Are 'PlayJoltz' or 'SmushGame' Legitimate Free Streaming Services?
In June 2019, scammers attempted to swindle millions of social media users by presenting a movie- and television-streaming service called "PlayJoltz," which spammy, fabricated online posts claimed was "better than Netflix" and was available for free for (you guessed it) a limited time only.  We received multiple inquiries about PlayJoltz after it was promoted on Facebook and Twitter in almost-identical posts, each targeting readers from a different nation.  For example, on 25 June the website worldnews24.co published a post with the headline "There is a Better Service Than Netflix...and It's Free for the Canadian!" The article went on to report that: worldnews24.co "The streaming giant Netflix has lost thousands of Canada users this week because of a new competing service which just came out and is lifetime free for the people living in North America (US & CA). The new service is called Playjoltz and provides an identical streaming service to that of Netflix but with a lot of extras. The users admit it is much faster, cleaner and with many more movies/series than Netflix. They currently give a free access to the first 5,000 people who subscribe even though it seems they have almost reached this number. Playjoltz "With an almost unlimited selection of HD movies and TV series having an incredibly good image quality and that loads up at blazing speeds on all devices (TV, smartphones, computers, tablets), it is not surprising that thousands of people have already switched from Netflix to this new service, Playjoltz, since it has been launched 3 weeks ago. Playjoltz informed us that the last day to subscribe for free is 27 June, 2019." In parallel with that, the website austria-news.co targeted readers in Austria, with the same claims and same text, this time in German. The scammers targeted readers in Australia with another version of the same article, this time on australia-news.co, as well as a poorly produced Facebook video that made the same claims: that the service was "free for Australians," and "100x better than Netflix": austria-news.co australia-news.co   These articles were not only fakes but also appeared to be part of a long-running scam orchestrated from the country of Cyprus, which has caused multiple users to be tricked into trying a "free trial" that they cannot end. Users are encouraged to provide their credit card details for the free trial, on the understanding that they will not be charged if they cancel their subscription by the billing date. However, some users have complained of being charged repeatedly, even after canceling before the end of the free trial.  The various websites on which these articles appeared in June 2019 were littered with spammy links. For example, clicking on any link on any of the sites led the user to the same webpage, www.smushgame.com, which offered users a sign-up form for a streaming service similar to the one described in the PlayJoltz articles.  sign-up   However, the smushgame.com homepage instead advertised a gaming service  "Unlimited access to all your gaming needs." That homepage was registered to "Japalta Consulting" in the city of Nicosia, Cyprus. Another website registered to a company in Cyprus (this time the city of Limassol) was PlayJoltz.com: homepage PlayJoltz.com   Since 2018, consumers from various countries have been reporting in online forums that they were swindled out of repeated, unsanctioned credit card debits after signing up for a "free trial" on both PlayJoltz.com and SmushGame.com. Both are scams.  online forums The wave of PlayJoltz articles published in late June 2019 offered other clues about the unreliability of their claims. For instance, every article contained the same "comments section," which was designed to resemble the Facebook-linked comments section common to many sites. In reality, clicking on a "username" lead only to the SmushGame sign-up page, rather than that "user's" Facebook account  a clear sign that the comments came from fabricated identities rather than the Facebook accounts of real people.  Similarly, every comment was gushing in its praise for PlayJoltz, and the exact same set of "commenters" left their positive reviews in each article, to the extent that they even appeared to comment in German, under the Austrian version of the article. The image below shows the set of comments included under the Canadian worldnews24.co article, and on the right, those included under the Austrian austria-news.co version:   Finally, each of the June 2019 articles included a cover image that was designed to indicate that the existence of PlayJoltz, and the supposed sudden collapse of Netflix as a result, was garnering mainstream television news coverage. The image featured a female news reader standing next to a giant screen that showed the Netflix logo and the flag of whichever country was being targeted in each article, whether Australia, Austria, or Canada:   In reality, these were digitally manipulated images of an Irish news reader, who can be seen below wearing the same outfit as the one shown in the "PlayJoltz" images (she is a co-presenter of the "Six One News," the main evening news broadcast on RT, Ireland's public-service broadcaster). The broadcaster stressed her image was used without consent: "RT can confirm it has not given permission for any use of its copyright imagery for commercial use and the news report featured is false. We urge anyone who sees these misleading ads to report them to the platform they are carried on."  wearing   In short, RT's Six One News has never reported on the triumphant rise of either PlayJoltz or SmushGame, because neither has experienced such a surge in popularity, and both are scams.  Worldnews24.co. "There is a Better Service Than Netflix...and It's Free for the Canadian!"
