Did New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern Don a Hijab and Offer Aid to Families of Massacre Victims?
In mid-March 2019, the social media network The Other 98% shared a meme featuring an image of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and text lauding her actions in the face of a deadly massacre targeting the Muslim community in the city of Christchurch: meme   Readers who were justifiably suspicious of content in a meme generated by a partisan source asked us whether its statements were true, and they were. Ardern garnered praise for guiding her country through grief in the wake of a mass shooting that claimed the lives of 50 people at two mosques on 15 March 2019 while Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian suspected of being a white supremacist, was charged in the slayings. partisan source Ardern did wear a hijab, or veil, while honoring victims of the massacre. Professional news photographers captured images of Ardern wearing a gold-trimmed, black head covering during her 16 March 2019 visit to the Canterbury Refugee Centre: photographers NZ Prime Minister @jacindaardern is a remarkable leader. Here, she addresses mourners after the #Christchurch terrorist attack. ? pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg @jacindaardern #Christchurch pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg  news.com.au (@newscomauHQ) March 18, 2019 March 18, 2019  It is also true that Ardern confirmed victims and their families would receive financial assistance from the New Zealand government, although it might be a reach to claim she personally offered such assistance. But in a speech given on 17 March 2019, Ardern assured victims that New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), an agency that provides financial assistance to anyone in New Zealand who is injured in an accident, would be on hand to help them: speech ACC is putting more staff on the ground in Christchurch, working alongside the Ministry of Social Development at the community hub at Hagley. For ACC -- as Ive said before immigration status is not a factor -- it is based on the event happening here in New Zealand. In an event such as this -- murder or manslaughter -- the family is eligible for a funeral grant of around $10,000. There are also one-off payments for the deceaseds partner, children and dependents, ongoing assistance provisions for things like childcare and of course compensation for the loss of income. MSD [Ministry of Social Development] is providing standard forms of financial assistance also, such as helping with immediate needs and things like one-off grants for food payments. It will also be working with individuals and families to consider ongoing needs, such as benefit support. The country is currently making preparations for funerals for the 50 deceased victims. preparations Garrand, Danielle.  "New Zealand Helping to Pay Christchurch Shooting Victims' Funerals, Regardless of Immigration Status."
  CBS News.  17 March 2019. Beehive.govt.nz.  "PM Statement on Christchurch Shooting."
  17 March 2019. The Straits Times.   "New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern Wants to Discuss Live-Streaming with Facebook After Mosque Attacks."
  17 March 2019. Fifield, Anna.  "New Zealands Prime Minister Receives Worldwide Praise for Her Response to the Mosque Shootings."
  The Washington Post.  18 March 2019.
Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014 Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens  On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians  they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States  with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True. On Aug. 24, 2020, a Twitter user posted an image of U.S. President Donald Trump being watched over by cult leader Charles Manson and claimed that the president's supporters were sharing it on Facebook under the false impression that it actually showed Jesus:  posted an image The above-displayed tweet was shared more than 34,000 times and received more than 140,000 likes. As this claim circulated on social media, we started receiving queries asking if Trump supporters were truly sharing the image. One reader even asked if it had been shared by the RNC:  Is the RNC really posting this image of Charles Manson and Donald Trump photoshopped together to appear as if Manson is Jesus endorsing Trump? While it's certainly possible that a handful of Trump supporters have shared this image by accident, we found no record of it being shared on the social media pages of the Republican National Convention, the White House, or the GOP. While we have not perused the accounts of every elected Republican lawmaker, we can say that we have not encountered any high-profile Republican accounts sharing the image in earnest, nor any postings by Trump's supporters that were widely shared on social media.  Republican National Convention White House GOP The image of Manson and Trump appears to be a manipulated version of a painting that originally showed Trump and Jesus entitled "You are not Alone" that was uploaded to Fine Art America by Danny Hahlbohm on May 28, 2020. Here's a look at the original painting (left) and the manipulated version (right): Fine Art America   A third version of this painting was also circulated on social media. This alternate version, however, also depicts Jesus standing behind Trump, not Manson. Hahlbohm confirmed to us in an email that he was the artist behind this alternate version, explaining that this was just an earlier version of his painting he had since revised.  