Vladimir Putin did not refer to Obama as foolish for his socialist policies.
On 15 February 2016, the Facebook page "The Original Wake Up People" posted a years-old memefeaturing a quote ostensibly uttered by Vladimir Putin:   This is not a real quote from the Russian president.The above-displayed quote has been circulating since 2009 in one form or another (usually in the form of a meme such as the above image) when it was originally published on the satirical web siteScooter's Report: published Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin haswarned the Obama administration against adopting further socialism, saying Russian historyclearly proves it is a recipe for failure. "Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history," saidPutin. "President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy." Scooter's Report, whichfrequently featured anti-Obama rhetoric, has adisclaimer on the web site that states, "Like I have to tell you: This isfictitious satire and any resemblance to persons, places, or events is coincidental." Putin has, however, addressed the responsibilities of businesses to the community in the past: addressed We need business to understand its social responsibility, that the main task and objective for a business is not to generate extra income and to become rich and transfer the money abroad, but to look and evaluate what a businessman has done for the country, for the people, on whose account he or she has become so rich.
On 19 May 2016 a Facebook user published a photograph and status update reporting that outlets of the Sonic Drive-In fast food chain were selling red tray keychains for $2 that entitled bearers to 99 Route 44 beverages for life: photograph  As is often the case with such high-value discount offers, the photograph rapidly spread outside the user's area and soon flooded Facebook nationally  with some viewers expressing skepticism about the information:  Posters to Sonic's Facebook wall regularly asked whether the claim promotion was real and why they had been unable to obtain the red tray keychain at their local Sonic outlets. Sonic corporate didn't respond to those questions, but an individual Sonic franchise operator replied to a customer's query to say: wall  According to that Sonic operator, the promotion was offered only by a small group of Sonic franchises in Texas. A manager at one of those "red tray" locations told us that the red tray keychains were only available at Texas Sonic locations in Tyler and Longview.  Similarly, 2017 saw the red tray promotion pop up at scattered Sonic Drive-In locations such as Princeton, West Virginia:  The Sonic promotion rumor and social media interest in it has spread confusion similar to that prompted by Wendy's Frosty key chains promotion, which costs $1 and enables purchasers to obtain one free Junior Frosty per Wendy's visit (but are good only for one year from date of purchase). Frosty key chains President Trump was widely criticized over Veterans Day weekend in November 2018 after he skipped an event at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France commemorating the 100th anniversary of the end of World War 1 due to inclement weather.  criticized   Social media users chided Trump for bowing out of the scheduled event, which was attended by other world leaders such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and French President Emmanuel Macron, sharing photographs of "real presidents" who had previously honored veterans while standing in the rain. chided real presidents President Trump took issue with this coverage, however, and on 13 November 2018 he took to Twitter to explain his absence (asserting that his helicopter couldn't fly because of the rain) and proclaim that he had delivered a speech in the "pouring rain" the following day but that the event was "little reported" by the "fake news": Twitter   President Trump's explanation for missing the memorial at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery might have been regarded as questionable, but President Trump truly did deliver a speech in the rain (although we'd quibble with the assertion that it was "pouring") at the American Cemetery of Suresnes, as NBC News reported: questionable reported President Donald Trump paid tribute on Sunday to Americans who fought in the two world wars, saying the nation is forever in their debt during a visit to a cemetery in France where more than 1,500 of them are buried. Its been a wonderful two days we spent in France, and this has certainly been the highlight of the trip," Trump said in remarks that capped a weekend in Paris where he and more than 80 other world leaders marked the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I ... Standing at the presidential podium under a steady rain without an umbrella, Trump joked to six World War II veterans about their enviable position keeping them dry. You look so comfortable up there under shelter as we're getting drenched, Trump said, drawing laughter from the crowd. Very smart people. You look like youre in very good shape, all of you, he added. I hope I look like that some day. America is forever in your debt.  The ceremony in Suresnes certainly drew less attention on social media than Trump's absence at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery the previous day did, but it isn't accurate to say that his visit to the Suresnes Cemetery was "little reported." In addition to the aforementioned NBC News report, Trump's speech was also covered by outlets such as CNN, USA Today, CBS News and Time magazine. CNN USA Today CBS News Time Despite this coverage, a number of social media users seemed surprised when they came across a photograph posted to Facebook by Dan Scavino, the White House Director of Social Media, which showed President Trump standing solemnly in the rain at a cemetery: Facebook   Social media users took to the comments section to claim that this image was fake and that Trump had been digitally inserted into the picture. While it's possible that Scavino applied some sort of filter to this photograph (Trump's outline is surprisingly crisp), a number of similar pictures can be found via news outlets such as NBC News and photography agencies such as Getty Images: NBC News Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Jackson, David.  "President Trump Blames Secret Service for Canceling Cemetery Trip in France."
