Did Dave Ramsey Write This 'Wake Up America' Op-Ed?
On Jan. 7, 2021, a lengthy piece of text urging Americans to "wake up" was widely circulated on social media along with the claim that it had been penned by radio host Dave Ramsey. Scott Baio, a conservative pundit best known for playing Chachi on the 1970s sitcom "Happy Days," was one social media user who misattributed this text to Ramsey:   But this post was not written by Ramsey. The radio host posted a message to Facebook on Jan. 7 to clarify that he did not author this post: message   In addition to Ramsey's denial, we found versions of this text posted on the internet as far back as October 2020. At the time, Ramsey was not credited as the author.  This text was originally penned by "Bruce Hendry" and published on the right-wing website FrontPageMag.com on Oct. 7, 2020, under the title "Living in the Left's Upside Down World." FrontPageMag.com Here's an excerpt from the article, which is basically a list of grievances that Hendry finds confusing or hypocritical: This morning, I realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter what I say, lives are never going to be the same. [...] We see other countries going socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan for us. Somehow its un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in America. [...] If a dude pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him. It was cool for Joe Biden to "blackmail" the President of Ukraine, but its an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquiries about it. [...] And, pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes you a "racist". Nothing makes sense anymore. No values, no morals, no civility and people are dying of a Chinese virus, but it is racist to refer to it as Chinese even though it originated in China. [...] Wake up America, the great unsinkable ship Titanic America has hit an iceberg, is taking on water and sinking fast. While Hendry prefaced this article with a paragraph insisting that this information was "factual," not "political," many of the items listed above are based on misinformation. For example, President-elect Joe Biden did not blackmail the President of Ukraine, viruses don't have nationalities, transgender people are not "pretending," and the U.S. Census counts "every resident in the United States." did not blackmail U.S. Census So, what does Dave Ramsey have to do with this? One common tactic of purveyors of disinformation is to falsely claim that an extreme view was espoused by a well-known and respected voice. This gives the extreme opinion an air of credibility, and makes it more palatable to a mainstream audience.  The article above originated on a right-wing website and initially gained currency among a similar-minded crowd on conservative forums and social media networks like 4chan. In January 2021, someone tried to get this article in front of a larger audience by falsely claiming that this opinion originated with Ramsey, a popular radio host and finance guru with mainstream appeal. By attaching Ramsey's name to these opinions, the article was spread as if it had been "endorsed" by someone in the mainstream, therefore making it more palatable to people who might have initially balked at this article if they encountered it on a hyperpartisan website.  conservative forums 4chan But Ramsey, of course, did not actually write this article.
Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. On 28 March 2016,Stephanie Cegielski, aone-time strategist for the "Make America Great Again" super PAC,published an open letter to Trump supporters on the web site xoJane: published Even Trump's most trusted advisors didn't expect him to fare this well. Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it. The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%.His candidacy was a protest candidacy. The letter immediately wentviral, and while some ponderedCegielski's main talking point (that Donald Trump doesn't want to be president and didn't expect to be the GOP frontrunner) others questioned whether or not Cegielski was really Trump's top campaign strategist. Complicating things, the headline appeared to contradict the body of the article. xoJaneidentified Cegielski as Trump's "top strategist" in their title, but Cegielski identified herself as the "Communications Director of the 'Make America Great Again' Super PAC" in her open letter to Trump supporters: In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness. I was sold. Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC. It was still early in the Trump campaign, and we hit the ground running. His biggest competitor had more than $100 million in a Super PAC. The Jeb Bush deep pockets looked to be the biggest obstacle we faced. We seemed to be up against a steep challenge, especially since a big part of the appeal of a Trump candidacy was not being influenced by PAC money. Cegielski was identified as a "spokeswoman" for the super PAC in an August 2015 article published inPolitico,and Cegielski called herself a "consultant" on her LinkedIn profile: published LinkedIn  While Cegielski's official title may be unclear, it's certain that labeling Cegielski "Trump's top campaign strategist" isincorrect. Cegielski worked for a super PAC(which, despite the name, is not legally recognized as apolitical action committeeand by law cannot contribute directly to or coordinate with a political campaign, although they can use raised funds to campaign independently)and notfor Donald Trump'spresidentialcampaign: recognized political action committee Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Hope Hicks, a spokesperson for theTrump campaign, told Yahoo NewsthatCegielski was never employed byDonald Trump's presidential campaign: Yahoo News Evidently she worked for a Super PAC which Mr. Trump disavowed and requested the closure of via the FEC. The "Make America Great Again" super PAC went dark as of October 2015 amid ongoing scrutiny of where the money was coming from and going to, and whether the committee had direct ties to the Trump campaign.  