 25 June 2019. Australia-news.co. "This New HD Streaming Service is the Reason Why Aussies Are Canceling Their Netflix Subscriptions!"
 25 June 2019. Austria-news.co. "Es Gibt Einen Besseren Dienst Als Netflix...und Er Ist Kostenlos fr sterreicher!"
 25 June 2019.
Claim:  Analysis demonstrates the "Cash for Clunkers" program's gasoline savings to be an inefficient economic trade-off. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2009]     I guess I must be on the wrong page... A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles  so that's 224 million gallons / year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about  of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that ??? They'll probably do a great job with health care though!! Origins:  In 2009, the federal government's Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers," provided consumers with $3,500 or $4,500 discounts for trading in older model automobiles and purchasing new, more fuel-efficient vehicles.  The analysis presented above maintains that the CARS program essentially spent $3 billion in federal (i.e., taxpayer) funds in order to save $350 million in (foreign) oil purchases, an inefficient economic trade-off.   The premise that the sole purpose or benefit of the CARS program is to save money on U.S. expenditures is a rather specious one to begin with.  And even within that framework,the analysis is flawed in key aspects. According to the latest CARS statistics,  auto dealers conducted 690,114 transactions through the program, and cars traded in through the program averaged 15.8 MPG, while new vehicles purchased through the program averaged 24.9 MPG.  Assuming, as stated above, that the average motorist drives 12,000 miles per year, we arrive at the following calculations: statistics A vehicle averaging 15.8 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 759.5 gallons of gasoline per year. A vehicle averaging 24.9 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 482 gallons of gasoline per year. The average CARS transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 277.5 gallons of gasoline per car per year. The 690,114 vehicles sold through the CARS program will therefore save a total of 191.5 million gallons of gasoline per year. So far, so good  our figures make the CARS program look even less economically efficient than the original analysis does.  The fatal flaw comes in the next step, however. The example presented above claims that 224 million gallons of gasoline are the equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil (i.e., one barrel of oil produces about 45 gallons of gasoline), which is an erroneous assumption.  One barrel of crude oil holds 42 gallons of crude oil, not 42 gallons of gasoline  the crude has to be put through a refining process before it becomes gasoline. How much gasoline is produced from one barrel of crude varies according to the refining process used and the type of crude oil involved, but according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, "U.S. refineries produce between 19 and 20 gallons of motor gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil." (Crude oil contains many different types of hydrocarbons, not all of which can easily be converted to gasoline, so other petroleum products such as kerosene and lubricating oil are also produced during the refining process.) EIA hydrocarbons If we take the mid-point of that range (i.e., 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil) and multiply it by the $75 per barrel price quoted in the example, we find: 191.5 million gallons of gasoline / 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil = 9.8 million barrels of oil 9.8 million * $75 per barrel  = $735 million This savings of $735 million per year is over twice the $350 million figure posited in the original analysis.  (The latter figure should actually be $375 million; the original contains a mathematical error in stating that 5 million multiplied by 75 equals 350.)  Moreover, the gasoline-saving benefits produced by the CARS program won't simply dissipate after the passage of a single year, as suggested above.  According to the  CARS stats, the total dollar value of transactions conducted under the "Cash for Clunkers" program was about $2.9 billion. Therefore (if all other factors remained the same), the full cost of the CARS program would be offset by gasoline savings in about four years  not a spectacular trade-off, perhaps, but not nearly as bad a one as claimed in the original analysis.  (All of these figures assume the price of gasoline to be a constant, a dubious proposition since the cost of oil can fluctuate quite widely, especially in the short term.) The original analysis also focuses solely on savings in gasoline costs and doesn't take into account other intended or residual effects of the CARS program, such as the economic benefits of boosting auto sales, reducing pollution by replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles, increasing safety by replacing older cars with vehicles offering advanced safety features, and providing additional parts and raw materials for the market: [The clunkers'] components and frames ... have begun flooding the used parts and scrap-recycling markets with more than 100 million tons of steel, batteries, and tires, among other things. "This is like a second wave of stimulus to our economy," said Bill Goodale, general manager of Millis Industries, which has picked up about 200 clunkers from local dealers and expects to take possession of hundreds more in the next few weeks. "As it trickles down, it helps junkyards. It helps the guy looking for cheap parts to keep his car going. It adds a lot of steel to a market that hasn't produced much of it in the last year." Last updated:  13 September 2009 On 12 July 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders formally endorsed rival Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire event, causing consternation among supporters who were confident he still planned to take his candidacy for the nomination to the convention in Philadelphia later that month. A number of interlinked rumors appeared on social media following the Clinton/Sanders event, roughly outlining a larger general claim. According to many social media users, Sanders' pre-convention endorsement was a requirement under Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules as a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention, just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had similarly been forced to endorse an opponent before going on to win at a contested convention: The afternoon of the endorsement, a Sanders delegate (later identified as Ashley Wolthuis of Utah) made comments suggesting Sanders was forced to publicly endorse Clinton under threat of punitive platform changes: identified I have contacts within both campaigns. Heres what I was told yesterday and today. Clintons campaign threatened to vote down every concession made to Bernie on the platform if he did not endorse her prior to the convention. Knowing that Superdelegates were not going to switch to his side without something major happening, the best he could do was hold on to the progressive concessions he won for US on the platform. He could not, in good consciousness let the GOP and Trump win, especially when we have a potential half of the Supreme Court Justices that will be replaced within the next 4-8 years. He was looking out for the future of our movement and our nation in this very hard decision he made. This post is not to tell you to vote for Hillary, or to not leave the Democratic Party, etc. this was just to throw a little light on why Bernie did what he felt he HAD to do, rather than what he wanted to do. A sign of a great leader is someone who makes the hard decision to sacrifice themselves for the people and movement behind him. He is counting on us to continue the fight. Contacted later in the day by phone, Wolthuis clarified her comments about the use of force and Sanders' endorsement of Clinton: [A]fter reaching out to many of the people who had either posted or tweeted this statement, I tracked down the original source, Ashley Wolthuis, a Sanders delegate from Utah, who was kind enough to return my "cold call" to her cell phone. Here is what she told me. The basic thrust of the post shown above is accurate, she said, but the use of the term that Bernie was "threatened" she explained was overblown. She did indeed have conversations with various delegates associated with both campaigns, and she said it was "common knowledge" among most delegates that the Clinton campaign was insisting on Bernie making an endorsement prior to the convention if the more progressive parts of the platform would be retained. The talk among her the those with whom she associated, both Clinton and Sanders supporters, was that Bernie understood Hillary needed Sanders' supporters and that was the only reason she made any concessions at all regarding the positions on the DNC platform for which the Sanders campaign fought. Wolthuis also referenced a Washington Post article published after Sanders' 12 July 2016 comments, surmising that Sanders in part intended to tack Clinton to promises of a progressive platform: article The speech today was, ostensibly, an endorsement of Clinton's presidential campaign ... But, really, it wasn't. Yes, I know that's how it was billed by the Clinton and Sanders camps. And, yes, he did say this: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president." (It was the only time that Sanders used the words "endorse" or "endorsing" in a speech that ran 2,161 words. You can read the whole thing here.) But, surely, Sanders was simply touting his successes as a way of winding up to the big moment when he acknowledged  even subtly  that Clinton's more moderate, cautious and pragmatic definition of "Democrat" had trumped (ahem) his more liberal, populist one? ... Nope! Not really. What followed in the speech was a laundry list of Sanders's talking points and policies supplemented with the phrases "Hillary believes" or "Hillary understands" or "Hillary knows" stuck in front of them ... On and on it went, Sanders touting a much-beloved policy of his and then noting that Clinton agreed with it. We reviewed the oft-cited DNC 2016 rules [PDF] but were unable to locate any specific verbiage mandating that any candidate endorse any other candidate in order to