Dash Scam
FACT CHECK: Did a leaked audio recording capture actress and Fox News contributor Stacey Dash admitting Fox News hired her to attract "old, white dudes" who are "horny"?      Claim: A recently leaked tape captured actress and Fox News contributor Stacey Dash admitting Fox News hired her to attract "old, (horny) white dudes."          Example:   [Collected via Twitter, August 2015] https://t.co/nN17nRrePh they know what we like #RaceWars #OpieRadio #SherrodsTwitterArmy #Sirius #SiriusXM #StandupLabs #NYC #redeye #fnc https://t.co/nN17nRrePh #RaceWars #OpieRadio #SherrodsTwitterArmy #Sirius #SiriusXM #StandupLabs #NYC #redeye #fnc  Sherrod Small (@Sherrod_Small) August 3, 2015 August 3, 2015   Leaked Tapes Capture Stacey Dash Saying FOX Hired Her to Attract Horny, Old Men https://t.co/6NZMgaOzn0 via @Mannyotiko https://t.co/6NZMgaOzn0 @Mannyotiko  john osalvo (@jojokejohn) August 3, 2015 August 3, 2015   Leaked Tapes Capture Stacey Dash Saying FOX Hired Her to Attract Horny, OldMen https://t.co/TWPYK3tKgp pic.twitter.com/ebygMzv6TX https://t.co/TWPYK3tKgp pic.twitter.com/ebygMzv6TX  Manny Otiko (@Mannyotiko) August 1, 2015 August 1, 2015   Origins: On 1 August 2015, the web site The Business Standard News (tagline "BS News, keeping it real") published an article titled "Leaked Tapes Capture Stacey Dash Saying FOX Hired Her to Attract Horny, Old Men." article It claimed "conservative hero Stacey Dash" (a Fox News contributor who previously appeared in the film Clueless) was "just in it for the money," adding: The Business Standard News has acquired audio files of a conversation between Stacey Dash and her friend Rashika Johnson. Dash is heard on tape breaking down why she decided to come out as a conservative. Girl, its all about getting paid, Dash said. Im in my 40s going up against bitches half my age for roles. It was getting tough. This conservative gig is about cash money. I got a mortgage and kids to put through college. They hired me because I make old, white dudes horny, Dash told her friend. Take a look at the other women on FOX News, they all look like models. Hell, I get emails from old white men in the South, saying they never thought of f**king a black woman until they saw me. Ann Coulter told me there is good money to be made selling lame books to dumb rednecks, Dash said. Like her, I dont believe half the crap I say. Im an actress, give me a script and Ill give you a performance. However, The Business Standard News features the following disclaimer on its site, indicating its content (including the claim about Stacey Dash) is not intended to be taken seriously: disclaimer The Business Standard News is a satirical site designed to poke fun at the absurdity of the modern-day news cycle. The stories are outlandish, but reality is so strange nowadays they could be true.   In addition to the article about Stacey Dash, The Business Standard News featured similarly fabricated and "outlandish" pieces including "FOX News Hires Ex-Porn Star Jenna Jameson as Pundit," "GOP Serves Fried Chicken, Watermelon to Black Conservative Group," and "Bill Cosby Loses His Illuminati Membership, Parking Rights." Last updated:  3 August 2015 Originally published:  3 August 2015
Florida Gov. Rick Scott couldn't help but bring up the sale of the two state airplanes during his first State of the State speech on March 8, 2011. Scott told a joint session of the Legislature that, We ... sold the state airplanes as I had promised. On that, there's no question. On Feb. 11, Scott authorized the sale of two state airplanes to out-of-state buyers.Scott directed the Department of Management Services to accept two bids that were revealed earlier this week, according to apress release. This sale of two state-owned airplanes will net the state of Florida more than $560,000 in savings this fiscal year, and it will eliminate the annual operating and leasing costs of $2.4 million per year.Burdening taxpayers with these ongoing expenses is irresponsible and not a core function for government to meet the state's critical needs, Scott said. The planes are a2000 King Air 350and a2003 Cessna Citation Bravo. TheSt. Petersburg Timesdescribed the buyers on Feb. 12: A Mexican-American oil-field services firm, Transportes Internacionales Tamaulipecos, bid $1.9 million for the Cessna jet, and the nine-passenger King Air prop plane brought a bid of $1.77 million from JNC Aircraft Sales of Washington, D.C. Now, the only question is whether those sales were legal. Powerful Senate budget chief J.D. Alexander has questioned the sale of the planes, saying they first needed the consent of the Legislature. You can read the specifics ofAlexander's claim here. But on the merits of Scott's claim, he's right. The planes are long gone. We rate this statement True. One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. In mid-July 2018, a controversy erupted over a graphic artwork displayed in the window of a Portland art gallery that depicted the violent slitting of President Donald Trump's throat with a knife. Although the story was covered by multiple news organizations, many viewers caught wind of it only through encountering the artwork in undetailed social media postings:   This work truly did appear on the window of an art gallery in Portland. It was created by an artist known as "Compton Creep" and was displayed at the One Grand Gallery in Portland, Oregon, as part of a "Fuck You Mr. President" exhibit which opened on 13 July 2018: displayed opened An art gallery in Portland, Oregon, has been criticized for displaying a piece of artwork on the window that depicts President Donald Trumps throat being cut with a knife with the words F**k Trump inscribed underneath. The One Grand Gallery located at 1000 E Burnside Street in Portland, Oregon has a decal of Trump being slashed in the throat with a knife on its window. The photo of the artwork surfaced on Twitter on Tuesday, with many people slamming the gallery for posting the violent image. The "Fuck You Mr President" exhibit featured a number of works critical of President Trump, and the gallery explained in an open call for submissions via their Instagram page that profits