Cegielski, Stephanie.  "An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector."   March 2016. Cegielski, Stephanie.  "An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector."   March 2016. Stableford, Dylan.  "Former Trump Super-Pac Director: Donald Doesn't Even Want to Be President."   Yahoo! News.  28 March 2016. Stableford, Dylan.  "Former Trump Super-Pac Director: Donald Doesn't Even Want to Be President."   Yahoo! News.  28 March 2016. BallotPedia.org.  "Super PAC." BallotPedia.org.  "Super PAC." 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 On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. 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 late 2020, three major pharmaceutical companies announced promising results in early trials of their COVID-19 vaccine candidates, prompting widespread optimism about the availability of a safe and effective vaccine for the virus, perhaps even before the end of the year.  major pharmaceutical companies On Dec. 2, 2020, the U.K. government gave emergency authorization for the distribution and application of the vaccine created by Pfizer and a smaller German company called BioNTech. The distribution was scheduled to start during the week of Dec. 7.  authorization BioNTech was founded by Ugur Sahin and zlem Treci, two immunologists and cancer researchers who also happen to be a married couple. Their striking personal story became the focus of news coverage in late 2020, and their achievements were described by some as an "immigrant success story"  Sahin was born in Turkey and immigrated to German with his family at the age of 4, while Treci was born in Germany to a Turkish immigrant father.  coverage described some In November and December 2020, social media users enthusiastically shared an old photograph of what they said was Sahin's family, claiming that "the boy in the yellow t-shirt" would later go on to lead the team that created the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: social media users   In one instance, another user claimed the photograph showed a family of Romanian immigrants.  claimed These widely shared posts were misleading. Sahin and his family did immigrate to Germany from Turkey when he was a young child. But Sahin's family is not shown in the photograph in question, and Sahin is not the boy in the yellow T-shirt. The widely shared tweet that referred to a Romanian family in Germany was entirely inaccurate.  As originally reported by the Turkish fact-checking website Teyit, the picture in question was taken by the German photographer Candida Hfer. It was featured in a 2016 collection of Hfer's photographs, entitled "Trken in Deutschland" ("Turks in Germany").  Teyit collection   Another of Hfer's photographs shows just the mother and father from the family in question: shows   In August 2020, DiasporaTrk  an online community dedicated to collecting stories and material relating to Turkish emigrs in Europe in the second half of the 20th century  profiled the family featured in Hfer's photographs. The photograph of the family (including the children) was dated to 1975 and apparently taken in Dsseldorf.  dated Although the date next to photographs of the family sometimes appears online as 1979, that is the year in which Hfer first exhibited the collection, rather than the year in which those particular photographs were taken.  According to DiasporaTrk, one of the grandsons of the couple from the photograph contacted them and filled in the blanks about the family's story, explaining that the father had moved to Germany from Aksaray, Turkey, in 1965, and the rest of the family joined him later. In 1975 they moved to Dsseldorf, and the photograph in question was taken within a week of their moving into their new home. Rather than becoming a cancer researcher, the boy in the yellow T-shirt became a lathe setter.  explaining The date of the photograph makes any purported connection to Sahin somewhat implausible. We have not yet been able to independently verify Sahin's precise date of birth (Wikipedia states variously he was born on Sept. 19 or Sept. 29, 1965) but an August 2016 news article gave his age as 50, and The New York Times reported in November 2020 that he was 55 years old.  Sept. 19 Sept. 29, article reported As such, Sahin would have been either 9 or 10 years old in 1975, when Hfer's photograph of a Turkish family in Dsseldorf was taken. It's possible the boy in the yellow shirt was that old, at that time, but it's unlikely.  