Intuit Order Confirmation
Phishing bait:  Software order confirmation from Intuit. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2012]     Origins:  In October 2012, Internet users were spammed with phony e-mailed confirmation orders from Intuit, a financial and tax preparation software company, bearing subject lines such as "Intuit Order Status," "Intuit GoPayment Order Status update," "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Information," and "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Note." Intuit posted an alert on its web site about the fake e-mail, advising recipients to: alert  Do not click on the link in the email. Send a copy of the email to spoof@intuit.com. Do not forward the email to anyone else. Delete the email. Intuit's alert also advises users that: On the Internet, "phishing" refers to criminal activity that attempts to fraudulently obtain sensitive information. Here's what you can do to protect yourself from a phishing attack:  If you suspect you have received a phishing email from Intuit, please forward it immediately to spoof@intuit.com. We will look into each reported instance. Make sure you subscribe to an anti-virus software and keep it up-to-date. Make sure you have updated your web browser to one that includes anti-phishing security features, such as Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox version 3 or higher. Make sure that you keep up to date on the latest releases and patches for your operating systems and critical programs. These releases are frequently security related. Do not respond to emails asking for account, password, banking, or credit card information. Do not open up an attachment that claims to be a software update. We will not send any software updates via email. Do not respond to text messages or voicemails that ask you to call a number and enter your account number and pin. Make sure you have passwords on your computer and your payroll files. Last updated:  1 October 2012
As so-called undocumented immigrants in the U.S. struggled to avoid deportation and risked their health during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, government agencies created potential new challenges for them. In July, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) department announced they would be offering a six-day Citizens Academy training starting in September in Chicago, which would allow civilians and ICE officers to engage with each other. struggled risked their health announced Snopes readers shared the following letter from ICE, reportedly sent to potential participants across Chicago, and asked us if it meant the agency would be training civilians to assist in the apprehension of undocumented people. The answer is complicated. letter   We found that this was an actual letter sent by ICE. Although they said they were planning to conduct trainings in September and would show civilians how they made arrests, the notion that this would lead to civilians actually apprehending undocumented people was disputed by the agency. Immigration advocates, however, were skeptical.  In order to understand the actual nature and likely outcome of these trainings, we reached out to ICE, as well as immigration advocates, and looked at past examples of such academies.  According to an ICE press release, the interactive program would occur once a week over six weeks. Participants would learn about ICE policies and procedures from ERO officers, while officers would hear participants perspectives and debunk myths about ICE. press release The curriculum will include, but is not limited to, classroom instruction, visiting an immigration detention center, learning more about the health care ICE provides to those in its custody, and examining ICEs role in ensuring dignity, respect and due process of an immigration case from start to finish. Many in Chicago received letters from ICE inviting them to apply. The letter said, attendees will participate in scenario-based training ... including, but not limited to defensive tactics, firearms familiarization, and targeted arrests. received Nicole Alberico, an ICE spokesperson, responded to Snopes' request for more information about the training (emphasis ours): ...the academy is not to train members of the public to do the work of trained, federal law enforcement officers. ICE ERO Citizens Academy is modeled after other law enforcement community outreach programs  including ICEs Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), FBI and local police departments  all with the goal of directly engaging and educating the public. Chicago ERO is looking for a diverse set of influential community leaders  regardless of their stance on ICE  to apply. The spokesperson said that they also had not determined whether media would be permitted to attend the training, as they were considering health precautions because of the pandemic and privacy concerns.  In sum, according to their own descriptions, ICE plans on showing civilians how they as an agency carry out arrests but will not be training civilians to do arrests themselves.  According to one report, such a Citizens Academy has already taken place in Los Angeles for years, with participants simulating drug busts, arrests, and stakeouts. According to one graduate, the course immersed people in what the agents do. While the Chicago program was to be run by ERO, the Los Angeles Academy was being run under ICEs Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) department.  one report simulating The goal of such training appeared to be to get more people to understand ICEs perspective, see how they operate, and eventually construct a positive image of the agency in various communities. There is no available evidence that such trainings led to civilians participating in actual arrests.  