from the exhibit would be split between Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center: explained CALL TO ARTISTS: we hate the president and want to let him know. Well be holding a group show for our Fuck You Mr. President exhibit in July and are looking for poster design submissions. Swipe right for show info, and email your submissions to us to info@onegrandgallery.com. All profit from the sales of the prints will be equally split between @plannedparenthood, the @aclu_nationwide, and the National Immigration Law Center. #fucktrump The gallery was particularly criticized for displaying the violent artwork in a window that faced onto a public street. The controversial decal is no longer on display in the gallery's window, having been removed after reports of violent threats: reports A Portland art gallery has taken down controversial image depicting the beheading of President Trump. One Grand Gallery on East Burnside had the image up in their window, but has since removed it after they say they received threats of violence. Gallery organizers said proceeds from this exhibition are going to non-profit groups that have lost funding under the Trump administration. A man identified as the founder of the gallery similarly told KPTV that the gallery had received "continuous threats" over the image: KPTV A Portland art gallery has taken down a window illustration showing a knife to the throat of President Donald Trump. According to a man who identified himself as the One Grand Gallery's founder, who refused to give his name and hid his face from a [TV] crew, the graphic image came down following continuous threats and a request from his landlord. The man also declined to explain why the gallery put the image up in a window, which faces a public street and sidewalk. Reporter Tyler Dumont: "But, I mean, you felt strong enough to put this out here?" Gallery Founder: "Yeah, but people that are responding, are responding with such anger and violence. People want the gallery to go up in flames with my family." KATU reported that in addition to the threats, the gallery also received a warning from the owners of the building stating that the display of the artwork was a violation of the gallery's lease: "The owner of the building [said] as soon as he found out about the image, he told the gallery they have 12 hours to remove the image or they were in breach of their lease." Artist Compton Creep said of his work that "It should provoke your mind, even if it makes you uncomfortable, it should be thought provoking ... It's just art man, if you don't like it, don't look at it. If you dig it, cool." Compton Creep Azar, Kellee.  "Portland Gallery Takes Down Controversial Trump Artwork from Window."   KATU-TV.  17 July 2018. Dumont, Tyler.  "Portland Art Gallery Takes Down Violent Trump Illustration After Threats."   KPTV.  17 July 2018. Perez, Maria.  "Portland Art Gallery Displays Poster with Donald Trump's Throat Slashed."   Newsweek.  17 July 2018. A purported quote from Jimmy Carter admonishing that "If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't!" sounds to many like something that former U.S. president would have said, as he has long exhibited a deep commitment to Christianity, has established himself as an international humanitarian (including founding the Carter Center, an organization dedicated to advancing human rights) and was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development":  However, as much as this sentiment might sound like something Jimmy Carter could have or would have said, he didn't originate the wording used here. The quote in the version presented in the above graphic appears to have originated with comedian John Fugelsang, who at one time presented a segment on Current TV's Viewpoint program entitled "Viewpoint's Revoltingly Fake Christian of the Week." The segment for the week of 29 May 2013 targeted Tennessee congressman Stephen Fincher, of whom Fugelsang said: John Fugelsang Congressman Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Tennessee, just took the Bible so far out of context he had to apply for a visa.Fincher is a fierce opponent of food aid for poor Americans. You know, like Jesus. He recently fought to cut $4.1 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If you only watch Fox, that means 'food stamps.' And thanks to the fine work of Fincher and his colleagues, 2 million working American families, children and seniors have already been cut off from food assistance. So during a recent House agricultural committee debate, he decided to show how Christian it is to turn your back on unemployed suffering Americans by quoting one of the favorite Bible passages of revoltingly fake right-wing Christians  2 Thessalonians 3:10  "anyone unwilling to work should not eat." Fincher and the GOP ... cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich. And its a free country. They're allowed. But if you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't. And that's why representative Fincher is our 'revoltingly fake Christian of the week'! 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. California Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has sharply criticized President Trump for his plans to divert military funds to pay for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump in February declared a national emergency on the border to access billions of dollars that Congress refused to give him to build the wall. One of Harris recent attacks caught our attention: She claimed the Trump administration was raiding money from the military pensions of service members to pay for the barrier. Members of our military have already given so much. Raiding money from their pensions to fund the Presidents wasteful vanity project is outrageous. Our servicemembers deserve better, Harris said on March 8 onTwitterandFacebook. Is the Trump administration really planning to raid military pensions? FactCheck.org, along with some social media users who commented on Harris posts, described her claim as misleading or wrong. We decided to fact-check her provocative statement ourselves. Background on Trumps national emergency declaration