Furthermore, as Teyit correctly pointed out, The New York Times noted in its profile of Sahin and Treci that Sahin had left the city of Iskenderun, Turkey, whereas the family from the photograph emigrated from Aksaray, some 170 miles away.  noted Some social media posts and online articles including the photograph of the family described them specifically as Turkish Muslim immigrants. We have not yet been able to determine Sahin's person religious convictions, if any, so this element of the narrative surrounding both the photograph, and Sahin's personal background, remains unclear. In November 2019, Sahin was the recipient of a Mustafa Prize, an Iranian-administered award for scientists in the Islamic world. described Mustafa Prize Eligible nominees must either be professed Muslims from anywhere in the world, or scientists of any religious persuasion from one of 57 Muslim-majority nations (including Sahin's native Turkey). As a result, Sahin's personal religious convictions cannot be deduced from his winning a Mustafa prize in 2019. any religious persuasion Although the family shown in the photograph is not Sahin's, and the boy in the yellow shirt is not him, the milieu it depicted may well have been similar to the one in which Sahin grew up. According to multiple reports, Sahin's father  like the father of the "boy in the yellow t-shirt"  immigrated to Germany as a gastarbeiter ("guest worker") in a Ford factory in Cologne. Both men originally arrived by themselves, before their respective families later joined them.  gastarbeiter The purpose of the guest-worker programs was to bring an influx of skilled labor into Germany in order to revive the German economy in the 1960s and 1970s. Workers were originally intended to stay for only two years, before returning to their countries of origin, but the rules were later changed and allowed for family reunification in Germany. So in the case of Sahin and the boy in the yellow shirt, their families' journey in German society began under the same legal mechanisms, and in similarly modest circumstances. Answering a question for the May 1Voters Guidefrom the League of Women Voters of the Austin Area, City Council hopeful Kathie Tovo made us check our pocketbooks. Tovo said: Austin Energy, the citys electric utility,  is considering its first rate increase since 1994.We wondered about that, since our first thought was that surely electric bills went up during that time. Tovos campaign manager, Mark Yznaga, told us Tovo was referring to the utilitys base charge for electricity. News reports and posts on Austin Energys website show hearings are expected to culminate in the City Council considering a rate bump as soon as later this year.The utility says in aJanuary Austin Energy Rate Review newsletterthat since 1994, its added more than 100,000 customers, experienced big increases in the cost of materials and services and added business functions while expanding others such as energy efficiency and solar rebate programs. At the same time, the article says growth in Austin Energy electric sales has trended downward of late, requiring the utility to dip into its reserves for operations.Echoing the newsletter article, Austin Energy spokesman Ed Clark told us the base electric rate, covering the costs of staff, the electric system, power plants, vehicles and the like, has not changed since 1994. Its 3.55 cents for each of the first 500 kilowatt-hours of electricity used and 7.82 cents for each additional kilowatt-hour. Clark said customers also pay an unchanged $6 monthly service charge,Yet that doesnt mean theyve paid the same amount for electricity every year.Their bills include such variables as a fee for statewide transmission costs added by the Texas Public Utility Commission in November plus a fluctuating fee tied to ups and downs in fuel costs. At our request, Clark told us what an average residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month would have been billed each August from 1994 through 2011. For the period, we calculate, the fuel charge averaged 2.322 cents per kilowatt-hour, though its exceeded that every year from 2004 on.In 1994, the bill for 1,000 kilowatt-hours would have been $79.14. In 2010, the bill for using that much electricity was $100.20 -- an increase of 27 percent. In August 2011, the same usage would be billed $94.72, due to a drop in the fuel charge. Put another way, the 2011 charge looks to be 20 percent more than what it cost a customer using the same amount of electricity in 1994.A-ha! Is it really fair to say Austin Energys rates have not increased since 1994?Well, we realized, our comparison failed to consider inflation over the years. According to our check using theConsumer Price Index inflation calculatorposted online by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2011 bill actually ends up about $15 less than the comparable 1994 bill. When we ran this by Austin economist Stuart Greenfield, he pointed out that according to a finer inflation adjustment tied to household energy prices, the average August 2010 bill was about $33 less than what it was in 1994.At a glance, still, Tovos statement could leave the misimpression that utility customers havent had to dig out more dollars for electricity since 1994. They have. We rate the statement Mostly True. As Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gains ground on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the two candidates supporters have been