Testimony from activists, human rights organizations, and reporting show ample proof of ICEs history of violating detainees rights, inhumane arrests of undocumented immigrants, separating children from their parents, and the lack of accountability surrounding their operations. ICE has also used civilian informants before. violating detainees rights arrests lack of accountability civilian informants The Citizens Academy announcement faced swift backlash from activists and government officials, including Chicago's alderman, Rossana Rodriguez, who labeled it a vigilante academy. In July, Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley put forward an amendment to the Homeland Security spending bill, barring agencies like ICE from using government funds to run Citizens Academy courses. vigilante academy forward Immigration activists said these classes were at best propaganda and at worst would train civilians to "snitch" on undocumented immigrants. Lam Nguyen Ho, executive director of Beyond Legal Aid, an organization that provides legal services to immigrants in Chicago, spoke to Snopes about the dangers of such academies:  said propaganda ... the best case scenario for this training is ICE doing a marketing campaign to justify continuing to deport undocumented immigrants indiscriminately and separating families inhumanely ... We have immigrants afraid of opening their doors and applying for immigration rights to which they are actually eligible due to the fears and violence they see ... I cant imagine the misinformation and fears that will be created when an agency of our government is basically sanctioning and coordinating neighbors surveilling, profiling, or worse against each other. (Update: The Chicago Citizen's Academy was postponed in 2020 due to the pandemic, and a new date had not been announced. According to a statement from an ICE official, it will be tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2021.) In sum, ICE confirmed that the Citizens Academy course will take place, but denied they will train civilians to carry out arrests. Based on ICEs history of abuses against immigrant populations, the fears surrounding this particular training aren't unreasonable, but the exact nature and outcome of the training remains to be seen. Based on all of the above factors, we rate this claim a Mixture. Da Silva, Chantal.  "DHS Spending Bill Amended to Ban Funding for ICE's Citizen's Academy."
 Newsweek. 15 July 2020. Da Silva, Chantal.  "ICE Offering 'Citizens Academy' Course with Training on Arresting Immigrants."
 Newsweek. 9 July 2020. Gonzalez, Christina."ICE Citizen Academy Causing Uproar in Chicago, Has Been Going on in Los Angeles - for Years."
 Fox11 Los Angeles. 11 July 2020. Human Rights Watch.  "US: Stop Using Untrained, Abusive Agencies at Protests."
 5 June 2020. Kaplan, Emily.  "What Isolation Does to Undocumented Immigrants."
  The Atlantic. 27 May 2020. Katz, Ryan. "Play to Stay."
 The Intercept. 24 September 2018. McFarling, Usha Lee. "Fearing Deportation, Many Immigrants at Higher Risk of Covid-19 Are Afraid to Seek Testing or Care."
  StatNews. 15 April 2020. Mejia, Brittny. "At Citizen Academies, Devoted Participants Get Their Law Enforcement Fix."
 Los Angeles Times. 3 December 2018. Tashman, Brian. "Congress Needs To Hold ICE Accountable for Abuses."
 ACLU. 2 February 2018. Torres, Adry. "ICE Is Offering a Six-week Course on How to Arrest Immigrants - Including 'Firearms and Defensive Training' - as Critics Warns They Are Using Private Citizens As Their Eyes and Ears."
 The Daily Mail.8 July 2020. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "ICE Offers First Citizens Academy for Public to Learn More About Agencys Mission in Chicago."
 13 July 2020. Zamudio, Maria Ines. "ICE Citizens Trainings May Be a 'Vigilante Academy,' Chicago Alderman Warns."
 NPR. 10 July 2020. In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was "the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor" re-emerged social media   The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase "First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor": 2017 The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called "strongman politics," whereby "those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning." He also criticized "far-right parties" with a platform of "protectionism and closed borders" as well as "barely-hidden racial nationalism." perceived Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a "symptom, not a cause" of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the "wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage." Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented "one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for." speech Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer "There is no military victory here" and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: took aim efforts George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: reported Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress "for his demise or things that weren't going right." "He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it," Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. "I think America is a little tired of it." During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having "the nerve" to blame the GOP for "his own failures," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazettereported: reported Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. "He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress," the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: reported Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. "I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess," Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. "But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold." Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to "accept his responsibilities as president," the New York Times reported: New York Times Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, "we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors" ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan "my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency." "My offer still stands," Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. "When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him." At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were "irresponsible and ill-advised" and that his Republican successor had made "radical" and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: reported Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: "Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth" ... "It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised," he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: interview "Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion," Ford said. "It's going out like a mouse" ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: negotiations crisis reported "The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter," Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. "The president blew it." Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. "He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible." Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is "the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor" is false. Wintour, Patrick.  "Obama Criticises 'Strongman Politics' in Coded Attack on Trump." 