Democratic leaders have called Trumps emergency declaration a power grab, and some Republicans also said it sets a dangerous precedent. The move allows the president to transfer $3.6 billion from military construction projects to the wall, according to the White House. It also gives him the ability to tap $2.5 billion from drug interdiction programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement in February: The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available. The House and Senate voted this month to block the declaration. Trump vetoed the joint resolution shortly after. A bid to override the veto failed this week in the House. Sixteen states, including California, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trumps authority to divert funds for the border wall. Examining Harris claim To support her statement, Harris linked in her social media posts to a March 7 Associated Pressarticle. Reading just the headline -- Pentagon may tap military pay, pensions for border wall -- Harris claim seems mostly accurate. But the first paragraph describes the money as leftover funds, casts a different light. The Pentagon is planning to tap $1 billion in leftover funds from military pay and pension accounts to help President Donald Trump pay for his long-sought border wall, a top Senate Democrat said Thursday. The money is available because the Army missed a recruitment goal by 6,500 enlistees. Additionally, fewer soldiers opted to take financial incentives for voluntary early retirement, according to the article. The Pentagon plans to move the extra money to its drug interdiction account, freeing it up to spend on border barriers, the AP reported. Experts say claim misses the mark To further assess Harris claim of raiding pensions, we spoke with three experts on federal defense budgets. Each said the senators statement was inaccurate. Its off-base, said Todd Harrison, senior fellow at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization. He said the money is leftover in certain Army personnel accounts. Its a separate issue worth debating whether that money should be used for the border wall or should be used for other purposes within the military. But the fact that theyre moving money out of these accounts is not an indication that anyone is cutting military pay or cutting benefits or pension payments. Thats not the case. No military service members pension would be reduced, he said. Mark Cancian, who worked for the White House Office of Management and Budget on defense budget strategy during the Obama administration, agreed that Harris statement is wrong. The answer is, No. They are not raiding military pensions, Cancian said. Im sure the Army had some places they would have preferred to send that money. But they are not taking any money from pensions. Cancian is now a senior advisor with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Travis Sharp directs the budget program at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which provides independent defense budget analysis. He also said Harris statement is flawed. This is another example of there being a lot of confusion about what it means to cut something in the budget, Sharp said. Transferring money after an agency overestimated how much something would cost is not the same as a cut, he said. The Department of Defense has to budget in advance for things that are unpredictable, Sharp said. The money thats leftover is what the Trump administration is trying to reallocate. Does that constitute a cut? In my opinion, no. Thats not a cut. When the Pentagon has funds remaining in one account, it can reprogram the money to others, such as a health care or fuel accounts that have a budget shortfall, Cancian said. If that doesnt happen, Congress will rescind that money and use it for other purposes, Harrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: The AP reported that money is being transferred from a fund dedicated to pensions of armed service members. The President is trying to circumvent Congress who refused to give him funding for this wall by diverting resources from other military funds. The spokesperson would not say whether the senator stood by the original claim. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris claimed the Trump administration was raiding money from the military pensions of service members to pay for the wall. In reality, the Pentagon plans to move leftover pay and retirement funds that are available because fewer soldiers opted for an early retirement program and because the Army missed a recruitment goal by 6,500 enlistees. No service members would lose pay or retirement benefits as a result of the move, according to experts on federal defense budgets. The headline in the article Harris relied on did not make this clear. But its important for anyone, especially a public official, to read beyond a headline before making such a claim. The debate over whether the Trump administration should tap this money is a separate issue. Harris claim was off-the-mark. We rate it False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Harvard is offering tuition-free education to African-American students majoring in the sciences.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Greetings: A quick note about an exciting scholarship opportunity In case you know anyone who might be interested... Harvard University wants to get the word out the University has a massive science endowment for African American (High School Juniors/Seniors) who are interested in majoring in the sciences, Chem, Biology, Physics etc. A four year tuition free education at Harvard Univ. (regardless of parents income)! The professor to contact for more info. is:  Professor Gregory Tucci,tucci@fas.Harvard.edu617-496-4668. If you know any African American junior or senior students who excel and are passionate for the sciences please pass along this info  Origins:  This item promoting a "massive science endowment" that supposedly provides "four year tuition free educations" for African-American science students at Harvard has been circulating since at least mid-2009 and has been reprinted in a number of online bulletins and newsletters that publish information about educational opportunities.  