  USA Today.  13 November 2018. Lee, Carol.  "Trump Pays Tribute to the Veterans and Alliances of Two World Wars."
  NBC News.  11 November 2018. Brinlee, Morgan.  "Trump Canceled a U.S. Military Cemetery Visit Due to Rain, and Twitter Was Not Impressed."
  Bustle.  11 November 2018. Belam, Martin.  "French Army Trolls Trump with Picture of Them Training in Rain."
  Guardian.  12 November 2018. Horton, Alex.  "Trump Skipped a U.S. Cemetery Visit Abroad. The French Army Trolled Him for Avoiding the Rain.
  The Washington Post.  12 November 2018. The Trump administration unveiled a one-page list of tax reform principles inspired by the theory that tax cuts can unleash enough economic growth to cover lost revenue. President George H.W. Bush famously derided this as voodoo economics, and present-day critics are no less dismissive of what they see as magical thinking by the White House. The Trump administration will say, 'Well, hey, tax cuts are going to create growth, growth is going to create revenue, that's going to offset all this deficit,' Rana Foroohar, a CNN economic analyst and Financial Times columnist, told CNN April 26. Well, there's no real evidence in the last 20 years that that has happened. We decided to investigate this claim. First, the big changes under the White House proposal: the business tax rate drops from 35 to 15 percent for both big and small corporations alike, personal income tax brackets go from seven brackets to three (10, 25, and 35 percent), and the so-called standard deduction -- the amount of personal income not subject to federal income tax -- will be doubled, while some other deductions are removed. Theres isnt much more detail than that, making it difficult to put a price tag on the proposal. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, or CRFB, attempted to analyze the one-pagers potential effect on the debt, making a lot of assumptions along the way. Their best guess, which was quickly eaten up by Trumps critics on TV, was an increase to the debt of $5.5 trillion, or somewhere between $3 trillion to $7 trillion. Theres other ways to offset tax cuts than economic growth: you can raise rates on other taxes, like through a tax on imports, as House Republicans want. Or you can limit tax breaks, cut spending, or do some combination of these, and its certainly possible the Trump administration will explore these options. AWhite House fact sheetby chief economic advisor Gary Cohn on April 26 did make a passing reference to nixing some tax breaks for the wealthy. But the administration has offered no specifics on paying for the cuts, and as ofApril 20Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was still insisting, The deal will pay for itself. So lets set aside for now the other ways the administration may seek to offset lost revenue from tax cuts. For Trumps tax cuts to pay for themselves, the economy would have to grow by $5.5 trillion, or roughly a sustained 4.5 percent, for the next 10 years, according to CRFB. Thats a mark that any president is unlikely to hit. Trump promised during the campaign to have4 percent growth per year.Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has since said thetarget is 3 percent growth. In reality, the average annual growth rate since 2001 has been 1.8 percent,according to Vox. Most experts we interviewed concurred with Foroohar that the idea that tax cuts could spur the level of growth needed is not realistic. One economist went further than Foroohar, noting that steep tax cuts may actually impede economic growth. Several experts cautioned that isolating tax cuts as the sole cause of whatever economic conditions are to follow is more than a little tricky, since good or bad economic conditions can coincide with tax cuts and affect federal revenue. Another caveat is that tax cuts can be manipulated to look as if theyre boosting growth when theyre really not -- asweve shownbefore. While tax cuts dont pay for themselves fully, tax cuts can generate some growth. For instance, take a 2005 study by the Congressional Budget Office that asked what would happen if Americans got a 10 percent income tax cut. Under CBOs most optimistic projection, nearly one-third of the tax cut would be offset by additional tax revenue over 10 years. (Well get to their pessimistic projection soon.) N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard University economist and former chairman of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, shared a similar view. A reasonable rule of thumb, in my judgment, is that about one-third of the cost of tax cuts is recouped via faster economic growth, Mankiw said. Edward Kleinbard, a professor of law and business at the University of Southern California, said smart corporate tax reform could stimulate the economy somewhat -- but at a net loss. A really well-designed corporate tax reform package, including a rate cut, would be accretive to growth, he said, but not enough to pay for any resulting large-scale deficits. So tax cuts can create some growth, according to the experts. But are there any historical cases of tax cuts producing so much growth they fully pay for themselves? I am not aware of any credible evidence (in the U.S.) over the last several decades of a broad-based tax cut paying for itself, said Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. I don't think this is at all controversial among actual economists. Kleinbard was similarly emphatic: There is no time in modern history where tax cuts could be said to pay for themselves. According to Kleinbard, the 1981 tax cuts triggered massive federal deficits and were largely reversed within three years. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was basically revenue neutral, he said, meaning tax cuts were virtually offset by spending cuts. He added that President Bill Clintons tax hike was followed by robust growth, while the George W. Bush tax cuts led to anemic growth. None of the experts interviewed cited evidence that tax cuts under President Barack Obama produced sufficient growth to pay for themselves either. On the contrary, theres some evidence that tax cuts can be a drag on the economy -- like the 2005 CBO study mentioned earlier. When the CBO studied the effects of a hypothetical 10 percent income tax cut for Americans, not all the projections were as rosy as the finding above. Under the CBOs most pessimistic projection, tax cuts would lead to a 3 percent increase in lost revenue over 10 years. Indeed, tax cuts can have a number of adverse effects that may actually impede growth, according to Kleinbard. One example is a phenomenon known as the crowding out effect. The basic idea is that tax cuts create deficits that cause the government to borrow more money and therefore enter deeper debt, which can make private sector borrowing more expensive. Our ruling Foroohar said, There's no real evidence in the last 20 years that growth from tax cuts has made up lost revenue. We searched high and low and found no economic experts who could point us to evidence of tax cuts fully paying for themselves. Neither the modern historical record (using fair benchmarks) nor government analyses we looked at supported the claim that tax cuts create enough growth to eventually offset lost revenue. On the contrary, theres evidence that tax cuts may actually hinder economic growth. We rate Foroohars statement True. Classic Disney cartoons have proved to be a consistent source of conspiracy theories, rumors, and urban legends. For instance, we've previously investigated claims that Winnie the Pooh was actually a girl (false), that the Seven Dwarfs were modeled on cocaine addiction (False) and that a topless woman could briefly be spotted in VHS copies of "The Rescuers" (True). urban legends false False True In January 2019, we encountered yet another Disney rumor: This time, the internet asked, is the Goofy cartoon character actually a cow rather than an (anthropomorphic) dog? Although this dog vs. cow debate wasn't entirely new in 2019, that time around it was supposedly supported by an "investigative article" published in 2012 by the website Reel Rundown. While that article did contain some factual information regarding the history of the Goofy character, which is likely the reason why some people have accepted it as a truthful account of Goofy's supposed sordid past, it is peppered with exaggerations, speculation, outright fabrications, and was clearly written with humorous intentions. Reel Rundown Reel Rundown presented their argument as if they were uncovering a vast Disney conspiracy theory aimed at covering up Goofy's unsavory bovine heritage. In the introductory section, entitled "Goofy Is Not a Dog -- The Cover Up," the author argued that Goofy was actually a foreign-born cow and that Disney was forced to conceal this fact due to the political climate in the 1930s: Goofy has always been thought of as a "dog with human features" according to Disney's Mouselinks. However what the Disney establishment isn't telling you is the goofy is really a cow. To be specific an Aberdeen-Angus Cattle. A fact that Disney would love to cover-up considering that Goofy's national origin is anything but American. In 1939 with American nationalism at an historic high, Goofy's true heritage could have created a huge scandal for Disney. A Scandal that would have finished Goofies [sic] career just as it was starting to take-off." The next section, "Goofy's Heritage Revealed," was even more outlandish. Reel Rundown imagined Goofy as a living, breathing, physical animal who was born "Dipalwa Dawala" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and was "discovered by Disney talent scouts during a livestock sale." During the "Dark Years" section of the article, the website upped the absurdity and claimed that Goofy's son died from Mad Cow disease. For those who took the time to read the article, it should have been obvious that it was a work of humorous fiction. However, it seems that some readers stopped at the headline and were left convinced that Goofy was actually a cow, not a dog:   Although this article was clearly written in jest, some of its curious claims have been spread in support of the "Goofy is a cow" argument. We'll dispel some of this misinformation to stop malicious propagation of rumors about this beloved Disney dog. Disney dog Was Goofy "born" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and named "Dipalwa Dawala?" First off, Goofy wasn't "born" anywhere: He was created by Disney animators Art Babbitt and Frank Webb in the 1930s. Goofy was introduced as a side character named "Dippy Dawg" in the cartoon short Mickey's Revue (1932) but underwent some revisions over the next few years. While Goofy has gone by a number of names during his Disney career (including Super Goof, Dippy Dawg, George G. Geef, Goofus D. Dawg, and Goofy Goof), we were unable to find any credible source listing the character as "Dipalwa Dawala." Art Babbitt introduced In fact, the only search results we could find for this term all point back to this Reel Rundown article. In other words, Goofy has never been named "Dipalw Dawala." Does Goofy's old love interest, Clarabelle the Cow, prove that Goofy is also a cow? Reel Rundown ended their humorous work of fiction with an "evidence" section claiming that Disney's history of creating same species couples (Mickey and Minnie, Donald and