Rebel Wilson Did Not Endorse ACV Keto Weight Loss Gummies
In July 2022, scammers used actor Rebel Wilson's image and likeness without her authorization, adding her to their fraudulent roster of celebrities who supposedly endorsed CBD gummies, apple cider vinegar (ACV) keto gummies, and weight loss diet pills. One specific product that Wilson supposedly gave her blessing to was Simpli Health ACV+Keto Gummies, according to a number of fake "reviews" that showed up in Google News search results. In reality, these "reviews" were paid sponsored content articles. Wilson never endorsed any of these products, nor did a number of other celebrities whose names we found alongside hers. Google News search results sponsored content Sometime during the month of July, Wilson showed up in a fake article on feronia4.top/chensang3365, a website that scammers had designed to look just like People.com. In reality, the scammers simply copied the design of People.com in an effort to fool potential victims into believing it was a legitimate news website. Wilson  The fake People.com article showed the headline, "Oprah Winfrey Considers Break from Fame to Focus on New Business Venture that's Helped Her and Millions of Women Melt Body Fat and Get Ripped in Weeks." It falsely claimed that Winfrey and Wilson had endorsed either CBD gummies or apple cider vinegar keto gummies. We previously reported about Winfrey's named being used in these kinds of scams without her authorization. Winfrey previously reported Farther down in the fake article, it showed an Instagram picture comparison that Wilson supposedly posted on Dec. 24, 2020. However, the caption had been doctored. In the post, she supposedly said, "ACV is the REAL DEAL!" Wilson never made this post, nor did she ever say that apple cider vinegar contributed to her weight loss.  The same fake People.com article that was created by scammers falsely claimed that Kelly Osbourne, Rachael Ray, Melissa McCarthy, Christina Aguilera, Blake Shelton, and Wendy Williams also endorsed apple cider vinegar keto gummies. Blake Shelton apple cider vinegar Women's Health previously reported about Wilson's real weight loss journey. One reason she decided to lose 80 pounds was to help her chances with fertility. According to the story, she contributed her weight loss to exercise and a high protein diet, not apple cider vinegar or CBD or keto gummies. She also once posted to her Instagram Stories that she "NEVER endorsed any diet pills or magic weight loss pills," saying that she didn't "want anyone to get scammed." reported CBD keto In sum, no, Wilson never endorsed Simpli Health ACV Keto Gummies or any other similar CBD, keto, or apple cider vinegar products. Liles, Jordan. Blake Shelton Allegations and CBD Gummies Page Are Misleading. Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blake-shelton-allegations-cbd-gummies/. ---. Did Oprah Winfrey Endorse Whoopi Goldbergs CBD Line? Snopes.com, 15 Dec. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winfrey-goldberg-cbd/. ---. Did Oprah Winfrey Suffer a Tragedy and Endorse Keto Weight Loss Gummies? Snopes.com, 12 May 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprah-winfrey-tragedy-keto-gummies/. Nied, Jennifer, et al. Rebel Wilson, 42, Says That Her Weight Doesnt Define Her In Vacay IG Post. Womens Health, https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a30811784/rebel-wilson-weight-loss/.