  The Guardian.  17 July 2018. Reuters.  "Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush on Iraq." 
  19 July 2007. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay and Jeff Zeleny.  "Clash Over Iraq Becomes Bitter Between Bush and Congress." 
  The New York Times.  12 July 2007. Zizzo, David.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton During Stop in City." 
  The Daily Oklahoman.  5 November 1994. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton." 
  5 November 1994. Associated Press.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton, But Says Scandal Will Fade." 
  The Atlanta Constitution   25 January 1999. Clymer, Adam.  "Carter Says Reagan Has Failed to Accept His Responsibilities." 
  The New York Times.  1 October 1982. Pippert, Wesley G.  "Jimmy Carter Criticized President Reagan Wednesday for Making 'Radical'..." 
  United Press International.  10 November 1982. Cannon, Lou.  "Ford Criticizes Carter Economics." 
  The Tampa Bay Times.  17 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Policy." 
  The [Uniontown] Evening Standard.  8 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Economic Policies." 
  The [Staunton] News Leader.  11 October 1979. Carrol, Jan.  "Former President Ford Criticizes Carter for 'Flip-Flopping' Policies." 
  The [Lousiville] Courier-Journal.  27 June 1980. Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. Some April Fools' Day jokes outlive their marginal and ephemeral usefulness and continue to be spread as valid bits of information long after April 1 has come and passed. One example of such occurred in 2020, when a jape about a toll-free phone number that could be used for tracking the status of $1,200 economic stimulus payments being sent to U.S. taxpayers continued to circulate via social media: economic stimulus     The federal government has not yet announced an automated system for tracking stimulus payments. Persons who call the number shown above may end up "stimulated," but not in an economic sense -- it connects callers with a phone sex line. The IRS reportedly will start issuing stimulus payments via direct deposit beginning on April 9. Taxpayers who receive paper checks (because the IRS does not have their bank account information on file) may be receiving their payments anywhere between April 24 and September 11, depending upon their adjusted gross income. start issuing Mengle, Rocky.  "When Will I Get My Stimulus Check?."
  Kiplinger  3 April 2020. 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 mid-April 2020, social media users shared a meme implying that hospitals had a financial incentive to inflate the number of COVID-19 patients they were admitting in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The meme contained red text that said, "So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19 and an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!" and prompted readers to ask Snopes.com to verify whether the statement is true:The idea that hospitals are getting paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses and $39,000 more if those patients are placed on ventilators appears to have originated with an interview given on the Fox News prime-time program "Ingraham Angle" by Dr. Scott Jensen, a physician who also serves as a Republican state senator in Minnesota.  During the April 9, 2020 interview, Jensen suggested to host Laura Ingraham that he believed the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. was being artificially inflated. "The idea that were going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because were going to undermine the (public) trust," he said. interview suggested Ingraham then played footage from a press conference with comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in which Fauci called claims that the number of coronavirus cases are being "padded" a conspiracy theory. In an exchange that followed, Jensen suggested that Medicare, the national health care plan for the elderly, was paying hospitals set amounts for each patient diagnosed and treated for COVID-19: INGRAHAM: Dr. Fauci was asked about the COVID death count today. Here's what he said, in part. [Cut to briefing] REPORTER: What do you say to those folks who are making the claim without really any evidence that these deaths are being padded, that the number of COVID-19 deaths are being padded? FAUCI: You will always have conspiracy theories when you have very challenging public health crises. They are nothing but distractions. [Cut back to Ingraham] INGRAHAM: Conspiracy theories, doctor? So you're engaging in conspiracy theories. What do you say to Dr. Fauci tonight? JENSEN: Well I would remind him that any time health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward. Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital, you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do. We attempted to reach Jensen by phone and email, but did not get a response in time for publication. We also reached out to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to ask whether the statement that Medicare was paying hospitals $13,000 and $39,000, respectively, for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and patients with the disease who are placed on ventilators. A spokesperson for CMS told us that whether hospitals are paid by Medicare for care of a COVID-19 patient would depend on whether that patient was covered by Medicare insurance. CMS also told us there is no set or predetermined amount paid to hospitals for diagnosing and treating COVID-19 patients, and the amounts would depend on a variety of factors driven by the needs of each patient. Pay-outs