A third version of this painting Here's a comparison of Hahlbohm's painting from Fine Art America (left) and the earlier version (right): Fine Art America   To sum up: A painting of Jesus standing behind Trump was digitally altered to make it appear as if Trump were being watched over by cult leader Manson, not Jesus. While the Trump / Manson image went viral along with the claim that it was unknowingly being shared by Trump supporters, we could find no popular instances of Trump supporters sharing the Manson image in earnest. In a debate in Nashville on Oct. 7, 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain tussled over tax policy. Obama, responding to a question about fiscal responsibility, said the federal debt needs to be reduced in a way that shares the burden fairly. Now, when Senator McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that's not sharing a burden. To come up with that number, the Obama campaign cites an average CEO salary of $12.8-million and a tax savings of 5.5 percent for the top earners during the year 2012 under a McCain administration. That comes to about $705,000. The math is accurate, but the numbers require a small amount of explanation. The $12.8-million comes from aForbesmagazine study of the average CEO compensation in 2007 for the 500 largest companies. Technically speaking, this would not be the Fortune 500, a listing compiled byFortunemagazine. An extremely minor point, but we note it to giveForbesits due for compiling the study. The 5.5 percent tax savings comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which estimated tax impact for income brackets under the McCain plan. They created an analysis that draws on the candidates' campaign stump speeches, and found that according to those proposals, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a 5.5 percent decrease in their tax rates in 2012 under McCain's plan. That comes to $700,000. But the center also did an analysis based on information from the candidates' economic advisers, and those policies are slightly more conservative than what the candidates say in their stump speeches. For example, the candidates will talk about a proposal as if it will begin immediately, when the advisers say it will actually be phased in. Using the more conservative analysis, CEOs would receive a tax rate decrease of 2.1 percent, or about $270,000. That's still a big number, but not quite as big as $700,000. It's not surprising that candidates select the numbers most advantageous to their argument, but it's worth noting that there is a different way to look at this calculation that is also valid. Still, Obama is using credible numbers from independent sources to make his point. It does seem that high earners do better under John McCain's plan. We rate his statement Mostly True. On 6 December 2018, an article reporting that former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama trashed Air Force One after the funeral of former president George H.W. Bush was published by the WeAreTheLLOD website, which is part of the "Last Line of Defense" network of junk news sites: article President Trump was gracious enough to loan his personal airplane to the Bush family to transport dead President George H.W. Bush back home to Kennebunkport, Maine. They invited all the other past presidents and even the illegal Obama. In return, the grieving family showed their appreciation by leaving the plane a mess and vandalizing the bathroom and kitchen.   This was not a genuine news article, as WeAreTheLlod.com and the rest of the Last Line of Defense network are junk news sites that have a long history of publishing misinformation. Last Line of Defense  This article also included a number of obvious hints about the satirical nature of its content. For example, the label "Dead People and Satire with Hot Green Chili" can be glimpsed below the article's title. The web site banner also features the tagline "Information You Probably Shouldn't Trust" and the footer states that the site was paid for by the "liberal trolls of America." As well, all of the hyper-links in this article lead to unrelated content. For instance, where the text references the alleged legal terms "hapneus corpum and juris prumidential," it links to a Google Translation page for the sentence: "Because they don't exist and are possibly the dumbest things ever conceived." Eagleton, Flagg.  "BREAKING: Bush, Clinton, Obama Funeral Party Trashes Air Force One."
  WeAretheLLOD.com.  6 December 2018. During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:   However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes. announced Biden Tax Plan The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): summarizes Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Bidens homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. analysis Watson, Garrett et al.  "Details and Analysis of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Bidens Tax Plan/
  Tax Foundation.  22 October 2020. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  "Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan."