As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016. In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled In mid-February 2019, social media users shared a meme containing a fabricated quote seemingly attributed to newly elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York:   We found no record U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez made that remark or said anything that could reasonably be paraphrased as such. The faux quote also encapsulated the mistaken belief that the Democrat representing New York's 14th Congressional District was solely responsible for "chasing" Amazon out and driving them to cancel their plans to establish a second headquarters in that area.  In late 2018, reports emerged that New York state and city officials, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, were aggressively lobbying the Seattle-based, retail-and-delivery giant to open a second headquarters ("HQ2") in New York. But that news also spurred public backlash over New York's proposal to offer $3 billion in publicly funded incentives and subsidies to Amazon. reports $3 billion Although Ocasio-Cortez was a vocal opponent of the HQ2 project, many other local and state legislators and residents were also opposed to the plan. For example, speaking to the crowd at a 14 November 2018 protest, New York City Councilman Jimmy van Bramer criticized the proposal, saying: "When Jeff Bezos needed $3 billion, the governor and the mayor found it sure damn quick. The governor and the mayor conspired secretly to cut a deal with Jeff Bezos to the exclusion of everyone else." criticized Furthermore Long Island City falls into the 12th Congressional district and is represented by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, not Ocasio-Cortez. Criticism of the Amazon deal continued to grow in New York, and after a 30 January 2019 City Council meeting, Curbed New York reported the proverbial welcome mat was gone: "Council members blasted the officials with a laundry list of concerns including Amazons union opposition, its investment in the city, and accusations that city and state officials failed to accurately calculate the costs of bringing the conglomerate to Long Island City." Residents and activists began sharing critical social media posts using the hashtag #noAmazonNYC: Dozens of people here in Queensbridge Houses this morning. People are joining a canvassing blitz against Amazon all across Queens  from Flushing to LIC. Our neighbors are here to let Amazon, our city + state governments know that, QUEENS IS NOT FOR SALE! #noAmazonNYC pic.twitter.com/EPMd6toZeW #noAmazonNYC pic.twitter.com/EPMd6toZeW  PrimedOut NYC (@PrimedOutNYC) February 9, 2019 February 9, 2019  On 14 February 2019, Amazon announced they were no longer planning to build HQ2 in Queens, blaming the decision on "a number of state and local politicians [who] have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City." announced In an op-ed column published a few days later, de Blasio reversed his previous support for the retail giant, slamming their decision to suddenly back out of New York: op-ed column There was a clear path forward. Put simply: If you dont like a small but vocal group of New Yorkers questioning your companys intentions or integrity, prove them wrong. Instead, Amazon proved them right. Just two hours after a meeting with residents and community leaders to move the project forward, the company abruptly canceled it all. Although Ocasio-Cortez made no secret of her opposition to Amazon's opening a location in her district, she was not the only such critic, and it is difficult to imagine such a complex deal would have been scrapped solely because of her opinion. Ultimately, it was a groundswell of opposition from residents and other legislators that "chased" Amazon out of New York. Hess, Abigail.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Amazon Abandoning Its Plans for a New York Headquarters Proves 'Anything Is Possible.'"
  CNBC.  14 February 2019. Giridharadas, Anand.  "The New York Hustle of Amazons Second Headquarters."
  The New Yorker.  17 November 2018. Amazon.  "Update on Plans for New York City Headquarters."
  14 February 2019. Plitt, Amy.  "Amazon HQ2 and NYC: A Timeline of the Botched Deal."
  Curbed New York.  18 February 2019. De Blasio, Bill.  "The Path Amazon Rejected."
  The New York Times.  16 February 2019. Soper, Spencer.  "Amazon Scraps Plan to Build a Headquarters in New York City."
  Bloomberg.  14 February 2019. Updated to note that Long Island City is in the 12th congressional district, which Ocasio-Cortez does not represent. On Dec. 20, 2020, the person who controlled the @TeddyFeed Twitter account created a tweet using Twitter Ads. The first of two pictures in the tweet showed actress Rebel Wilson during a 2015 appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon." The second photograph purportedly showed her years before in college wearing a crop top and ripped jeans. The tweet said, "Rebel Wilson Was Stunning In College," and appeared to compare her weight over time: tweet appearance   However, the second photograph in this tweet did not accurately depict Wilson's change in weight over time, nor did it show Wilson at all. The woman in the second picture was British model Iskra Lawrence, photographed by Frank Lewis with startraksphoto.com. startraksphoto.com   The owner of the @TeddyFeed Twitter account paid to advertise the misleading tweet. We confirmed that the ad was still running as of Jan. 20, 2021. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on TeddyFeed's website with the headline: "Unrecognizable Celebrities Who Completely Ruined Their Looks." The story spanned more than 30 pages. Wilson appeared on the final page with nothing but a picture comparison. No words accompanied her page to describe the photographs or her college days. In the past, Wilson shared a real photograph from her 2009 college graduation. She attended the University of New South Wales. real photograph The misleading advertisement from the @TeddyFeed Twitter account appeared to be comparing Wilson's weight over the years. The story on the TeddyFeed website was last updated on Dec. 20, 2020, (according to page source code). It completely omitted recent news. On Dec. 1, 2020, nearly three weeks before the TeddyFeed website's story was last updated, NBC's "Today" show published an article about Wilson's weight loss journey. It reported that the actress had lost 60 pounds: article She started calling 2020 her "year of health" in December 2019 and spent the past 12 months losing weight and getting healthy  reaching her "goal weight" in late November. goal weight Wilson said she'd been getting so many questions about her wellness journey that she decided to do a sit-down Instagram Live on Tuesday night. Instagram Live "I was determined in 2020  the year of health  to actually fully change my whole entire lifestyle," she explained in the video. "So it meant not only, like, physically but mentally as well." Wilson posted to her social media accounts multiple pictures and videos that showed a change in her weight. These photographs and videos were at odds with the 2015 "Late Night" appearance picture that was used by @TeddyFeed in the misleading Twitter ad:   For further reading, browse our past "Fauxtography" stories for reports on other misleading photographs. "Fauxtography" stories Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us U.S. Rep. Chris Collins said many Americans are already benefiting from the tax law Republicans in Congress passed in December. Collins used the claim to attack House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ina tweet. Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month, Collins tweeted. Despite what @NancyPelosi may say, this isnt crumbs for hardworking families in #WNY. Pelosi hadpreviouslycalled the tax benefits for middle- and low-income earners crumbs compared to what wealthy earners would receive. Republicans who support the tax plan disagree. They believe the tax bill provides significant relief for those workers. Collins, a Republican from suburban Buffalo, says those benefits have already started. Is he right? 4 million American workers President Donald Trumpclaimed3 million workers in the U.S. had already received a pay increase or bonus thanks to the tax bill at the end of January. PolitiFact rated that claim Mostly True. PolitiFact checked Trumps claim using data from Americans for Tax Reform, a group that advocates for lower taxes. The group supported the Republican tax bill. The group has a running list of companies that have announced bonuses or other benefits based on press releases and media reports since the tax law passed. At the end of January, at least 286 companies had announced benefits for more than 3 million workers. That number has since grown to more than 4 million workers from 408 companies,according tothe group. Those workers have gotten a bonus, pay increase, 401(k) hike, or utility rate cut because of the new tax law, according to reports. Thats not a small number of workers, but it accounts for less than 3 percent of the total employedpopulationin the U.S. Experts also told PolitiFact that some of the bonuses may have already been planned before the tax law to retain workers in a tight labor market. Larger paychecks The second part of Collins claim is based on a prediction from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The agency said in January that 90 percent of working Americans would have less federal tax withheld from their paychecks by the middle of February. Employers had until Feb. 15 to implement the lower federal tax rates. Were estimating that 90 percent of workers are going to see an increase in take-home pay because of the Tax Cuts [and Jobs] Act, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said. We reached out to the agency to see if its prediction panned out for February. We did not hear back. The actual share of workers with more take-home pay may be lower than 90 percent, according to Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. It is true that roughly 90 percent of Americans will get a tax cut this year as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Gleckman said. But many Americans will not see higher take-home pay because of other factors, like higher health insurance premiums. Higher premiums could exceed any increase in take-home pay. Premiums for individual and employer-sponsored health plans are expected toriseagain this year. An argument could be made that without the new tax rates, employees would have less money to pay for the higher premiums. More benefits from the law will be available during next years tax filing period. Thats when other provisions begin, like a higher standard deduction for filers. Our ruling Collins said Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month. The first part of Collins claim is correct based on a compilation of companies from a tax cut advocacy group. PolitiFact used the same list whenfact-checkingTrump on a similar claim. The second part of Collins claim is less clear. The Treasury Department predicted 90 percent of workers would have lower federal taxes in February. We dont know how many had higher take-home pay, Gleckman said. The statement is accurate but needed additional information. We rate it Mostly True. PolitiFact Republican guest columnist and former U.S. Rep. David Jolly said PolitiFacts fact-checking of this statement reveals the challenges confronted by disciplined fact-checkers to confine themselves only to a politicians specific comment, and the challenges equally faced by readers of PolitiFact whose opinions may often be arrived at through a broader analysis of additional facts not addressed in a single fact-checking