fully participate in the convention. It is possible (but not necessarily likely) that the endorsement was an agreed upon concession made outside formal rules or quietly between the campaigns. Confusion over the meaning of Sanders' endorsement was exacerbated following the release of the contents of a conference call he held with his nearly 1,900 pledged delegates hours after his public appearance alongside Clinton: PDF   During the 38-minute long call, Sanders maintained the campaign won 22 states and lost several more "by a hair," stating that a majority of voters under 45 from all demographics overwhelmingly voted for him in primaries and caucuses. Sanders held that the "superdelegate issue" impeded his campaign, noting that Clinton earned 2,205 pledged delegates to his 1,845 and that she received "a hell of a lot" more superdelegate support:  In a portion of the call regarding his endorsement of Clinton, Sanders did not say that doing so was a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention. He did, however, discuss ongoing negotiations between the campaigns to ensure that planks of Sanders' campaign were adopted and Clinton was "on record" making such agreements. Compromises cited by Sanders included the candidates' differing plans on college tuition and single payer healthcare (including dental and mental health coverage) expansions for millions of Americans. In a significant portion of the call Sanders addressed questions about delegates' traveling to Philadelphia for the convention, asserting the campaign "[needs its delegates] to vote for Bernie Sanders for President, and [his] hope is we can get 1,900 votes on the first ballot." Sanders addressed rumors of challenges to credentials without further detail, presumably referencing concerns that Sanders delegates would face opposition at the convention. The senator stated he didn't believe the rumors had merit, adding that the campaign would arrive with "a bunch of lawyers" in Philadelphia and "make sure every [delegate takes their] seat." Sanders also addressed questions about whether he had been offered a "significant role" in a potential Clinton administration, to which he said "no." Towards the end of the call, Sanders stated that his campaign was not suspended, but that he expected Clinton to emerge as the nominee following the convention. Overall, the conference call represented the most in-depth look regarding Sanders' motivation in endorsing Clinton prior to the convention. No portion of the call hinted or suggested that his endorsement was due to tacit threats or coercion with respect to negotiated agreements between the campaigns. A second portion of the rumor held that Sanders was heading into a contested convention having endorsed his rival, just like FDR before him. Rumors to that effect didn't specify when or under which circumstances Roosevelt made such an endorsement before going on to win the nomination (if a year was cited for this occurrence, it was typically 1932). A 2007 New York Times article about FDR's 1932 convention win did demonstrate many parallels to the contest between Clinton and Sanders: article In 1932, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee was firmly in the hands of Al Smith loyalists. Convention rules required a two-thirds majority for nomination, and the partys last three presidential candidates  James Cox of Ohio, the Wall Street lawyer John W. Davis and Al Smith  in addition to House Speaker John Garner and Senate minority leader Joe Robinson, were on record supporting the stand-aside economic policies of the Hoover administration and the ill-conceived and exorbitant Smoot-Hawley tariffs on imported goods. Roosevelt was an outsider. Serving his second term as governor of New York, he could not even count on the solid support of the Empire States delegation at the convention ... all of F.D.R.s rivals were from the pro-business, hard-money, establishment wing of the Democratic Party and decried the possibility of government intervention to revive the economy. Let natural forces take their course, as free and untrammeled as possible, said Governor Ritchie. Modern society, acting through its government, said F.D.R., owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation or dire want of any of its fellow men and women who try to maintain themselves but cannot. The conservative wing of the Democratic party was aghast. I will take off my coat and fight to the end against any candidate who persists in any demagogic appeal ... setting class against class and rich against poor, rasped Al Smith. However, a substantial difference existed between Roosevelt in 1932 and Sanders in 2016. In addition to facing a three-way runoff requiring a two-thirds majority, Roosevelt (unlike Sanders) went into the convention with a majority of delegates (but no superdelegates, as that concept was not introduced until 1984): superdelegates 1984 When the convention opened on June 27, Roosevelt held a clear majority of delegates but was still 100 votes shy of the two-thirds required for nomination. If the establishment forces could deny F.D.R. a first-ballot victory, they might deadlock the convention and force a compromise choice. The Democratic partys two-thirds rule