sparring, including over campaign donations. Recently, a reader sent us a social media meme that paints Clintons list of donors as dominated by corporate interests, whereas Sanders top 10 donors come largely from labor unions -- a dichotomy that, to Democratic primary voters, puts Sanders in a more favorable light. Hillary: Top ten donor list. Representing banks, corporations and media, the meme reads, providing a top-10 list with dollar amounts. Bernie: Top ten donor list. Representing people. The meme is topped by each candidates presidential campaign logo. (See the meme below.) We cant tell who produced this meme, but we thought it was worth a closer look. Well start by noting that reasonable people can disagree about whether labor unions represent people, as the meme says, as opposed to just unionized workers, who are a relatively small subset of the entire population. Well also note that while this meme may appeal to union supporters and critics of Wall Street and big corporations, it also could be used as evidence that Sanders is just as reliant on one type of donor -- labor unions -- as Clinton is on big corporations. We found that the data cited in the meme refers to cumulative donations over the course of each candidates political career as calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, not just fundraising from the current presidential cycle. (ClintonandSandershave announced their fundraising hauls for the second quarter of 2015, but have not yet released the full data that is due at the Federal Election Commission by July 15; a more complete analysis of the data will be compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics after that.) ForClinton, we found a high degree of similarity with the meme when we checked the database on July 6. Clintons top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILYs List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288). That list is quite close to what the meme says. It includes five financial-services companies, two law firms that do a lot of corporate work, two media conglomerates and one group, EMILYs list, that supports abortion-rights Democratic candidates. Its worth noting that Clinton was a senator from New York, meaning that some of the donors on her list were not simply Wall Street and corporate behemoths, but also constituents, based in New York. The database results forSandersare also quite close to whats in the meme. The data for Sanders goes back to 1989. His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500). In the meme, the letter carriers union makes the list, but the Center for Responsive Politics has the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees cracking the top 10 instead. Either way, nine of the 10 are unions, and the tenth is the national association representing plaintiffs attorneys. During his career, Sanders has received strong support from progressive Democrats, so this pattern of financial backing is not surprising. So the meme is pretty accurate for both candidates. However, we see a few things worth pointing out. As we noted, this data refers to their entire political careers back to the 1990s. Once the full presidential data is released, those figures may show different patterns. That is not made clear in the meme, said Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College. Most people would assume that this is money raised so far in the 2016 presidential campaign. Also, the donors listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it was their PACs, employees and those employees families. In fact, due to how the forms are filled out, the data is less likely to capture individual donations from union members than from employers of companies. Most individual donations are listed by employer, and if, say, a union carpenter lists his affiliation as his company, the fact that hes a union member wouldnt be recorded. Finally, lists such as this ignore that both candidates are collecting many small donations, too. According to the Clinton campaign, she raised roughly $50 million in contributions under $200 during her '08 campaign. Data for the 2016 cycle is not available yet. All told, its possible to look at the top donors on the two lists and say both candidates are captive to a particular set of interest groups, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabatos Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. However, he added, labor is a Democratic constituency whose beliefs generally line up with Democratic policies, and were talking about a Democratic primary here. So all things being equal, Sanders donor list probably looks better, politically, than Clintons. Kondik added that, as the meme indicates, Clinton has a much larger reservoir of money than Sanders has. The value of having a large financial advantage over your competitors in a primary setting seems to be worth occasional questions about how the financial advantage was built, he said. Our ruling Social media memes say that Clintons top 10 donors are mainly banks, corporations and media, while Bernie Sanders top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, its worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True. Claim:  Jesse Shedd is wanted by the police for beating an autistic woman named Ashley Hamilton.