column. Whether Rep. Collins assertion represents the full policy implications of the new law or whether it intentionally avoids the additional complexities of its impact, the fact is his statement was accurate. Read his critiquehere.Read more about our guest columnistshere. Wisconsin DemocratKathleen Vinehout, who is considering a run for governor in 2018, is sounding alarm bells about the state budget proposed by Republican Gov.Scott Walker-- who appears to be preparing to runfor a third term. In a Feb. 20, 2017interview, the state senator from Alma was asked by Wisconsin Public Radio talk show host Joy Cardin abouta columnshe had written about Walkers 2017-19 spending plan, which was released a couple of weeks earlier. The column highlighted what Vinehout -- who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to run against Walker in the 2012 gubernatorial recall election -- described as little known details about the budget. Cardin wanted to know why there would be a large increase in the number of people working for the Department of Administration. Thats a department, whose secretary is appointed by Walker, that works closely with the governors office. Vinehout replied by saying 485 positions would be added to the department in the category of supervisor and management, although in many cases, they would be people transferred from other departments. It really kind of takes the whole heart of state government -- especially as money flows in and out of agencies, and puts it into the Department of Administration, she added. Leaving aside Vinehouts view of the impact of the move, lets check whether Walker is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. The numbers The major functions of theDepartment of Administrationinclude helping the governor develop and implement the state budget and supporting other state agencies with centralized purchasing and financial management.The department alsocoordinates telecommunications, energy, and land use planning and community development, and it regulates racing, charitable gaming and Indian gaming. Walkers budget, which must be approved by the Legislature, would increase the departments positions in both years of the budget. The new total for the department would be 1,149 positions -- an increase of 485. And those positions are listed under the heading of supervision and management. But Bob Lang, director of the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Bureau, gave us some context about the 485: The majority of positions are held by existing employees who work for other agencies; these are not new state government positions. The majority would continue to physically work in those agencies, such as the Department of Natural Resources, but would become employees of the Department of Administration. Despite the designation in the budget document as supervision and management, the vast majority would not be supervisors or managers -- rather they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities such as employee recruitment and assistance, training, and payroll and benefits. Walker saysthe primary aim is to assign various administrative functions to a single entity, allowing individual agencies to focus on their core business missions and avoid redundant efforts on services that can be offered most effectively from a central entity. But its also true that if the Legislature goes along with Walkers plan, those employees would be more directly under his control. Our rating In sounding alarms about Walkers budget, Vinehout says the governor is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. Vinehout is correct on the number and, technically, they are in the category of supervisor and management. But while they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities, the vast majority are not actually in supervisory or management positions. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. In August 2017, rumors began to spread on social media that anti-fascists (a name often shortened to "antifa", which has become shorthand for a subset of protestors, usually clad in black and accessorized with bandannas and who are evidently unnerving bloggers and vloggers enough to be the pet topic of many an angry online rant) were planning extended unrest, riots, killing random citizens, or outright civil war beginning on 4 November 2017: August 2017 rumors began civil war   Depending on the source, "antifa" (always treated as though it is one homogenous, unified group) is purportedly planning extended riots, joint violence alongside Black Lives Matter and the Black Panthers, or a coup of the American government. The rumors seem to have originated from a video originally published on 30 August 2017 by an individual named Jordan Peltz. Peltz was widely (and incorrectly) identified as a "U.S. Marshal" in the video, which shows him wearing what looked like an official badge that is actually simply printed on his shirt. However, he is not actually law enforcement or military  Peltz instead evidently works as some combination of bail bondsman and bounty hunter. published (Claiming to be a United States marshal is very popular among the sovereign citizen set; those involved claim to answer only to their interpretation of common law and maintain they are not subject to other legal conventions, including getting driver's licenses and paying taxes. Local, state, and federal governments tend to disagree.) popular involved driver's licenses taxes On Instagram, Peltz describes his work as "#fugitiverecovery" and "#warrantservice": Instagram   Peltz published a video to "clear the air" on 27 September 2017 after reporter JJ MacNab, whose beat includes anti-government and sovereign citizen groups, wrote a thread on Twitter about how militia groups are being goaded into taking up arms against anti-fascists: JJ MacNab thread   Peltz responded by stating that his video, which