Daisy, etc.) pointed to Goofy's being a cow since he once had a love interest named Clarabele Cow: Goofy's love interest in the Mickey Mouse clubhouse is Clarabelle the Cow. The on-screen chemistry is obvious. Disney often couples characters with the opposite sex of the same species. Mickey and Mini, Donald and Daisey [sic] both follow this pattern. So why would the writers at Disney have Goofy and Clarabelle coupled up? While it's true that Goofy and Clarabelle Cow were once an item, this is not proof that they were the same species of animal. Clarabelle was the sometimes girlfriend of Horace Horsecollar, who was a horse and not a cow, and the Disney universe includes multiple examples of inter-species couples: Ben Ali Gator, for instance, woos Hyacinth Hippo in Fantasia; Jessica Rabbit (a cartoon human) has a rabbit husband in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog have an ongoing (if one-sided) relationship in the Muppet canon. Outside the Disney universe, Bimbo, a cartoon dog, was the occasional love interest of Betty Boop (a human female), and of course, Tillie Tiger once planted a kiss on Elmer Elephant:   The Reel Rundown article was clearly a jape. However, it made us curious about Goofy's actual origins and whether the character was originally intended to represent a dog. In Art Babbitt's character analysis of Goofy from 1934 (available via the website of animator Michael Sporn), Goofy is described as a "composite of an everlasting optimist, a gullible Good Samaritan, a half-wit, a shiftless, good-natured coloured boy and a hick." In his description of how Goofy should be drawn, Babbit mentioned two real-world creatures, neither of which was a cow: website It is true that there is a vague similarity in the construction of the Goof's head and Pluto's. The use of the eyes, mouth and ears are entirely different. One is dog, the other human. The Goof's head can be thought of in terms of a caricature of a person with a pointed domelarge, dreamy eyes, buck teeth and weak chin, a large mouth, a thick lower lip, a fat tongue and a bulbous nose that grows larger on its way out and turns up. His eyes should remain partly closed to help give him a stupid, sloppy appearance, as though he were constantly straining to remain awake, but of course they can open wide for expressions or accents. He blinks quite a bit. His ears for the most part are just trailing appendages and are not used in the same way as Pluto's ears except for rare expressions. His brow is heavy and breaks the circle that outlines his skull. A description of the character from Disney.go.com also compares Goofy to Pluto but notes that Goofy was created as more of a human character: "Goofy was created as a human character, as opposed to Pluto, who was a pet, so he walked upright and had a speaking voice." Disney.go.com When we reached out to Disney for comment, a spokesperson told us that both The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agreed that Goofy was indeed an anthropomorphic dog. Erin Glover, Director of Publicity and Communications at Disney Animation, told us: The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agree that this question was best answered by Disney Legend Dave Smith: "Goofy was originally created as a human character with dog-like characteristics, thus why he walks upright, wears clothes, talks and has animal features that resemble a dog." The Disney Domain.  "The History of Goofy."   13 April 2016. Disney.go.com.  "Characters: Goofy."   Archived 1 August 2003. Fischer, Tony.  "Is Goofy a Dog?"   Reel Rundown.  9 January 2019. One of the most iconic masks to feature prominently in movie history is that worn by the crazed killer character of Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise of slasher films, the first installment of which was released in 1978. But according to rumor, this frightful face originated with a character from a very different series and medium: Captain Kirk and television's Star Trek.   The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have funds for creating a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and applied a few alterations to it to create the iconic look of Michael Myers: interview There was a choice we had to make, because we didnt have any money to make a mask. So the art director went up to Bert Wheeler's magic shop on Hollywood Boulevard, which was right up the street from our offices, and he got two masks. One was a clown mask, and one was a Captain Kirk mask. It was supposed to be Captain Kirk. It looked nothing like William Shatner, nothing like anybody, really. It was just a strange mask, which was perfect for us. So we spray-painted it, altered the eye holes and just did a couple things with the hair  and there you had it. I like to think it's Shatner, but it's not really. Similar versions of the story have been told by other members of the crew, including Rick Sternbach, who worked as illustrator/designer on Halloween 2, and William Shatner (who portrayed Captain Kirk) himself: Sternbach's story is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact: fact I was hired as an illustrator on Halloween 2 in 1981, working for production designer J. Michael Riva. In a supply cabinet at Pumpkin Pie Productions, we had one mask left from the original Halloween and no idea where to get any others for the sequel. It appeared that we'd need to go check out some of the toy stores and such, but I noticed that there was some wording molded into the neck area. There was a model number and [the words] "Don Post Studios." I made a call, read off the model number, and the word came back "it's our Captain Kirk mask." I asked if we could buy a number of them, and was told "We'll give you a box, just give us credit." With that, I turned the official dealings over to the higher-ups. Brush with greatness. Claim:   A KKK chapter successfully sued a black-owned bakery for refusing to make them a birthday cake.