festivities began with an event at the gate in JFK before the pink plane made its way to LAX, where survivors and attendees enjoyed another gatehouse event and an overnight stay, including dinner, hotel accommodations and a meet-and-greet with one of BCRFs world-renowned researchers, Dr. Sofia Merajver from the University of Michigan. It is entirely possible that Delta has contributed to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, but this group is not a "Delta partner," nor is it the main benefactor of their cancer research fundraiser.  Williams doubled down on his claim that Delta was partnered with the Susan G. Komen Foundation when he shared a photograph of a Delta plane painted with pink ribbons and linked to a set of images on the web site FlashPointAgency: shared FlashPointAgency   FlashPointAgency does say that this plane was designed as part of Delta's work with the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, these images appear to be mislabeled. Another image in this set of photographs shows two women standing in front of a wall of logos for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. As we noted above, Delta does frequently host fundraisers to support BCRF:   Regardless of Delta Air Lines' relationships with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, or anyone else, these groups have little to do with the senator's original claim, which is that Delta Air Lines provided discounts to Planned Parenthood members. Our examination of this rumor resulted in a chain of unfounded social media posts, but absolutely no supporting evidence. Aued, Blake.  "Georgia Prospers When Businesses Don't Discriminate."
  Flagpole.  28 September 2016. Goldschmidt, Debra.  "Planned Parenthood: Fast Facts and Revealing Numbers."
  CNN.  1 August 2017. Wattles, Jackie.  "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down."
  CNN.  26 February 2018. Wattles, Jackie.  "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down."
  CNN.  26 February 2018. Claim: The McDonald's fast food chain will be closing 17,000 locations due to an increase in the minimum wage.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] Is McDonald's closing 17,000 stores because of the $15.00 minimum wage? Origins: On 28 October 2015, the web site Now 8 News published an article reporting that 17,000 McDonald's locations would be closing by 1 April 2016 due to a recent increase in the minimum wage: The largest chain of fast food restaurants in the world has announced that the minimum wage increase from $8.75 an hour to $15 an hour has caused them to schedule the close 17,000 restaurants in the United States.With already decreasing profits, McDonald says this is the "straw that broke the camels back." The above-quoted story is a piece of fiction. The United States minimum wage, as established by federal law, is still $7.25 per hour (although some cities have approved a gradual raising of their minimum wages to $15 an hour), and McDonald's has not announced that they will be closing 17,000 stores due to any wage increases.Now 8 News is one of many fake news sites that attempts to attract traffic through the frequent publication of false rumors under clickbait headlines. frequent false rumors This isn't the first time that a fake news story has used "McDonald's response to a$15 minimum wage" as its basis. The equally disreputableNews Examiner posted a fake news story claiming that the restaurant chain would start using a robotic staff to avoid paying their employees $15 per hour. robotic   Last updated: 4 November 2015 Originally published: 4 November 2015 On Jan. 16, 2020, Lev Parnas, the American businessman who allegedly worked with U.S. President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani to pressure the Ukraine to investigate the president's political rivals, appeared on "The Rachel Maddow Show" to tell his version of events that led to the president's impeachment. While Trump would later say "I dont know who this man is," the photographic record appears to tell a different story.  The Rachel Maddow Show I dont know who this man is As Parnas' name moved from obscurity to infamy, photographs showing Parnas with various members of the Trump family, the Trump administration, and the president himself started to circulate on social media. While most of these images are genuine, some social media users attempted to strengthen the connection between Trump and Parnas by sharing a photograph that allegedly showed Parnas and Trump at a family birthday party when their children were young: photographs showing Parnas Trump family Trump administration president himself photograph   The claim that the man in this photograph is Lev Parnas is not based on any credible information. This claim is based solely on the notion that the man in the photograph bears a passing resemblance to Parnas. However, Parnas' name was not attached to this picture until close to three decades after it was taken. And from what we can tell, Parnas is too young to be the man pictured here.  This photograph was not taken at a party for "Lev's kid." It was actually taken in 1990 at a birthday party for Trump's son, Eric, who had just turned 6. The picture first received media attention in 2017 with the release of the book "Raising Trump" by Ivana Trump, the president's first wife.  Raising Trump ABC News published this photograph in an article about the book with the caption: "Ivana Trump shares a family photo from Eric Trump's sixth birthday party at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in 1990." ABC News Here's the full photograph:   Parnas was born in 1972 and would have been approximately 18 when this photograph was taken. The man in this photograph, however, appears to be much older than a teenager. By comparison, Donald Trump, who was born in 1946, was approximately 44 when this photograph was taken.  born in 1972 Some social media users have pointed to a report in the New Yorker to bolster the claim that Parnas is indeed the man in this photograph. While the The New Yorker reported that Parnas started selling Trump Organization co-ops for Kings Highway Realty when he was 16, there's no indication that Parnas had a familiar relationship with the Trump family at that time. In fact, Parnas said that while he bumped into Trump occasionally at events in New York over the years, he didn't get to know the president until the 2016 presidential campaign (emphasis ours): The New Yorker Parnas soon became a regular at Trumps rallies and other gatherings. I started donating. We started to help raise money, he said. Gradually, Parnas said that he got to know other Trump donors, including Tommy Hicks, Jr., a private-equity investor in Texas who is close to Donald Trump, Jr. (Hicks has since become the co-chair of the Republican National Committee.)We became one big family, Parnas said. You got to understand, he didnt have a real campaign, a traditional campaign. It was make-it-up, you know. Like him or not, you understand what it is. It was more, like, you know, wed bump into each other constantly because it was all the same people, there were not that many of us. Parnas told me that he bumped into Trump plenty of times at events in New York over the years, but that they didnt get to know each other until the 2016 campaign. (Trump recently distanced himself from Parnas and [businessman Igor] Fruman, saying, I dont know those gentlemen. Now, its possible I have a picture with them, because I have a picture with everybody.) In sum, the claim that the above-displayed picture shows Parnas with the Trumps at a family birthday party in the 1990s is not supported by evidence. This claim is based solely on the notion that the pictured man and Parnas bear a passing resemblance to one another. However, Parnas was only 18 at the time this photograph was taken (while the pictured man looks much older), his name wasn't attached to this image until it became a political weapon 30 years later, and Parnas himself said that he didn't get to know Trump until 2015. Ward, Myah.  "Trump Vigorously Denies Knowing Lev Parnas After Explosive Claims."   Politico.  16 January 2020. Raymond, Adam.  "Lev Parnas and His Powerful Republican Friends: A Photo Album."   The Intelligencer.  16 January 2020. Baragona, Justin.  "Don Jr. Admits Meeting Lev Parnas: I Thought He Was Israeli."
  Daily Beast.  19 January 2020. Benen, Steve.  "Why It's So Hard to Believe Trump's Denials About Lev Parnas."   MSNBC.  17 January 2020. Blake, Aaron.  "The Trump Team Keeps Denying it Knows Lev Parnas, Despite Growing Photographic Evidence."
  Washington Post.  16 January 2020. Kindelan, Katie.  "Ivana Trump Says She is 'First Lady.'"
  ABC News.  9 October 2017. Smith, David and Andrew Roth.  "Who is Lev Parnas? Soviet-Born Operator Thrust Into Trump Impeachment Scandal."
  The Guardian.  16 January 2020. Primm, Katie.  "Trump Lawyer Dismisses New Evidence, Including Photos of the President with Lev Parnas.'"
  CBS News.  18 January 2020. Entous, Adam.  "How Lev Parnas Became Part of the Trump Campaign's 'One Big Family.'"
  New Yorker.  15 October 2019.