would also depend on the variance of the costs of medical care in different regions. The closest match for the numbers cited by Jensen we could locate was in an April 7, 2020, article published by the health care nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. As a starting point to estimate how much hospitals might get paid by the federal government for treating uninsured COVID-19 patients, the article used average payments for hospital admissions for similar conditions in 2017:  article For less severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017, which was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218. But while these industry estimates are similar to the numbers Jensen cited, they do not represent actual Medicare payments to hospitals for COVID-19 diagnoses or treatment, or even a national average of such payments.  We therefore rate this claim "Mixture." While it seems plausible that Medicare disbursements to hospitals treating COVID-19 patients could be in the range given by Jensen in the Fox News interview (if those patients are covered by Medicare), we found no evidence to support Jensen's assertion that "Medicare has determined" that hospitals will be paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses or $39,000 for COVID-19 patients place on ventilators. Gillum, Jack, et al."Theres Been a Spike in People Dying at Home in Several Cities. That Suggests Coronavirus Deaths Are Higher Than Reported."
ProPublica.14 April 2020. WNBC TV."Massive Spike in NYC Cardiac Arrest Deaths Seen as Sign of COVID-19 Undercounting."
10 April 2020. Brown, Emma, et al."Which Deaths Count Toward the COVID-19 Death Toll? It Depends on the State."
 The Washington Post.16 April 2020. Levitt, Larry, et al."Estimated Cost of Treating the Uninsured Hospitalized with COVID-19."
Kaiser Family Foundation.7 April 2020. Fox News."Dr. Jensen Calls Out 'Ridiculous' CDC Guidelines for Coronavirus-Related Deaths."
9 April 2020. Claim:  Photograph shows military jets in formation spelling out an obscene phrase.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2011] Look at it very very carefully - until you can appreciate the message. Final Harrier salute The Harrier boys might appreciate this  view from the left side and at a distance (or half close your eyes) if you cant see the message immediately. Looks like the Joint force Harrier Pilots had a few thoughts on the decision to axe the Harrier.  [Collected via e-mail, November 2011] BRIT'S SPECIAL HARRIER JETS FLY-BY 'SALUTE' TO OBAMA I'll BET YOU A $100 to a nickel... he never noticed what the position of the aircraft were spelling.... until one of his aides told him... Way to go Brits..... love it. In case Obama didn't understand how the Brits felt when he sent the bust of Churchill back to England, a gift from the English during the Bush administration. These pilots have not forgotten Obama's disrespect for America's friend and ally. YOU HAVE TO LOOK REALLY CLOSE IT SPELLS OUT 2 WORDS Subject: Harrier jets fly past special salute to Obama to a select few. ENJOY the Brits humor on Obama's last visit. They will never forget nor forgive! The Brits may be prim and proper but they still get their point across. Harrier jets' fly past (fly-bys) over Downing Street in a air show salute to Obama. It's good to see the RAF have a sense of humor. Look at it from an angle or lean back in your chair, and squint; squinting works best.     Origins:  As indicated by the examples reproduced above, we originally happened upon this image at the beginning of 2011 when it was positioned as a Joint Force Harrier pilots' expression of disgruntlement with the UK government's decision to discontinue operations with the BAE Systems Harrier GR9/9A ground-attack aircraft, and we encountered it again at the end of 2011, when it was claimed to be a British protest over President Obama's returning a bust of Winston Churchill which had been loaned to President Bush by former British prime minister Tony Blair following the September 11 attacks in 2001.  discontinue returning Neither explanation is correct, among other reasons because any such event would have received widespread coverage in the UK yet nary a mention of it appeared in the British press.  This image is an obvious digital creation, supposedly featuring a staggering total of nearly four dozen different aircraft (the actual farewell formation flight of Joint Force Harriers involved only sixteen planes) which all have exactly the same profile in flight, all flying with the very same attitude, with no visible individual variations in size, shape, or distance between any of the jets. A similar digital manipulation can be seen in a much-circulated image claimed to be  a photograph of jets from Randolph Air Force Base spelling out "USA." Randolph Last updated:  27 July 2012 Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey.  Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion.  The name of Southwest Airlines, a major U.S. airline which is also the world's largest low-cost carrier, has frequently been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years.  In February 2016, social media users encountered posts that appeared to be from Southwest Airlines, offering to give away four tickets to Las Vegas and $5,000 spending money to Facebook users who shared and liked a page.  The primary type of free ticket fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel  "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print.  The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free air travel tickets to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by Southwest Airlines) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" tickets offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:  Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware.    