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] The following article has been making it's way across theinternet.  I'm curious to know if it's fake or not.  Origins:   On 23 August 2013, the satirical Tribune Herald web site published a fake news article titled "KKK Wins Lawsuit Against Bakery for Discrimination" (which languished in relative obscurity until April 2015), reporting that the KKK had successfully sued a baker named Elaine Bailey because she refused to provide a cake for the organization's birthday party: article A Georgia court has ruled in favor of Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter, in a lawsuit stemming from two years ago when a local bakery denied him service. The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization's annual birthday party. Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs. On 1 April 2015, a controversy involving personal beliefs and catering erupted following a widely-shared local news interview with the owners of the Memories Pizza restaurant in Indiana in which they stated they would (hypothetically) decline to provide pizza for a gay wedding.  An ensuing national debate over the balance between personal beliefs and equitable treatment under the law led many pundits to seek out real-life examples of such scenarios having gone awry. Memories Pizza Among the many editorials published during the Memories Pizza controversy was an article that appeared on the web site Inquisitr on 3 April 2015. That article (titled "Ku Klux Klan Forces Black Baker to Make Racist KKK Cake, So Does Memories Pizza Lose Religious Freedom?") originally referenced the Tribune Herald's  fake news article from 2013 several times: article If the Ku Klux Klan can force a black baker to make racist KKK cakes, does this mean Memories Pizza should automatically be forced to serve gay weddings? If that is the case, should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to force gay bakers to make cakes with "God hates f*gs" written upon them? These questions may be rhetorical, but in the case of the former example the event really happened.  In the case of the Ku Klux Klan we already know the answer in Georgia. According to the Tribune Herald, Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a birthday cake for Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter. In response, the Ku Klux Klan leader sued and won by claiming that Bailey's refusal of service was discriminatory against his religious beliefs. The KKK celebrated the decision by saying that "the law says that it's wrong to discriminate against people if you run a business, and that means she was wrong in discriminating against our organization by refusing us service." References to the 2013 Tribune Herald hoax article were subsequently replaced or elided in the Inquisitr's piece: If the Ku Klux Klan can force a black baker to make racist KKK cakes, does this mean Memories Pizza should automatically be forced to serve gay weddings? If that is the case, should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to force gay bakers to make cakes with "God hates f*gs" written upon them? These questions may be rhetorical, but if these scenarios did ever occur there is already disagreement over how they should be handled. So what does this mean for supporters and opponents of Indiana's religious freedom law? The first version of the Inquisitr piece referenced "Elaine Bailey" (subject of the 2013 fake news article) as a "black baker," but the original Tribune Herald article on which it was based did not. It's possible that that minor embellishment furthered interest in the original fake news story, as the notion of a black person being "forced" to serve the KKK underscored the debate's polarities.  The Tribune Herald site has since been abandoned, but a disclaimer featured on the site clearly stated that: disclaimer Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes. All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories.   Last updated:  14 April 2015 In the wake of Brazilian soccer great Pele's Dec. 29, 2022,death, viral claims emerged that the governing body in charge of international soccer competition, FIFA, planned on keeping the forward's famous feet in itsmuseum: death its museum  These claims have no basis in fact. Many viral memes cite "TNT Sports Brazil" as their source. As the media outlet Logial.ly reported, there is no story on that outlet's website making this assertion. reported In fact, the original iteration of the post that went viral, watermarks reveal, came from a Facebook page named "Sarcasm Football Nepal," which describes itself as the "leading football humour portal based on Nepal." original iteration describes Further, there is no mention in any official FIFA press release, statement, or news story suggesting the organization has any interest or intent in keeping Pele's storied, goal-scoring feet in any capacity whatsoever. no mention For these reasons, the claim about FIFA's interest in Pele's feet is  False: FIFA Will Keep Legendary Brazilian Footballer Pel's Feet in Its Museum. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/33430510. Accessed 3 Jan. 2023. "Pele's Funeral on Monday at Club Team Santos." ESPN, 29 Dec. 2022, https://www.espn.in/football/brazil-bra/story/4840390/peles-funeral-to-be-held-monday-at-home-of-club-team-santos. An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation   3. Declaring an amount  say $1 million  as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices.  Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving.  2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012.  So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000.  Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator  Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?"
Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy."
Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016. Claim:  The 'Codex Alimentarius' will eliminate U.S. consumers' rights to purchase and use vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.     : In June 2005 the U.S. was forced to accept Codex Alimentarius regulation of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.  OUTDATED: Bills proposing the regulation of dietary supplements are currently before Congress.  : In June 2010, President Obama signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law by Executive Order. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will over ride U.S. laws. The U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June, 2005. The CODE includes:(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a "drug" requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now know them.(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing and approval. CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs". Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg  all are banned over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine, carnitine, etc. = essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed. The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World Trade Organization. Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can be done at this late hour? (1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at https://www.ahha.org, www.iahf.com and www.alliance-natural-health.org.(2) Oppose bills S. 722 and H.R. 3377. These support the CODEX restrictions with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.(3) Support H.R. 1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution over CODEX, etc.(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and Representatives (They got us into this!) ASAP.(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their members to inform the government.(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural Health (see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX directives in World Court later this month or next. They need helpfinancially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone. CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the same way they do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical scientists was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998  Vol. 279, No.15, p. 1200 "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR's) was found to beextremely high." Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADR's and 2,200,000 need more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals  none were considered malpractice. This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There are very few fatalities from supplements or the news would be on every front page. There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per day? Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225www.pulseplus@earthlink.net Origins:  This e-mailed alert began circulating on the Internet in January 2005. Although the call to arms is worded in such a way as to convince those who receive that their right to purchase vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements in the U.S. is about to be lost to them unless they act decisively in defense of it, it is outdated and the facts of what is being considered by American lawmakers and why are radically dissimilar from the red cape being waved.  First of all, this is another case of an issue that is now largely moot due to outdated information. Back in 2003, two versions of a bill that proposed the regulation of dietary supplements (S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003," and H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act") were introduced to Congress.  Neither of these bills was ever voted upon, much less passed.  They both expired with the end of the 108th Congress in 2004 and have not been reintroduced to the currently sitting 109th Congress. S. 722 H.R. 3377 Moreover, neither of these items of potential legislation was forced on the U.S. by an outside regulatory body, nor did they say anything about restricting the American public's access to vitamins and minerals. Their sole target was dietary supplements, a class of products that has been unregulated since 1994, when Congress passed legislation that exempted them from federal regulation. Claims that your right to take vitamins and minerals is about to be impaired or that you will require doctors' prescriptions to obtain such products should be regarded as attempts at rabble-rousing, deliberate moves to spur you into action against one thing by convincing you that something very different and far closer to your heart is at stake. Vitamins and minerals are not under the gun. Dietary supplements are. And no outside regulatory body is behind this move: the proposed legislation is the work of American lawmakers looking to safeguard the public from the unscrupulous and the hazardous. If you take nothing else from this article, take the preceding three sentences. Despite their presence on store shelves, not all dietary supplements are safe for consumers to use, let alone are beneficial to their health. Products can be 100% natural yet deliver a deadly payload, as have some in the past. Lacking