Although Harvard does provide a number of financial aid opportunities that prospective students might qualify for, a completely tuition-free, four-year program for African-American students majoring in the sciences is not among them, according to the professor whose name, address, and phone number have been attached to this item: Thank you very much for your interest in financial support for students interested in the sciences at Harvard University.  Unfortunately the information you received regarding "four year tuition free education ... regardless of parent's income" appears to be a hoax.     Additionally, I am not involved in admissions or financial aid. Harvard has very generous financial aid support for all students who qualify on the basis of need.  On a very positive note, families with incomes below $60,000 need not contribute to the cost of sending their children to Harvard.   Further, families with incomes up to $180,000 with assets typical for the income level need not pay more than 10 percent of their incomes.  No student should be discouraged from applying to Harvard because of financial concerns.  The Financial Aid Office is always eager to work with talented students to make sure they receive the financial support that will make a Harvard education possible for them.  For more information, please visit the financial aid web site: https://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/, or call 617-495-1581. https://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/ Additional information:     Financial Aid Overview  (Harvard College)  Last updated:  27 March 2010 The Irish wolfhound,renowned for its large size,is a breed that has captured the hearts of many dog enthusiasts around the world. In September 2023, a photograph allegedly captured in 1902 and depicting what appeared to be such a wolfhound but instead sometimes calling it the "last giant Irish Greyhound" went viral on social media. (We should note there is no "Irish Greyhound" breed; however, greyhounds exist and can be found, among other places, at Ireland's famousracing competitions.) Irish wolfhound viral social media greyhounds racing competitions No sure if this belongs herebyu/Xconvik inmegalophobia No sure if this belongs here u/Xconvik megalophobia  Although some users claimed the in-question image was generated by AI, others were amazed at the dog's size. For instance, the image was posted on the AI Generated Nonsense Facebook page with the caption, "The last giant Irish grey hound." posted   We used Google reverse image search to track down the source of the image. One post from Sept. 3, 2023, shared on 9GAG,an online platform and social media website,read, "A good boy, the last giant Irish wolfhound in 1902." However, in the comments section we found a remark from the author's account that admitted the picture was created with Midjourney,a generative artificial intelligence (AI) program: image search post Hi, I'm op, I put in the tag AI. I made this with Midjourney. (@themaskedgypsi) themaskedgypsi We then found the image was originally posted on Aug. 31, 2023, on the Facebook group Cursed AI, by Antoine Jo. The group's name and description also indicated the picture was AI-generated: posted Beware, these creations may haunt your dreams and unravel your sanity. Step into the eerie world of AI-generated cursed art, where machines possess powers to create twisted and terrifying masterpieces. Join our community of art lovers with a taste for the strange and share your twisted creations. These disturbingly beautiful images crafted by AI will leave you questioning the very nature of technology and its place in our world. Enter at your own risk. Moreover, AI or Notand Illuminarty tools confirmed our findings. AI or Not Illuminarty   (AI or Not screenshot) If you don't want to be misled byAI-generatedimages and videos, you should read our tipshere. AI-generated here Claim:  Lockheed Martin is going to lay off 123,000 workers due to military downsizing but is not sending out layoff notices at the behest of the Obama administration.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] My son-in-law works at Lockheed Martin and we just found out that Lockheed is going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military.  This hit the Drudge report yesterday.  We are livid.  This is true! The law requires Lockheed to give 60-day notice to all to-be-fired employees within 60 days.  That drop dead date would be November 1st. Since this would be bad for the election, Obama has promised that our government would cover all Lockheed severance packages to fired employees if Lockheed would not release the names and locations of those losing their jobs until after the election! Origins:   In August 2011 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to resolve the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis and prevent the federal government from heading into default over its debt.  That piece of legislation identified $1.2 trillion in budget cuts to be made over 10 years and called upon Congress, through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "super-committee"), to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit by another $1.5 trillion (through revenue increases and/or spending reductions) by 23 November 2011.  If that committee failed to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan by the deadline, or if Congress failed to approve the committee's plan, then the legislation called for automatic, across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestration") to go into effect.   The super-committee did not agree on a deficit reduction plan, stating that "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," so unless and until lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, the sequestration budget cuts are set to take effect  with the 2013 budget.  