In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking Southwest Airlines has responded to such scams by issuing messages on Twitter that read: "Hey folks! There is a scam being passed around on Facebook about a free ticket offer from SWA. Please don't click or share the links!" As well, Southwest spokesperson Christi McNeill has said of these attempts to defraud that "We are aware of the scam for free tickets being spread across Facebook. This offer is in no way affiliated with Southwest Airlines and we are working with Facebook to get it removed." Claim:  A man was ordered to pay $30,000 in support for a child that DNA testing proved was not his. Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, January 2015] We need justice for Carnell Alexander  just one victim of paternity fraud in MI.   Origins:  In January 2015, what appeared to be a child support-related horror story began to circulate on the Internet. According to several news articles (mainly of the "[news channel] on your side" variety), Detroit resident Carnell Alexander was  ordered by a court to pay more than $30,000 in support for a child that was provably not his. Moreover, the articles claimed, Alexander's DNA test results had been acknowledged by the court but disregarded in what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.  The claim was substantiated on a few levels: Alexander provided his DNA testing results proving that he did not father the child in question, and many articles offered visual evidence showing the amount ($30,000) owed by the Michigan resident to the state. Alexander's situation has been held up as an example of "paternity fraud," but a number of  aspects have been elided from the retellings of his story, aspects that provide context necessary to understanding how what looks to be a clear-cut case of injustice could have come to pass:  The vast majority of articles about the Carnell Alexander case all stem from one local Detroit news report about the issue, creating the false impression that a number of media outlets have verified the facts of the case rather than simply recycling single-source information.  Significant advances in DNA testing have been developed since Alexander was named the father of the now-adult child in 1987. Due to the relative ease of modern DNA testing, a case such as this one would be extremely unlikely to occur today.  An oft-repeated aspect of the case involves the mention of "paternity fraud," leading many readers to believe that the debt owed by Alexander is to the mother of the child and should therefore be forgiven because DNA test results have proved he was not the father. However, the unusual outcome of the case stemmed not from monies owed to the child's (unnamed) mother, but to monies owed to the state as compensation for welfare benefits obtained by the mother. By all accounts (which link back to an October 2014 news segment and article from Detroit station WXYZ), the child's mother intentionally and wrongly named Alexander as the father of her child in order to obtain state assistance: WXYZ [The mother] was struggling to care for the child. When she applied for state assistance, the case worker told her she had to name the father. "That was the only way I could get assistance," she said. She said she didn't realize the state would go after the father to pay the support given to the child. "Everything is my fault, that I put him through," she said. It was not easy [for him] to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help. He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.  Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right. Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his. The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved. "Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby," said Alexander. The case also involved an omission on the part of a process server who claimed to have served Alexander with notice of a pending paternity claim against him early on in the child's life. State records proved that Alexander was incarcerated at the time he was purportedly served notice, and that the individual responsible for serving him mistakenly or intentionally claimed otherwise: The court focused on a summons tied to the paternity case in the late 1980's. The state sent a process server to Alexanders dad's house in Highland Park to let him know about the paternity case. The process server turned a document into the court saying Alexander was delivered the summons, but he refused to sign the summons. "I wasn't there. I couldn't refuse to sign," said Alexander. Michigan Department of Corrections ... records confirm Alexander's story  he did not receive that order at a home in Highland Park. He was in prison for a crime he committed as a young man. However, one article about the case referenced a circumstance unmentioned by other reports, that Alexander had initially agreed to "admit" paternity in order to facilitate the mother's approval for welfare services: article But how did Alexander get entangled in a paternity case? Alexander's ex had a baby and didn't know who was the child's father. She reportedly needed state assistance, so the case worker demanded that she name a father for the child.  Alexander, who only went up to the eighth grade education-wise, decided to help his ex so that she could receive state assistance. According to the unnamed woman, she did not realize that the state would go after the child's father for monetary support. The state of Michigan unfortunately does not have paternity fraud laws that protect men.  