regulation of such ingestibles, there is no protection afforded consumers, and  authoritative-looking labels are no guarantee that what is being vended in those bottles they envelop is not harmful. Under current law, dangerous supplements get onto the market and stay there, with serious physical harm resulting among those who use them, as was the case with ephedra, which caused strokes, heart attacks, and upwards of 150 deaths before the Food and Drug Administration was finally able to get it out of the stores. In 2004, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, almost one in five Americans (19%) reported using a supplement, which means the pool of folks at risk is great. Yet the incentives are there for the dietary supplement industry to keep on doing what it has been doing: in 2002, it reported $18.7 billion in sales. With so much profit at stake, there is little desire on the part of manufacturers to police themselves or their products all that carefully.  It's not just about inherently dangerous substances being sold to the unwary as the latest miracle answer for what ails them  even when dietary supplements contain nothing obviously harmful, the current lack of regulation results in improperly manufactured or contaminated products reaching the public. Quality control is missing. Absent regulation, consumers have little reason to trust they are getting the dosage they believe they are taking. ConsumerLab.com, an independent laboratory that tests dietary supplements, found that some name-brand products contain only small quantities of the active ingredient on their label. "Some have none, some have 80 percent, some have 20 percent," Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of the lab, told ABC News. Also, some contaminated supplements reach the market and thus fall into the hands of unknowing consumers. In December 2004, pesticide was found in ginseng being vended on the East Coast, and heavy metals such as mercury and arsenic were discovered in herbal supplements. Two bills put before Congress in 2003 looked to regulate dietary nostrums by imposing quality and safety standards on them, and giving the FDA the ability to take them off the market before a great number of folks have been harmed by them. In March 2003, Senator Richard Durbin introduced bill S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003" in the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this legislation was to "protect consumers from dangerous dietary supplements such as ephedra and other stimulants by requiring manufacturers to submit proof that their product is safe prior to bringing it to market." The bill would require manufacturers of the most dangerous types of dietary supplements (stimulants) to submit proof of their products' safety prior to bringing them to market. The bill also expands the FDA's authority to require from any dietary supplement maker proof of its product's safety if that agency has received information suggesting the product is causing death or other serious adverse health effects. It would also require manufacturers to report serious adverse health events (e.g.; heart attack, seizure, stroke, death), to the FDA no later than 15 calendar days after they learn of them. The bill also looks to close a loophole in current law that, according to Senator Durbin, "has been exploited by many dietary supplement manufacturers, allowing anabolic steroids to be sold widely as dietary supplements" by clarifying that anabolic steroids are not dietary supplements and are subject to regulation that restricts their availability under the Controlled Substances Act. S. 722 In October 2003, Representatives Susan Davis (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (DMI) introduced bill H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would increase the FDA's authority over dietary supplements, enabling that agency to monitor the health risks of dietary supplements and take appropriate action if problems develop. The proposed law was not intended to have any impact on the regulation of vitamins and minerals, which are specifically excluded from the bill. In addition, for dietary supplements that contain herbs, amino acids, and other botanicals, the bill will ensure that FDA has basic information about who makes them and the products' ingredients. It would also require dietary supplement manufacturers to provide FDA with information about all adverse events, so that the agency could spot warning signs and investigate if necessary. It further allows the FDA to prohibit sales to minors of supplements that may cause significant harm to children. Finally, it allows the FDA to demand safety information from a manufacturer if the FDA has evidence that a particular supplement may pose serious risks.  H.R. 3377 Getting back to the e-mail's claim that a foreign regulatory body is behind all this, we address the claim that: Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. It is the body of government representatives and non-governmental organizations charged by the United Nations with establishing a reference for  international guidelines on food law.  However, it has no power to force its will on any nation. Codex standards are voluntary; no country is obligated to adopt them. In November 2004, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) reached agreement on the definitions and regulatory guidelines for the worldwide use of vitamins and minerals in food supplements and presented its "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" to the Codex annual meeting in Rome in July 2005.  The Codex guidelines form a reference point that may be used in cases of international trade disputes in the area of food supplements. That, in a nutshell, is the extent of its teeth. Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements In the latter half of 2010, erroneous claims began to circulate claiming that President Obama had signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law via Executive Order.  In fact, the referenced order simply  in accordance with recently passed health care reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)  established the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council within the Department of Health and Human Services in order to provide federal coordination and leadership of "prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the U.S."  The council so established has no specific power or mandate to regulate the sales of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements. Executive Order Barbara "vitaminimized" Mikkelson Additional information:      Codex Alimentarius  (World Health Organization)  Last updated:  15 August 2010    Sumner Burstyn, Barbara.  "Conventional Medicine Far Riskier Than Supplements."   The New Zealand Herald.  16 July 2003.    Community Pharmacy.  "Ruled Maximum Levels for Vitamins and Minerals."   12 August 2004.  (p. 5).    Europe Agri.  "International Agreement Reached on Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals."   16 November 2004.    Lincoln Journal Star.  "Regulation Needed for Supplements."   31 January 2005.  (p. B4).    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  "Judge Allows FDA Ban of Dietary Supplement."   13 April 2004.  (p. A6).    Nutraceuticals World.  "Reps. Davis, Waxman & Dingell Introduce Legislation."   December 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 8.    Nutraceuticals World.  "Senator Durbin Introduces Bill to Amend DSHEA."   May 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 5, p. 8. Claim:   Wisconsin has passed a bill banning poor people from purchasing shellfish, potatoes, and ketchup.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] Is this true?  Origins:  Recents months have seen efforts by lawmakers in several states to limit what recipients of food stamps and other forms of public assistance may purchase with those benefits.  For example, a member of the Missouri legislature introduced a bill that would bar recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP) from using their benefits to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, seafood or steak. And Kansas passed a law prohibiting recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from spending those monies on a variety of goods and services: Missouri Kansas   Similarly, in May 2015, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a bill (Assembly Bill 177) that would require those who receive food stamps to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on foodstuffs designated by the state as nutritional items. The list of allowed nutritional items includes meat, fish, fresh produce, and white potatoes, but specifically excludes food stamps from being used for purchases of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish: bill   The larger list of allowed foodstuffs excludes such items as white potatoes, nuts, cranberry sauce, popsicles, spaghetti sauce, soup, ketchup, pickles, baked beans, flavored peanut butter, flavored milk, and brown eggs. foodstuffs Contrary to various inaccurate headlines, however, the proposed law (if fully passed and enacted as law) would not "ban" food stamp recipients from purchasing these food items; rather, it would restrict them from spending more than one-third of their SNAP benefits on such foodstuffs.  It's also unlikely the bill will be codified as law, as it would require a federal waiver that no state has ever received: headlines  No state has received such a waiver, but Rep. Brooks said he believes his bill is less restrictive than some proposed in other states and has a better chance of being implemented.   Proponents of the bill argue that it would promote healthier eating habits which would benefit both food stamp recipients and taxpayers:  They argue that limiting the purchase of junk food promotes healthy eating, reduces unspecified "abuses" and benefits society in the long run. "There is a direct financial benefit not just to the individual, which of course is obvious to have better health, but also to state taxpayers and society as a whole," said Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.   Oppoents, however, contend that the bill would neither promote healthier eating nor reduce fraud:  "It's a restriction that's designed just to make the lives of those that are already struggling that much harder," said Rep. Lisa Subeck. "And instead, we should be focusing not on the foods people buy but on putting people to work by creating jobs that get people off of FoodShare." To illustrate Democrats' opposition, Rep. Evan Goyke held a platter of four Wisconsin cheeses. All four were cheddar. One was shredded and three were in block form. Three displayed flags that said "GOP Prohibited." One flag said "GOP Approved." The approved cheese was a block of mild cheddar. Two sharp cheddars  one shredded and one block  were not approved. One mild cheddar was not approved because it was too large, Goyke said. "The stated goals of this bill are nutrition and fraud," said Rep. Mark Spreitzer. "When you look at something like this cheese plate, there's no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud. People are not buying sharp cheddar in order to defraud FoodShare, and there's no nutritional difference. So if those are the stated goals, the bill is not accomplishing either."   Last updated:  16 May 2015