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, April 2013] WANTED BY THE LAW - TABITHA ADKINS AND JESSE SHEDD If you know the whereabouts of these criminals, please report this to your local police immediately, or post a comment on this blog or on Facebook. I see too many posts on Facebook about monsters who abuse and kill the innocent. We must not be silent. Silence implies consent. If you can stop a monster, you have to do your part - or you become an "accomplice after the fact" and share the guilt for the crime.  We need everyone help to find these two there names are Tabitha Adkins and Jesse Shedd. They brutally beat this sweet little girl, Ashley who is autistic and handicapped and uses a wheelchair. Please everyone report this so they can be brought to justice. Origins:  According to information posted on the Facebook site Justice for Ashley Hamilton, an autistic young woman by that name was "severely beaten by her caregivers" on 3 April 2013 (just three days before her 22nd birthday).  Atlanta television station WIXI reported on the case, noting that: Justice for Ashley Hamilton  The Rabun County Sheriff's Office is investigating the possibility that a wheelchair-bound woman was assaulted. The victim, 21-year-old Ashley Hamilton, suffered extensive injuries to her head and face. Police found her at Raco's Sports Bar in Clayton on Apr. 3. Rabun County Sheriff Frank Andrews said investigators think Hamilton was left in the care of family friends while her mother was out of town. The victim suffers from disabilities and must use a wheelchair. Andrews said Hamilton may have sustained her injuries on Apr. 2. A home health professional said she told the victim's mother, Kelly Hamilton, to take the young woman to the hospital, but Ashley Hamilton did not receive medical attention until police and EMS found her at the sports bar. No arrests have been made, but Andrews said the sheriff's office has several persons of interest. They are trying to determine when and how Hamilton was injured. "We must be diligent in our efforts to find as much tangible evidence as possible since our victim is not in a position to tell us what happened to her," Andrews said in a statement. "It is in the interest of justice to see that no stone is left unturned." Atlanta television station WAGA has also reported that police were  investigating the case: Authorities are investigating after a 22-year-old autistic woman was brutally attacked in Rabun County. Kelly Hamilton says she was out of town when she learned about injuries to her daughter Ashley's feet and face.   "Her mouth was busted and her tooth was knocked out," Hamilton said. Family members say the autistic woman is developmentally on par with a 2-year-old child. They don't know who is responsible and say they remain stunned anyone could or would harm the helpless woman.  "The night I got home, there was no swelling or any bruising on her eye that had shown up. The doctors said that it would take 24 hours for  bruising to develop," Kelly Hamilton said.  After family members reported the attack, doctors treated Ashley Hamilton for those bruises. She spent a birthday in the hospital. Authorities are investigating the beating. Authorities say while Kelly Hamilton was out of town, Ashley stayed with family friends.  Family members say they hope that investigation leads to an arrest for an attack on a woman who can't fight back.  "She's a beautiful little girl who can't defend herself and she's brutally beaten up here and I just want justice for her," said Kelly Hamilton.  Rabun County authorities say that they are gathering details in the case. The Clayton Tribune posted on their Facebook page on 5 April 2013 that: Facebook page In regard to the widely circulated photo on our Facebook page and beyond of an alleged beaten girl, we confirmed [yesterday] with the Rabun County Sheriffs Department that there is an open investigation. There are currently no other official updates, but we will provide news updates as we have them.   On 17 April 2013, WAGA reported that seven people, including Ashley's mother and Jesse Shedd, were facing charges in connection with the case: Jesse Shedd Seven people are facing charges in connection to the alleged beating of an autistic woman.  Now, the victim's mother and other family members responsible for her care have been arrested.   Kelly Hamilton says the charges of disabled person abuse against her are unfounded.  Hamilton says she was out of town when a family friend severely beat her 22-year-old daughter, Ashley.  Authorities also charged Richard Foss, Hamilton's fianc, with reckless conduct.   "They're saying the reason for the charges are because we didn't immediately call the night we got home to see her in that condition, but that condition wasn't visible until the next day," said Hamilton.  "They said 24 hours later the bruises would show after a beating to her head."  "Besides the cut on her lip and a broken tooth, those were the only visible signs the night we arrived," Foss said. Authorities have also charged five other people in the case.  Deputies say one family friend who cared for Ashley, 28-year-old Jesse Terrell Shedd, faces charges of battery and disabled person abuse for actually hitting the severely autistic woman.   "During that two hour timeframe, we don't know to what extent the abuse occurred, but the facts and circumstances led us to believe he did inflict substantial visible bodily injury on Ashley Hamilton," said Rabun County Sheriff's Office chief investigator Gerald Johnson.   Last updated:  17 April 2013    Carver, Darryl.  "Mom, Six Others Charged in Attack on Autistic Woman."   WAGA-TV [Atlanta].  17 April 2013.    Sawicki, Beth.  "Disabled Woman in Wheelchair Possibly Assaulted."   WIXI-TV [Atlanta].  8 April 2013. In late 2021, online advertisements were displayed on websites, claiming: "He Found Treasure Inside His Grandparents' Barn." Our research led us to a Reddit user named EvilEnglish who posted in 2013 that he really did find what could be described as a "treasure" that was left behind in his grandparents' safe in Tennessee. online advertisements However, the truth of the story had been twisted over the years by the ads and slideshow articles. First, the two pictures in the ad had nothing to do with the Reddit user, his grandparents, or where the "treasure" was found in the safe. The photograph of the supposed Redditer is of Chris Seiter, a writer for exgirlfriendrecovery.com, and the picture of the old house appeared to also be unrelated. exgirlfriendrecovery.com We found multiple photographs in the 60-page slideshow article that resulted from clicking the ad that also had nothing to do with what actually happened, despite the fact that they were credited to him. Further, the discovery was made in EvilEnglish' grandparents' farmhouse, not a "barn." article  Despite being credited to the Reddit user, these two pictures appeared to have nothing to do with the real story about the treasure found in the EvilEnglish's grandparents' home or safe.  In the original story that was posted in 2013, EvilEnglish, who did not provide his real name, said that his father died in 2009. That led to his inheriting his grandparents' farmhouse in middle Tennessee, a property they had owned between around the late 1970s and 1997. posted As he wrote on Reddit, it was under a damp and loose carpet in the closet under the staircase that he found and eventually opened a "secret safe": My dad passed away a few years ago and he inherited an old farmhouse in middle Tennessee from my grandparents. The house was a home for my grandparents for 20 some odd years. They bought this house in the late '70s/early '80s to escape the oppressive summer heat of the South. My grandfather was an avid sportsman and enjoyed collecting various firearms. My grandmother was a collector of coins and other antiques and curiosities. My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1998, but I think the last time they had traveled to the Tennessee house was around 1997. After my grandfather passed away, neither my grandmother nor father returned to the house. My father passed in 2009 and we've been working to close out his estate and traveled to the farmhouse to prepare it for sale. Lots and lots of work to do here as it is an old house. I was working in a closet below the staircase and saw that the rug was pretty disgusting. I started pulling up the rug and noticed a block of concrete. This was very out of place since all of the downstairs flooring is hardwood. I pushed the carpet back further and saw a round cap with a circular indentation on it. I pulled off the cap and... a secret safe! I gave the handle a tug, but it wouldn't budge. If you twist the handle it will still spin. I called several locksmiths in TN, but it is impossible to get someone to come out on a Sunday up there. I should also say that early last year my brother-in-law and I were moving some of the furniture. He went to move one of the coffee tables and when he went to pick it up, the tabletop came off of the base. Underneath the tabletop of the coffee table was a hidden, standalone safe. It was pretty heavy, but we were able to load it into the truck. He took it to work and was able to cut it open. Inside of it were several pistols (.22s, a 357, and a few others) there were also about 300 single one-dollar bills. We found out that they were "Barr Notes" and supposedly rare because that particular Secretary of the Treasury died like 29 days in office. Anyhow, most of the locksmiths in the area seem to only want to come out during the week. I'm trying to work out for an off day for upcoming Friday to return to Tennessee! On April 30, 2013, EvilEnglish posted to Reddit that the safe had been unlocked, revealing "treasure" from his grandparents' past. posted Inside, he found "dozens of rare coins, pocket watches and wristwatches, jewelry, and stacks of soggy money," according to KSL.com. according to KSL.com The money may have been wet after a pipe leak that had occurred in the years before the safe was found. The original Imgur album of photos, as well as multiple YouTube videos, are no longer available. Readers looking for pictures of the grandparents' "secret safe" can find them within the same news article from KSL.com, or from this HuffPost article from May 1, 2013. this HuffPost article In the album, the pictures showed the "Major Safe. Co." logo in the floor being looked at by the professional who found a way to open it. All of the found "treasure" from the safe was displayed on the kitchen counter. In an old Reddit comment, EvilEnglish wrote: "Funny that as a boy, in that very house, my grandma read me 'Treasure Island,' and I always dreamed of finding something like this!" 