This last point, if true, could be the crux of the issue: If Alexander in any way agreed to falsely allow the mother to name him as the father on the child's birth certificate, or was aware that she had done so and did not dispute it, it's likely that Michigan viewed him as legally responsible for half the expenses whether his DNA was a match or not. (That  aspect of the case cannot be verified because family court proceedings are not a matter of public record.) Ultimately, the case could hinge  not on whether Alexander was indeed the biological father of the child, but whether he claimed the child as his own as part of an attempt to facilitate his former partner's receipt of welfare (and thus prevented the state from recouping those funds from the child's true biological father).    Last updated:  29 January 2015 Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. In April 2021, an old quote attributed to U.S. President Joe Biden saw a resurgence in shares on social media, overwhelmingly from users who disapproved of his purported claim that the death of George Floyd in May 2020 had had a greater "worldwide impact" than the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The remarks attributed to Biden were: "Dr. King's assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd's death did":   To demonstrate the popularity of the meme, the following screenshot shows just a selection of posts from Facebook alone: Facebook   The quotation was authentic, and originated in remarks Biden made at a campaign event in June 2020. As such, we are issuing a rating of "Correct Attribution." The following is an excerpted transcript of the relevant portion of Biden's remarks, which came at a roundtable event on COVID-19 and the American economy, in Philadelphia, on June 11, 2020. Video of the remarks can be viewed below. Around halfway through the discussion, U.S. Rep. Dwight Evans, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, asked Biden a question that alluded to ongoing social and racial tensions in the United States, and how his campaign pledge to "restore the soul of America" related to those issues. In response, the then-presumptive Democratic nominee criticized then-President Donald Trump for his remarks on white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and his divisive and inflammatory comments about Mexican immigrants. He noted that people of color were being disproportionately struck with the COVID-19 pandemic, and then moved into a discussion about the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in May 2020 after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes. Floyd's death sparked a renewed wave of protests about police brutality and racial injustice throughout the United States and in other parts of the world. Biden said: ...George gets brutally murdered for the whole world to see it. You've never seen  and I come out of the, I was a kid when Dr. King, I came back from law school when Dr. King was assassinated. And when I came back, my city [Wilmington, Delaware] is the only city in America occupied by the National Guard since Reconstruction, because a significant portion was burned to the ground. I came back, I had a job with a good law firm, and I quit and became a public defender. But even Dr. King's assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd's death did. Because, just like television changed the civil rights movement for the better when they saw Bull Connor and his dogs ripping the clothes off of elderly black women going to church, and fire hoses ripping the skin off of young kids all those folks around the country that didn't have any black populations heard about this, but they didn't believe it, but they saw it. It was impossible to close their eyes.  Bull Connor Well with George Floyd, what happened to George Floyd, now you've got how many people around the country, millions of cellphones. It's changed the way everybody's looking at this. Look at the millions of people marching around the world, the world. So my point is that I think people are really realizing that this is a battle for the soul of America. Who are we? What do we want to be? How do we see ourselves? What do we think we should be? [Emphasis is added].  As the transcript and video show, Biden did indeed say "Dr. King's assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd's death did," and the memes therefore quoted him accurately.  In full context, Biden appeared to be making a point less about the relative historic importance of King's life and achievements, but rather the global audience that watched cellphone video footage of Floyd's death. However, Biden also referred to "the millions of people marching around the world" in response to Floyd's death, so his argument did not appear to be limited only to the manner in which modern technology enabled footage of Floyd's death to reach a global audience.  Floyd's death did indeed inspire protests and demonstrations of solidarity throughout the world, in the ensuing days and weeks. In Germany and England, high-profile professional soccer players made gestures of support for Floyd, and for the broader Black Lives Matter movement. throughout the world gestures of support In the English Premier League, the most-watched soccer league in the world, players replaced the names on their jerseys with the words "Black Lives Matter," for the final 12 games of the 2019-20 season, and began "taking a knee" before every game, in the aftermath of Floyd's death  a ritual that has persisted until time of publication, almost one year after the death of George Floyd. replaced