was the nemesis of presidential front-runners, and in the eyes of the partys old guard, Roosevelt was ripe for a fall. Nevertheless, F.D.R.s majority gave him control of the convention. His candidate for presiding officer, Sen. Thomas Walsh of Montana, was elected, and the credentials of three pro-Roosevelt delegations (Louisiana, Minnesota and the Virgin Islands) were accepted. No portion of that article mentioned Roosevelt "endorsing" his rival, merely tensions between "establishment" Democrats and an "outsider" candidate. Another article described aspects of the nominating process with which Clinton had more in common with Roosevelt than Sanders did: The vote was split enough to guarantee a brokered convention; FDRs camp arrived in Chicago with a majority of delegates but not enough to guarantee him the nomination. Given FDR's majority of delegates and votes, it was exceedingly unlikely he at any point endorsed either of his rival candidates (of whom there were two). Moreover, journalism and political news operated far differently in 1932 than 2016, making an "endorsement" tendered by FDR for a rival far less relevant than in the era of social media. It was true Sanders in some respects evoked Roosevelt's position at the contested convention of 1932, but the material difference between Sanders in 2016 and FDR in 1932 boiled down to a majority of delegates. (We contacted archivists at the FDR Presidential Library & Museum for confirmation that Roosevelt did or did not endorse a candidate in 1932 prior to winning what was a hotly contested convention. An individual with whom we spoke indicated that detailed information was not to hand, adding that an archivist would look into the claim and respond to our query.) In short, it isn't precisely clear why Sanders opted to endorse Clinton weeks before the convention without suspending his campaign. Many Sanders supporters maintained that the DNC or Clinton campaign threatened to rescind platform promises had Sanders not endorsed, but the senator made no such claim himself in a 12 July 2016 delegate conference call. During that call, Sanders did urge all delegates to appear in Philadelphia and vote for him on the first ballot. As for claims that Sanders (like FDR before him) was heading into a contested convention after endorsing a rival, there was scant truth to that claim. FDR headed into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, prior to the advent of superdelegates. While FDR needed a hard-won two-thirds majority to seize his nomination, he also started with more delegates than his competitors. And the process of formally endorsing a rival didn't appear to be exceptionally relevant (if at all common) in the 1932 presidential nominating process.  Cillizza, Chris.  "Heres What Bernie Sanderss Hillary Clinton Endorsement Is Really About."
  Washington Post.  12 July 2016. Onion, Rebecca.  "The Art of The New Deal."
  Slate.  31 March 2016. Smith, Jean Edward.  "F.D.R.s Rough Road to Nomination."
  The New York Times.  14 May 2007. Caucus99Percent.  "Last Night I Spoke to Ashley Wolthuis, Bernie Delegate Behind Claim Sanders Was Coerced to Endorse Hillary."
  13 July 2016. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: 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 December 2020, as states certified their election results and confirmed that Democratic candidate Joe Biden had won the U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump continued to push baseless claims that the election was "rigged," "stolen," or marred with widespread voter fraud.  voter fraud On Dec. 9, Trump furthered this false narrative by claiming on social media that his election loss was an historic oddity in that no other candidate had even won the states of Florida and Ohio but still lost the general election: claiming  As we pointed out in an article at the time, Trump was wrong. Precedent did exist for a candidate's losing an election while winning both Florida and Ohio, namely Richard Nixon in 1960, who -- despite capturing those two key states -- was defeated by Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy. article The following day, Trump doubled down on his erroneous claim, moving the goal posts by this time asserting that no previous presidential candidate had won the states of Ohio, Florida, and Iowa and "even come close to losing an election" -- as Trump himself did in 2020:  But Trump was wrong again, for the very same reason. Nixon won all three of those states in the 1960 general election but nevertheless still lost the presidency to Kennedy:  Like Nixon 60 years earlier, Trump won Florida, Ohio, and Iowa during the 2020 election, but he fell short of the 270 electoral college votes required to secure the presidency. Trumps electoral college total of 232 votes was slightly better than Nixons 219, but they simply werent enough compared to Bidens 306. Women: Youve come a long way, but still have a ways to go, according to the National Womens Law Center.The NWLC revisited the gender wage gap debate last month, citing recently released federal statistics showing the difference between the earnings of men and women in the United States. Using the data, the organization devised a state-by-state ranking of womens median earnings compared with mens.In every state, women are paid less than men, the NWLC said in a Sept. 21 news release about its analysis. The liberal-leaning advocacy organization for womens issues also cited the national gender wage gap showing that women are paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to men.The organizations leaders are using the analysis to push Congress to enact the Paycheck Fairness Act to address the disparity. That legislation -- sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and supported by the Obama administration -- is intended to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963: proposed guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with a goal of eliminating inequities. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives in January 2009 but failed twice in the Senate, in November 2010 and in June 2012.The gender wage gap issue has been studied for years and has been targeted through legislation including the Equal Pay Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Still, the NWLC statement about all 50 states seemed broad. Was there the possibility that in at least one state the wage gap either didnt exist or favored women? And what factors were considered to determine the gap?The two most common sources for this type of gender wage data are the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. NWLC used data from the Census Bureaus 2011 American Community Survey, released last month, to calculate wage gaps in each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.Using the Community Surveys statistics, the NWLC calculated the wage gap for each state as the ratio of female and male median earnings for full-time, year-round workers. (The Community Survey classified full-time, year-round workers as those being 16 years old and over and who usually worked 35 hours or more per week.) The wage gaps are presented as the number of cents women are paid for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. Using this methodology, the organizations statement is accurate.For example, Georgia ranked 13th out of the 50 states and Washington, D.C., in order of the highest wage gaps by jurisdiction. In Georgia, the wage gap was 80.7 percent, meaning that for every dollar a man earned, women earned just under 81 cents. Georgia males earned $43,902 and women earned $35,438 annually, a difference of $8,464.In that ranking, Washington, D.C., fared the best, with women making about 90 cents for every dollar men make. In Wyoming, where the wage gap was the largest, women earned 66.6 cents for each dollar earned by men.The NWLC analysis also includes the often-used statistic that the national gender wage gap is 77 percent, or more clearly: For every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 77 cents. The national wage gap calculated by the organization is based oncensus datathat  tracks full-time, year-round worker wages regardless of occupation.PolitiFact has examinedwage disparityclaimswith varying outcomes. Supporters of wage gap legislation typically cite the 77-cent figure without clarifying that the gap does not take into account other factors that could influence the figure, including occupation, employment longevity and education. The census data shows the widest gap, but other data, including hourly wages tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, yields smaller differences. UsingBLS data, women are paid 86 percent of the median hourly wages of men.So, does the NWLCs claim hold up? Based on Census Bureau data, it does appear that women are paid less than men in every state and Washington, D.C. In considering other data and influences, the wage disparity amount, specifically the national wage gap, is smaller, but still exists.We rate it True. On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention Since the 2020 elections, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has attackedU.S. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, for allegedly engaging in business practices by means of which Hunter allegedly benefited from his father's position. But just a few years ago, according to an internet rumor, Carlson was asking for the younger Biden's help in getting his son into college. attacked A meme going around claims that an email shows Carlson thanking Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown University on behalf of his son, Buckley.  This claim is accurate. In 2014, when Joe Biden was serving as vice president, Carlson and his wife, Susie,reached out to Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown University. Their email communication was revealed through forensic analysis of a laptop once owned by Biden that he had purportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The laptop was obtained by Trump's then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and its contents pushed out to the New York Post in 2020. The correspondenceon Biden's hard drive, a copy of which was also in the possession of the FBI, was largely used to investigate his overseas business dealings during his father's time in the White House, but also have illuminated more about the Carlson-Biden relationship. reached