gave an impression he was either predicting or calling for a November 2017 civil war, had been edited  although he didn't specify when, by whom, or why, despite millions of views and thousands of comments, he had remained unaware it had been altered until he saw reports: stating Finding out my video meant for me and few friends had been taken and edited. Only site I thought had it. @jjmacnab should have just msg me pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf @jjmacnab pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf  Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 24, 2017 September 24, 2017  https://t.co/JNR3co0QwhFollow-up from my Viral Video and clearing the air. Please, view my IG to see what else was falsely claimed https://t.co/JNR3co0Qwh  Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 28, 2017 September 28, 2017 On 29 September 2017, InfoWars published an article using Peltz's "civil war" wording: published Antifa is planning a new round of nationwide riots on November 4 as part of a plot to start a civil war that will lead to the overthrow of the Trump administration. Far-left militants plan to gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country in the hope of building momentum for civil unrest that leads to nothing less than domestic regime change. Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power, states a call to action on the RefuseFascism website. A longer screed posted on the Revolutionary Communist website makes it clear that Antifa is not prepared to wait for electoral change from Democrats, and will engage in a ferocious struggle, based on plans outlined in a book written by Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which is called The Coming Civil War. The page also cited "antifa" web sites, neither of which threatened violence. One provided a list of Facebook events, and the other read in its entirety: provided list read entirety ON NOVEMBER 4, 2017: We will gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country, at first many thousands declaring that this whole regime is illegitimate and that we will not stop until our single demand is met: This Nightmare Must End: the Trump/Pence Regime Must Go! Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power. Our actions will reflect the values of respect for all of humanity and the world we wantin stark contrast to the hate and bigotry of the Trump/Pence fascist regime. Our determination to persist and not back down will compel the whole world to take note. Every force and faction in the power structure would be forced to respond to our demand. The cracks and divisions among the powers already evident today will sharpen and widen. As we draw more and more people forward to stand up, all of this could lead to a situation where this illegitimate regime is removed from power. Spread the word and organize now. Be a part of making history. Dont let it be said that you stood aside when there was still a chance to stop a regime that imperils humanity and the Earth itself. Join in taking to the streets and the public squares day after day and night after night demonstrating that In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America. On November 4, 2017, we will stand together with conviction and courage, overcoming fear and uncertainty, to insist that: This Nightmare Must End: The Trump/Pence Regime Must GO! @AntifaChecker, a Twitter feed devoted to sniffing out phony "antifa" accounts, said it was not even aware of the call to action: yeah, we haven't heard anything about november 4  Antifa Checker (@AntifaChecker) October 1, 2017 October 1, 2017  An article in L.A. Weekly reported on both the freeway protest and upcoming events: article Their placards bore letters that spelled out "NOV 4 IT BEGINS." But they couldn't get enough volunteers to hold all 12 letters, so the tallest among them, the ones with the broadest wingspans, held up two letters each. The eight people weren't enough to block the on-ramp, so some motorists were able to swerve around. [Organizer and USC film professor Perry] Hoberman says the protest was conceived in part to get the word out about a Nov. 4 demonstration the group is planning. He says it's being modeled on the Women's March held in January at Pershing Square and that organizers hope the action will include an encampment in a public place,  la Occupy Wall Street, or at least a prolonged series of protests over several days. At one point on Tuesday they knelt on the freeway, which organizer Michelle Xai says was to acknowledge "black and Latino people who have been and continue to be murdered by police." A video of the protest uploaded to the group's Facebook page has more than 700,000 views. Many of the 24,000-plus commenters ask for more information about Nov. 4. Plenty of others object to the group's inconveniencing motorists, and some appear to endorse running them over. It is true that some groups linked to the antifa movement planned co-ordinated protests on 4 November 2017, but that had nothing to do with Peltz's video expressing disdain for the group in August 2017, nor did he appear to have any insider law enforcement knowledge, as he does not work as law enforcement himself. When a wave of rumors about 4 November anti-fascist protests began, his clip became part of the claim as "evidence" that a "federal officer" warned of coming violence. In reality, a list of apparently peaceful protests were paired with an older, unrelated video to create the impression of a looming threat. Peltz himself walked the claims far back after his video brought him unwanted attention and scrutiny. There was an uptick in the rumor's spread on 1 November 2017, when the groups advertised the 4 November 2017 demonstrations in the New York Times.  advertised Smith IV, Jack.  "The Far-Right Thinks A Violent Antifa Overthrow Is Coming Nov. 4, But The Truth Is Far Stranger."