  30 July 2020. On 16 August 2018, Aretha Franklin, the iconic Grammy Award-winning singer known as the "Queen of Soul," passed away at the age of 76. As fans took to social media to share their memories of the late soul singer, many of them noticed a curious graphic that had been shared by the official Fox News Twitter account: passed away   The news network used the same graphic in their television broadcast about Franklin's death: broadcast This graphic was of particular interest because while the foreground picture is that of Aretha Franklin, the woman in the green jacket seen in the background is not the Queen of Soul. That is actually an image of singer Patti LaBelle performing at the "Women of Soul: In Performance at the White House concert in 2014: performing Yep here's video pic.twitter.com/IIkMDuKB7e pic.twitter.com/IIkMDuKB7e  Zachary Pleat (@zpleat) August 16, 2018 August 16, 2018  Jessica Santostefano, Vice President -- Media Desk at Fox News, issued an apology for the mistake: apology We sincerely apologize to Aretha Franklins family and friends. Our intention was to honor the icon using a secondary image of her performing with Patti LaBelle in the full screen graphic, but the image of Ms. Franklin was obscured in that process, which we deeply regret. LaBelle and Franklin both performed at a 2014 White House concert, but the network's explanation for the error seemed questionable to some viewers because Franklin didn't appear at all in the photograph of LaBelle that formed the basis of the graphic. The original photograph, which was taken during LaBelle's performance of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" by Reuters photograph Jonathan Ernst, can be seen below: Reuters    France, Lisa.  "Aretha Franklin, The Queen of Soul, has Died."
  CNN.  16 August 2018. Hod, Itay.  "Fox News Apologizes for Using Patti LaBelles Photo in Aretha Franklin Tribute."
  The Wrap.  16 August 2018. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In October and November 2021, Snopes readers asked us to verify the authenticity and provenance of a message widely shared on social media throughout 2020 and 2021, and heavily promoted by those opposed to COVID-19 lockdowns. According to almost all the posts in question, the message originally came from a "Hopi Indian Chief" named "White Eagle." The message was permeated with the language of New Age spirituality, and typically began by likening "the moment humanity is going through now" to a "portal" or a "hole," and encouraging readers to engage in "resistance through joy":   Despite extensive research, we have not yet been able to find evidence to corroborate the claim that the message originated with a prominent Hopi named "White Eagle," or indeed of any other name. Furthermore, good reasons exist to doubt that widespread attribution, and the earliest versions of the message that we found were published by a Brazilian "medium" who engages in pseudoscientific practices like "reincarnation psychotherapy" and proponents of a Brazilian religious movement  entirely different cultural contexts to the Hopi tribe in Arizona. For now, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If definitive evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly. The message was posted and re-posted multiple times in 2020 and 2021, with occasional minor tweaks, but was almost always attributed to "White Eagle," who was typically described as a "Hopi Indian Chief." 2020 2021 In some cases, social media posts featured photographs of what appeared to be an elderly man, while others contained a picture of an elderly woman  two mutually exclusive claims as to the gender of "White Eagle," and a sign that that attribution might be dubious. In another prominent early version of the message, posted in French on March 28, 2020, the photograph used was actually taken in 1904, meaning it could not possibly show anyone alive in the age of online memes or COVID-19. an elderly man an elderly woman the photograph used actually taken in 1904 In June 2020, "Bird Clan Messenger"  a Canadian blog that espouses "indigenous wisdom" and alternative medicine, as well as opposing COVID-19 mitigation measures like lockdowns and vaccine passports  attributed the "portal and hole" message to Joseph White Eagle, whom the site described as "a Cree spiritual leader and teacher of traditional Native wisdom." attributed the "portal and hole" message However, that blog post was later deleted, and Joseph White Eagle posted on Facebook in September 2021, explicitly denying he had authored the message, and adding: "Somebody first gave credit to a fictitious Hopi Chief White Eagle and when they found he does not exist they started giving me credit for this message." later deleted explicitly denying he