out revealed laptop once owned by Biden correspondence The emails were given to The Washington Poston a hard drive by activist Jack Maxey, who received it from Giuliani. The Washington Post revealed the details of Carlson's and Biden's communication in May 2022, and was able to confirm with the help of forensic analysis and interviews with people familiar with the communications that this and other emails on the hard drive were real. The Washington Post So what did Carlson actually say? The Post shared an image of a few of the emails in which he thanks Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown "on Buckley's [his son's] behalf." He added, "So nice of you. I know it'll help." The Post Image via Washington Post Carlson's wife wrote to Biden in 2014: "I realize you don't really know Buckley. Maybe you could meet or speak to him and he could send you a very brief resume with his interests and grades attached." She also wrote: "Tucker and I would be so grateful if you could write a letter or speak to someone in the Georgetown Admission's Office about Buckley." Biden wrote back that he would be honored to help. "I will do anything you would like me to do," he said. Carlson described his son's interest in squash and fly fishing and wrote, "He loves Washington for all the right reasons, I think, and really wants to go to school here." When Biden agreed to write a letter for Buckley, Susie responded with, "Tucker and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. Always!" Carlson admitted that he was once close with Biden in a phone interview with the Post. He said: "Hunter Biden was my neighbor. Our wives were friends. I knew him well. I talked to him many times about addiction, something I know a lot about. And I've said that. I think that Hunter Biden is an addict and that's why his life is falling apart, and I feel bad for him. I've said that many times, and I mean it." admitted He refused to discuss the emails, however, pointing (with apparent irony) to claims that the timing of the laptop's emergence in 2020 had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Previously, Carlson had dismissed and mocked claims of a Russian disinformation campaign as an effort by the establishment and tech giants to protect Joe Biden's 2020 election campaign. It is unclear if Biden ended up writing a letter, but Carlson's son did end up going to the University of Virginia. refused "I can't confirm these emails. The emails that you're referring to were described by our intel community as Russian disinformation," he said. He added that he could not verify the emails as he did not have access to the account. said Hunter Biden declined to comment to the Post. Since 2020, Carlson has regularly skewered the younger Biden on his show, accusing him of getting "lucrative jobs  because he had an important father." skewered He did say there were certain lines he would not cross, pertaining to the laptop. In October 2020, he said: "Much of the material on the laptop is of limited relevance to the public. [...] And by the way, if we're being honest, some of the exchanges between Hunter Biden and his father, and they are on there, too, reveal that whatever you say about them, Joe Biden really loves his son, and they're touching." But following the 2020 election, Carlson's anti-Hunter Biden rhetoric grew, and he even poked fun at his addictions in an October 2021 segment:"So again, let's say you were a crackhead through your 40s, made a lot of pornographic videos mostly of yourself, your genitals covered in M&Ms, and then once you got to your 50s, decide, 'Hey, I want to be Andy Warhol. You probably couldn't do it unless your dad happened to be the president, and that's how Hunter Biden pulled that off." grew "A Look at the Time Tucker Carlson Asked Hunter Biden for a Favor." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/look-time-tucker-carlson-asked-hunter-biden-favor/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. Pengelly, Martin. "Tucker Carlson Tried to Use Hunter Biden to Get His Son into Georgetown." The Guardian, 20 May 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/19/tucker-carlson-hunter-biden-georgetown-emails.Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. officially announced announcement On Aug. 2, 2015, the Facebook page "Tough cookie parenting" shared a seeming movie poster image in a post reporting that a sequel to the popular 1993 Disney comedy horror film "Hocus Pocus" was in the works: shared movie poster image   Social media response to the "Hocus Pocus 2" rumor was unusually strong, and the image was shared several hundred thousands of times in just 24 hours. While not initially considered a massive success, "Hocus Pocus" eventually reached the status of cult classic, and Facebook users were clearly excited about the prospect of developments in the production of "Hocus Pocus 2" (a project that has inspired years of rumors). cult classic years However, the Facebook page responsible for the spread of revived "Hocus Pocus 2" rumors published a subsequent Facebook comment admitting that the claim was not based on any new, credible, or substantiated developments: "I'm not for sure, but there's talk. They have a Facebook page... but