  Mic.  2 November 2017. [Updated] 3 November 2017: Added information about advertisements for the planned protests which appeared on 1 November 2017 in the New York Times. In April 2020, a rumor started to circulate that CNN deleted from Google Play an old episode of "Larry King Live" that featured the mother of Tara Reade, the woman who accused presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault. accused The conspiratorial website Infowars, for instance, published an article titled "CNN Removes 'Larry King' Episode with Biden Accuser's Mother From Google Play Archive" and accused CNN of "running cover" for the Biden campaign.  Infowars CNN did not remove this episode from the Google Play streaming service. This false rumor is entirely based on incorrect assumptions made from looking at a single screenshot posted by Twitter user J.L. Hamilton. The image of the Google Play store (see below) showed a "Larry King Live" episode for Aug. 10 and Aug. 12, 1993, but not Aug. 11. In a tweet that was later deleted, Hamilton accused CNN of "actively colluding with the Biden Campaign to cover up evidence of Biden's sexual assault." screenshot   The above-displayed screenshot is genuine. If you go to the Google Play store, you will not find an episode of "Larry King Live" listed for Aug. 11, 1993. However, the claim that CNN removed the episode quickly falls apart when we take a look at the available information. Google Play Some of the confusion may stem from the fact that Google Play lists shows and episodes on its website that aren't actually available for viewing there. While Google Play lists hundreds of "Larry King Live" episodes, for instance, these episodes are not available to view on the service, but users can add them to their "watch list." A Google spokesperson told us that Google does this to gauge viewer interest. As of this writing, if you click on any episode of "Larry King Live" you will be greeted with the text: "This show is currently unavailable." This, of course, raises the question: Why would CNN remove an episode from a service where it was already unavailable for viewing?  Furthermore, although Google Play provides a list of episodes, they do not provide a description for each individual episode. The store instead provides a brief biography of Larry King and a short summary of the "Larry King Live" show. In other words, even if this episode had been listed, it would have made no mention of Tara Reade, which, again, would give CNN little incentive (if, that is, the unfounded notion that CNN was "running cover" for Biden was accurate) to remove the episode.  Shortly after this rumor went viral, Matt Dornic, head of CNN Communications, took to Twitter to state that "CNN did not remove anything," that the network did not have a distribution deal for "Larry King Live" with Google Play, and that Google did not source its listing through CNN:   The rumor that CNN was "running cover" for the Biden campaign is undercut by the fact that CNN drew attention to this episode during an April 25, 2020 segment. In the accompanying article, CNN wrote: CNN (CNN)Newly surfaced video from 1993 appears to feature the mother of Tara Reade, a woman who accused presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault, calling into a cable TV show to seek advice around the time of the alleged assault. In a "Larry King Live" segment that aired on August 11, 1993, on CNN, an unnamed woman calls in to the show with her location identified on the screen as San Luis Obispo, California. The show was about the cutthroat nature of Washington, DC, politics and media. "Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington?" she asks. "My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him." It isn't clear exactly how Google populates its list of "Larry King Live" episodes, but the list is not comprehensive. For instance, the first episode of "Larry King Live" aired on CNN back in 1985. The earliest episode listed on Google Play, however, is from 1987 (and features Donald Trump).  1987 We have yet to see any evidence that an Aug. 11, 1993, episode of "Larry King Live" was ever listed on Google Play. Since Google Play's "Larry King Live" catalog is missing several episodes, it's possible that no episode for this date was ever listed on (and therefore never removed from) Google's streaming service.  Lee, MJ.  "Biden's Accuser Says Mother Called Into 'Larry King Live' in 1993 for Advice After Alleged Sexual Assault."
  CNN.  25 April 2020. White, Jamie.  "CNN Removes Larry King' Episode With Biden Accuser's Mother From Google Play Archive."
  Infowars.  26 April 2020. Wulfsohn, Joseph.  "CNN 'Larry King' Episode Featuring Biden Accuser's Mother Disappears From Google Play Catalog."
  Fox News.  26 April 2020.