had authored the message On March 28, 2020, artist and new-age spiritualist Alex Grey included the message in an Instagram Live broadcast, describing it as "Channeled from White eagle in daime church / Message from Caboclo guia Branca," and dating it to March 16, 2020. In this context, "Daime" likely refers to "Santo Daime," a religious movement which emerged from Brazil in the early 20th century and encompasses elements of various other religions, as well as using the psychedelic drink ayahuasca in rituals. included message Instagram Live broadcast Santo Daime Grey's reference to "Caboclo guia Branca" directed our research to an even earlier social media post containing the message  a March 19, 2020 Instagram post by Jefferson Orlando, a Brazilian "reincarnation pyschotherapist," which bore the headline "Mensagem do Caboclo guia Branca" ("message from White Eagle.") When translated from Portuguese, the message was clearly the same one later attributed to a "Hopi Chief" named White Eagle, and shared widely in English on social media. March 19, 2020 Instagram post   It's not clear whether "White Eagle" is purported to be an actual, living person, a persona adopted by Orlando, or a long-deceased figure whose voice and message Orlando putatively "channeled." Snopes asked Orlando for clarification about the origins of the message, but we did not receive a response. Also on March 19, 2020, a popular Facebook page which celebrates the Umbanda faith  like Santo Daime, Umbanda is a Brazilian religious movement that borrows from other religious practices  also posted the same message as Orlando, in Portuguese: posted the same message   It's not clear whether "Sabedoria de Umbanda" ("Umbanda Wisdom") or Orlando published their post first, and what the ultimate source of the message was. We were unable to find any reference to the "portal and hole" message dated before March 19, and the "Hopi" attribution appears to have only emerged several days later. The earliest available instances of the message emerged from Brazilian religious movements, by way of new-age spirituality and pseudo-scientific paranormal psychology  vastly different cultural milieus from the traditions of the Hopi people. This strongly suggests the claim that a "Hopi Chief White Eagle" authored the message was unfounded. However, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that the March 19 Brazilian posts were, themselves, borrowed from Hopi culture in some way, with the chain of cross-germination no longer available due to social media posts having been deleted. "Edward S. Curtis." WESTON GALLERY, https://www.westongallery.com/original-works-by/edward-curtis. Accessed 4 Nov. 2021. Since at least January 2021, actor Anthony Hopkins was featured in an online advertisement about the height of Hollywood celebrity men. The ad read: "Some of the Shortest Men in Hollywood Today."   Readers who clicked the online ad were led to a 95-page story on Cleverst.com. Its headline read: "These Short Male Celebrities Remind Us That Height Doesn't Matter In Hollywood." The lengthy article began with a picture of actor Dave Franco, who is purported to be 5 feet 7. We clicked "next page" 95 times until we realized we had clicked "next article" at the end. Hopkins didn't even show up in the story. Anthony Hopkins' height is listed at 5 feet 9 on various sources, including on his IMDb page. The actor is anything but "short." his IMDb page Hopkins is perhaps best known for his work in the 1991 classic, "The Silence of the Lambs." He won the best actor Oscar for playing the role of the terrifying cannibal, Hannibal Lecter. The long story of "short male celebrities" also featured a 6-feet-tall Vin Diesel, a 5 feet 10 Jason Statham, and 5 feet 9 actors Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Hardy. This was hardly a list of "some of the shortest men in Hollywood today." The Cleverst.com story appeared to be a strategy known as advertising "arbitrage." The goal was to make more money on ads that were displayed on all 95 pages than it cost to display the original Hopkins clickbait picture. The Hopkins photograph lured the readers. Readers then clicked "next page" in a search for Hopkins, who never appeared. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." They also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins The same strategy employed for Hopkins' height was used by other advertisers in the past who placed an ad about Pierce Brosnan's net worth. The ad claimed that "Pierce Brosnan's final net worth left his family in tears." Not only was Pierce Brosnan still alive, but he also did not appear in the lengthy slideshow story that resulted. Pierce Brosnan's net worth Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Soliciting contributions to her campaign fund, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin warned her supporters about the dangers of dark money -- cash spent on elections by groups that dont have to disclose their donors. In an Oct. 30, 2015 email, the Wisconsin Democrat wrote that groups backed by conservatives such asKarl Roveand theKoch brothershave spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure they get right-wing extremists elected into office. And its only getting worse. Today, Baldwins email continued, dark money spending is 10 times what it was at the same point in the 2012 election cycle. And in 2012, it ended up topping $308 million. Then she asked for a contribution of $5 or more. A year away from the 2016 general election, is dark-money spending already 10 times higher than it was at this point four years ago? The answer, from the source widely acknowledged as the best in this area: Yes. What dark is We consulted the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group that runs a website calledOpenSecrets.org. (Two other groups involved in campaign finance -- the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Finance Institute -- also referred us to the center.) Using data from the Federal Election Commission, the Center for Responsive Politics tracks so-called dark-money spending -- that is, expenditures by nonprofit groups, whose primary function is not supposed to be political activity, that dont have to disclose their donors. Those groupscan receiveunlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions. They can use the money for various election activities, including buying ads that advocate for or against a candidate, running phone banks and making contributions to super PACs. Butthey cantcoordinate with or donate money to candidates. Lets start with 2011 and 2012 -- that is, the 2012 election  cycle. 2012 election cycle The center reports that, as Baldwin indicated, more than$308 millionin dark money was spent during the entire 2012 election cycle. Some 86 percent was spent by conservative groups, 11 percent by liberal groups and 3 percent by other groups. The most -- $71 million -- was spent byAmerican Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, which was co-founded by Rove.Americans for Prosperity, founded in part by the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, was second ($36 million) and theU.S. Chamber of Commercewas third ($35 million). The three leading liberal groups, as identified by the center, were theLeague of Conservation Voters($11 million),Patriot Majority USA($7 million), whose priorities include money for public schools and infrastructure, andPlanned Parenthood(nearly $7 million). 2016 cycle As for the 2016 cycle,$4.88 millionin dark money expenditures have already been made, according to the center. Thats more than 10 times the$440,000that was spent at this point during the 2012 cycle. The $4.88 millionhas been spent by six groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($3 million) and Americans for Prosperity ($1.5 million), The only liberal group was Planned Parenthood, which spent just under $75,000 Richard Skinner, policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, told us that the focus of early dark money being spent in the 2016 cycle is on U.S. Senate elections that are considered to be competitive, though some is also being spent on U.S. House races. (Baldwin isnt up for election again until 2018. But Wisconsins other senator, Republican Ron Johnson,is ratedas being in a pure toss-up race in 2016 from Democrat Russ Feingold, whom Johnson defeated in 2010. No dark money has been spent yet in that race, according to the Sunlight Foundation.) Skinner said he didnt know whether dark money spending so far means that the total for the 2016 cycle will ultimately be 10 times higher than four years earlier. But he said he expects more dark money to spent in the 2016 cycle than ever before. Our rating Baldwin said dark money spending in the 2016 election cycle is 10 times what it was at the same point in the 2012 election cycle, when it topped $308 million. So-called dark money spending in election campaigns -- by groups that dont have to disclose their donors -- exceeded $308 million in the 2012 election cycle. So far in the 2016 cycle, it has reached nearly $5 million, more than 10 times the $440,000 that had been spent at this point in the 2012 cycle. We rate Baldwins statement True. More on Tammy Baldwin The pope and Donald Trump and Tammy Baldwin all agree on eliminating the carried-interest tax break.Half True. Scott Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive than any Republican president in recent times.True. Middle-class Americans pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires.Half True.