ya know... man, I hope it's real ..." admitting Moreover, the user didn't provide a link for the Facebook page she referenced (nor any other information to indicate the rumor was based on any new information). Some users linked to a July 2, 2014, IMDb post (that appeared to be user-submitted) titled "Updated: Hocus Pocus 2: Rise of the Elderwitch Official," which claimed: post Well then. We cannot say that we saw this one coming. The Tracking Board is reporting that a sequel to the Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy comedic witch flick from 1993, Hocus Pocus, is officially on its way. Read on for the first details. The original cast is not likely to be coming back. Allison Shearmur Productions has signed to produce Hocus Pocus 2: Rise of the Elderwitch. Tendo Nagenda and Jessica Virtue are executive producing at Disney. That rumor (which maintained that none of the original cast members would return for the purported sequel) was swiftly debunked in a July 2, 2014, Deadline article titled "Disney Developing Witch Pic with Tina Fey  But It's Not Hocus Pocus 2'": article Hocus shmocus: Disney is in early development with Tina Fey on a supernatural-themed feature, but a knowledgeable source tells me its not the Hocus Pocus sequel thats being wrongly buzzed about all over town. The film, currently known as Untitled Witch Project, will be produced by Fey and Cinderella producer Allison Shearmur in whats described as falling in the vein of Ghostbusters, with 30 Rock Golden Globe winner Fey also attached to star. Sorry to break it to fans of the 1993 Bette Midler horror-comedy: No Hocus Pocus 2 project is currently in the works at the Mouse House  yet. Stay tuned to see if the nostalgic wave of online buzz conjures a return for the Sanderson Sisters. In November 2014, "Hocus Pocus" star Bette Midler fielded multiple questions about the possibility of "Hocus Pocus 2" during a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything). Midler herself expressed both willingness and a strong interest on her part (as well as that of co-stars Kathy Najimy and Sarah Jessica Parker), but definitively stated that Disney had thus far not reciprocated it. Reddit AMA Questions about "Hocus Pocus 2" were so numerous that Midler edited her original post to disseminate the following message to eager fans: Update: Inundate the Disney company, because I have canvassed the girls and they are wiling [sic] to do it, but we have no say in it, so if you want a HOCUS POCUS 2, ask the Walt Disney company. You have been SO adorable. This has been most enlightening. SISTAHS! So while interest in a "Hocus Pocus" sequel remains strong, as of 2015 "Hocus Pocus 2" was not in production. Update: On Dec. 12, 2020, Snopes staff updated this story after Disney officially announced a sequel to "Hocus Pocus." The claim for this story was altered to more specifically focus on the fake movie poster. On Aug. 10, 2021, a tweet claimed to show an abandoned mansion previously owned by the rapper Nelly. tweet Nelly The paid Twitter ad in question was highly misleading. Nelly never owned the property in the picture.   Readers who clicked the ad were led to a story about Nelly's real abandoned mansion, which was very different than what was seen in the Twitter ad. The article lasted a staggering 81 pages and showed multiple photographs that appeared to have been plucked from various YouTube videos and other websites. article According to Realtor.com, the real and perhaps at one time abandoned mansion that Nelly once owned is located in Wildwood, Missouri. It's located just outside of St. Louis, and did not appear in the ad above. The home showed as a pending sale in mid-August 2021. The mansion has six bedrooms and 6.5 baths and covers 10,799 square feet. The asking price was $599,000. According to Realtor.com https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/17329-Hidden-Valley-Dr_Wildwood_MO_63025_M79539-41672 The property history showed that the home was first purchased for an unknown amount of money on April 14, 1994. It was then listed for $2,650,000 in 2001 and then $2,499,000 in 2002. It sold on Sept. 4, 2002, again for an unknown price. It's not known when Nelly's former mansion was abandoned and emptied of all its contents. This video from the Living St. Louis YouTube channel shows the abandoned mansion when snow was falling in February 2021: video Living St. Louis YouTube channel  It's unknown if the current pending sale will go through successfully. According to the Freaktography website, the picture in the ad that showed a much larger building was taken in Northern Ontario. It was "built by a Canadian forest industry company." Work began in 2005. It was intended to be used as "an office complex, living quarters and a showcase" for the company's products. Freaktography reported that construction was abandoned after a "strong downturn in the global economy." Freaktography website https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kPjeYI478&t=89s In sum, a misleading ad on Twitter claimed to show Nelly's abandoned mansion. In reality, the impressive picture was clickbait and had nothing to do with the rapper. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019.