Since those cuts, if they take place, may include large reductions in Pentagon spending, some defense contractors are anticipating that they may have to engage in significant layoffs of personnel in the upcoming year, and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, enacted in 1989, most employers with 100 or more employees are required to issue 60-day advance notification of mass layoffs. WARN When one such defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, announced on 1 October 2012 that it would abide by White House guidance not to issue WARN Act-mandated layoff notices to thousands of employees just before the November presidential election, Republican critics contended that President Obama was engaging in a partisan political ploy to protect votes in a key battleground state (Lockheed Martin has a large business presence in Virginia) at the expense of workers who might soon find themselves without jobs: contended U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement on Obama Administration guidance issued instructing defense companies and other government contractors not to issue mass layoff notices to their employees, as is required under the WARN Act, in anticipation of the $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur under sequestration on January 2, 2013: Today, President Obama put his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. The WARN Act exists to protect workers by providing at least 60 days' notice of layoffs from government contracting work.  But today, the Office of Management and Budget published guidance for the defense industry and other government contractors that they do not have to provide that notice now even though, under current law, $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur on January 2 are estimated to result in as many as 1 million lost defense jobs.  Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs. At issue is a Training and Employment Guidance letter issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on 30 July 2012, and reiterated in a 28 September 2012 memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), advising employers that the issuance of WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration was not required by law and would be a waste of resources because it is currently unknown which contracts might be affected by potential budget cuts and when the effects of those budget cuts might take place.  The DOL's letter also informed employers that if they followed the DOL's advice and refrained from issuing WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration, and they later had to engage in mass layoffs due to sequestration, the government would cover any legal costs they incurred as a result: letter memo Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable.  In addition, the sequester's impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted.  Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur.  Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown.  Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable.    The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable. DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors: In reaching this conclusion, DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers.  Despite DOL's guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration. To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resultingemployee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable. GOP critics maintain the legality of the DOL's advice is questionable and amounts to "giving contractors a free pass" in exchange for a "multi-billion dollar campaign contribution": As a result of the OMB guidance, the Department of Defense will have to allow companies to claim repayment for the salaries of workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost to the taxpayer that could be as much as $4 billion.  In addition, DOD will have to reimburse companies for any legal damages paid to workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost that is inestimable.  Facing intense lobbying by defense companies and other government contractors for financial protection if they agreed not to issue WARN notices, the Obama Administration is giving contractors a free pass and will have potentially stuck the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar campaign contribution. We also have questions regarding the legal authority of OMB to interpret the WARN Act as it has, and to obligate the Federal government to pay billions of dollars of potential claims from private contractors arising as a result of this interpretation. The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as recently as three days ago, called on the president to work with us to avert the looming threat of sequestration to our national security. Other labor officials contended that the DOL's advice to employers about implementation of the WARN Act was consistent with the law: William Gould, a Stanford Law School professor emeritus specializing in labor law and a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the Labor Department was correct when it said the possibility of sequestration-induced layoffs did not warrant Warn notices. "The courts have been very clear that mere conjecture does not trigger the obligation," he said. Rick McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, agreed. "The obligation to give notice arises once the employer believes or should have known that a mass layoff or plant closing is going to happen at a particular worksite. At this point, no one knows with any certainty [whether] layoffs will be taking place or not at a particular worksite," he said. Lockheed Martin never announced that it was planning to lay off 123,000 workers (a number which represents the entirety of the company's workforce).  What happened was that in June 2012 a Lockheed Martin official expressed frustration with the uncertainty of the sequestration issue and stated that if it weren't resolved soon, the company would have to send WARN Act notices to  the "vast majority" of their workers because they had received no guidance on the issue from the government and thus had no idea who might be affected: Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 workers that they're at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company's vice president of legislative affairs. Walters's comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that's trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013. Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base," Walters [said]. The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months' notice to workers facing layoffs. "We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect," he said. The layoffs, of course, won't all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors' bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts  along with the requirement of 60-day notice  provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November. Only a fraction of Lockheed's workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out. "We've wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like," Walters said. "But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB." (In a July 2012 memo, Lockheed Martin projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating  that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000.")  projected Ultimately, Lockheed Martin announced on 1 October 2012 that after "careful review of the additional guidance" provided by the government, they would not be issuing sequestration-related WARN notices this year:  announced For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration  the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending.  In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees.  We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions.  After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan.  The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.   We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry.  We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation's challenges. If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. Finally, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue: No one thought [sequestration] would happen. The idea was to design something ... that was so onerous that no one would ever let it happen. Of course, it did, because [Congress] couldn't reach agreement. They all believed that the supercommittee was going to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, so there would be no sequestration. Of course, the supercommittee failed and so the trigger went off, which has all of these very Draconian [budget] cuts. Last updated:  27 October 2012    Munsil, Leigh.  "Bob Woodward: Obama 'Mistaken' on Sequester."   Politico.  23 October 2012.    Pender, Kathleen.  "U.S. to Contractors: No Layoff Notices."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 October 2012.    Wright, Austin.  "Lockheed Martin Eyes Layoffs This Fall."   Politico.  24 June 2012. A Democratic candidate for Utahs U.S. Senate seat claimed Republican opponent Mitt Romney is using $1 million of leftover donations to his unsuccessful presidential run to finance his Senate bid. The former Governor of Massachusetts is taking yet another short cut to the Utah Senate Seat, Nickie Titus, campaign manager for Democrat Jenny Wilson, said in apress release. Mitt certainly does things his way  moves to Utah from California (and) uses a million of his presidential campaign dollars to finance his Utah senate race. It turns out Wilsons campaign is right: Romney is using $1 million from his failed presidential bid to fuel his Senate campaign. Experts told us this is common in politics, though the practice has come under criticism. Romneys failure to reach the White House in 2008 and 2012 is not without a silver lining. It elevated Romneys public stature, gave him staying power in Republican politics and left him with a substantial  and flexible  bankroll. Campaign finance rules have long allowed a candidate to hold on to surplus campaign funds indefinitely, said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at the group Public Citizen, a progressive consumer rights advocacy group. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act and Federal Election Commission rules, candidates can also make unlimited transfers of funds between campaigns, Holman said. It happens all the time, said Michael J. Malbin, the executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a campaign finance policy think tank. House members take their bankrolls to run for the Senate, senators to run for president. As long as the money was raised for a federal office under federal contribution limits, it's okay. Holman argued just because the practice is widespread doesnt mean its fair. He said the policy can create an uneven playing field and permits candidates to use funds in a way thats contrary to donors intentions. A donor may have supported Romneys presidential campaign against the Democratic nominee, but not support Romneys new campaign for Senate in the primary or general election, Holman said. Yet, under the law, Romney has the authority to use those donors funds without getting their approval. At the beginning of 2018,Romney for President, Inc., the nonprofit organization that supported Romneys failed 2012 presidential bid, had roughly $1.3 million cash on hand. On Feb. 5, the organization transferred $1 million to Romney for Utah, Inc., according to anFEC filing. To the chagrin of Romneys opponents, the transfer from Romneys presidential campaign to his Senate run comprises donations made mostly by non-Utah residents, according to theSalt Lake Tribune. The $1 million is indicative of what were seeing from Mitt Romney. Hes bringing in national money to make this a national-profile race, Wilson told theTribune. Im a Utahn running for Utahns. The April 15, 2018, FEC filing, which covered the first three months of the year, shows the organization also made smaller disbursements for consulting work, email services and bank fees. At the end of the reporting period, Romney for President, Inc., had $222,755 cash on hand. Wilsons campaign said Romney is using a million of his presidential campaign dollars to finance his Utah senate race. The nonprofit organization that collected money for Romneys 2012 campaign transferred $1 million to Romneys bid for Utahs Senate seat. We rate this True.