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 Claim:  Robbers are flinging eggs at cars to impair drivers' vision and force them to stop.  Examples:   [Collected via Facebook, June 2015] Posted by Michelle Shel-lee Seibel on Monday, June 15, 2015 Michelle Shel-lee Seibel Monday, June 15, 2015   [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Please take this seriously! If you are driving at night and are attacked with eggs, do not operate the wiper and  spray and water. Because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% Then you are forced to stop at the road side and become a victim of robbers. This is a new technique used by robbers in Johor Bahru. Please inform your friends and relatives!!  If you are driving at night and eggs are thrown at your windshield. Do not operate the wiper and spray any water because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% so you are forced to stop at the roadside and become a victim of robbers.  This is a new technique used by robbers.  Please inform your friends and relatives. This also happens on interstates near exits. Origins:  Breathless e-mailed warnings about the (usually false) latest ways in which thieves are purported to be getting motorists to pull over so they can be preyed upon are nothing new: a few we've previously documented include claims that gangs of robbers were placing tire-puncturing spikes in shopping mall parking lots, or affixing plastic baskets  spikes baskets  to the undersides of targeted vehicles (thereby prompting drivers to stop to investigate the noise), pouring sugar into gas tanks, festooning cars' windshields with flyers, and even acting drunk or as if they'd been struck by other cars.  sugar flyers drunk Our first sighting of this November 2009 warning about eggs being thrown at windshields was a 29 October 2009 YahooGroups mail list post. That earlier version, while it also asserted the claim of water mixed with raw egg's obscuring a windshield and bruited the (absurdly precise) 92.5% figure, differed from what has become the canonical form of the warning in that it stated motorists so attacked would become prey to "robbers/carnappers" and recommended those so assaulted instead drive to "a well lit place w/ many people or nearest police station" rather than stop. Later forms of the e-mail added further flourishes, such as "used by robbers" morphing into "used by robbers in Johor Bahru" (the capital city of Johor in southern Malaysia), the addition of the claim that these attacks "happens on interstates near exits," and most commonly the inclusion of this new paragraph which blames matters on the flagging economy: "Folks are becoming more and more cruel daily. But this is just the beginning of pangs of distress. With the decline in economy and job losses, we can expect anything. Just can't be too careful these days." Though we've queried our police contacts and scoured news reports looking for accounts of robberies and carjackings effected by disabling target  vehicles by pelting them with raw eggs, we weren't able to find any such occurrences in the U.S. Rather, we did locate news stories about police cars so pelted, with the officers retaliating by giving chase to the miscreants who'd thrown eggs at them. In various news accounts we found, officers not only were able to see well enough through their poultrified windows to go after the bad guys, they succeeded in running them to ground and bringing them to justice. Most tellingly, such accounts made no mention of the gendarmes so assaulted experiencing difficulty in seeing well enough through their egged windshields to give chase. While a mixture of raw egg and water vigorously stirred together in a glass will produce a somewhat milky-looking liquid (which might be the source of this tale), there's nothing about the interaction of egg and water that renders the resulting combination into a substance guaranteed to completely block a driver's vision. Egg alone or egg-and-water solutions are thin liquids and so are relatively easy to see through, with the vehicle's wipers generally sweeping away the worst of the mess fairly easily. Moreover, it would take a number of extremely well-placed eggs (a hen's typical offerings aren't that big) to splat a windshield so thoroughly as to completely impair the driver's view and force him to stop immediately  unless the visibility conditions were already poor, a motorist with a splattered windshield would generally still be able to see well enough to continue driving out of range of the egg-throwing hooligans to a safe stopping place. Certainly miscreants have long engaged in the practice of launching objects (rocks, eggs, firecrackers, paintballs) at moving cars in order to startle motorists into stopping and getting out of their automobiles (typically as a prank, but sometimes as a means of setting up the theft of a vehicle and/or the driver's possessions), but that information is neither new nor shocking. Variations:   A March 2010 version combined the "eggs baby  A November 2012 version included this photograph of a car's windshield that had some sort of white spatter upon it that looked to us to be white paint:  Barbara "pitched battle" Mikkelson Last updated:  17 June 2015    Hoober, John.  "Egg Tossed at Cruiser Leads to Chase, Crash."   Lancaster New Era.  3 December 2008  (p. A1).