Star Wreck
On 10 November 2015, the web comic The Oatmeal rekindled interest in an incident from the early life of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry: the 1947 crash of Pan Am Flight 121 during its leg from Karachi to Istanbul, an accident that killed seven crew members and seven passengers and left Roddenberry, who was a member of the flight crew, with "a couple of broken ribs and a bruise or two": interest   The Oatmeal comic (which can be viewed in its entirety here) related that after the plane crashed, 26-year-old Gene Roddenberry (a pilot who flew with the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and worked as a commercial pilot for Pan Am airlines after the war) pulled passengers from the burning wreckage and then led them to a village where they were able to call for help. While some readers were skeptical about the fantastical story,The Oatmeal provided a link to its source material,Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry, which recounts the incident at length in Chapter 5. here source Although The Oatmeal described Roddenberry as the "co-pilot" of the flight, other sourcesidentifiedRoddenberry asthe "third officer without flight responsibilities" or "a deadheading" pilot. Nonetheless, Roddenberry did helm a portion the flight while the captain took a break, and there's no disputing the fact that he helped 22 people survive the crash of Pan Am Flight 121 in 1947 after an engine fire forced the flight down in a desert and the plane ignited: sources helped The flight's Third Officer, Eugene Wesley Roddenberry, of River Edge, New Jersey, purser Anthony Volpe and stewardess Jane Bray helped evacuate the wrecked airliner. "We who could jumped out. The other survivors were handed down and we dragged them away and tried to do what we could for them. We had to carry the Rani away. She had a head injury and had lost some teeth and was in a rather bad way, but we finally quieted her,"Bray recalled. "All we could do then was watch while the plane burned, slowly at first and then fiercely. It must have burned for hours, but I do not remember too well. There wasn't any sound but those flames. Everybody who died must have been killed outright." As described in Star Trek Creator, Roddenberry was instrumental in helping to save surviving passengers: The second the plane came to a rest, Roddenberry, Volpe, and Bray quickly began evacuating their charges through the ruptured fuselage. As the fire in the front of the plane approached their section, they knew they only had seconds to get everyone out. Moving as fast as they could, they pushed open the cabin door and guided the uninjured passengers out. Gene and Tony handed down the injured, then the uninjured passengers on the ground dragged them to safety. Even with the composed and focused actions of the surviving crew, the evacuation did not go smoothly. After most of the passengers had been removed, the seatbelt of the Majarani of Pheleton would not release, trapping her in the burning wreckage. The large woman was hysterical. Gene forced the belt open and rescued the Indian royal. She and her son, the prince, were put with the others on the sand, away from the plane and the fire. Gene pulled out several people who were themselves on fire and used a pillow he found on the ground to smother the flames. On board, the flames were growing in intensity, so he could only make a couple of trips into the passenger compartment. The last passenger he pulled out died in his arms. The wind changed, blowing the burning gasoline directly over the ship's wreckage; Gene and Volpe were unable to rescue any more passengers out of the plane. The other passengers safe for the moment, the trio turned their thoughts to their friends on the flight deck. They ran around the burning fuselage and wings to the front of the plane. Looking in the cockpit windows, they could see the flight crew sitting at their stations, slumped over their seats, dead or unconscious. Frantically pounding on the windows, Volpe, Bray, and Roddenberry tried to rouse their friends until the flames drove them back. The Roddenberry Foundation recounted a similar version of the story, noting that the creator ofStar Trek was awarded a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts after the crash: recounted At war's end, he joined Pan American World Airways. It was on a flight from Calcutta that his plane lost two engines and caught fire in flight, crashing at night in the Syrian desert. As the senior surviving officer, Roddenberry sent two Englishmen swimming across the Euphrates River in quest of the source of a light he had observed just prior to the crash impact. The Englishmen reached a Syrian military outpost, which sent a small plane to investigate. Roddenberry returned with the small plane to the outpost, where he broadcast a message that was relayed to Pan Am, which sent a stretcher plane to the rescue. Roddenberry later received a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts during and after the crash.
Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   A Saudi prince owns a minority share of Twenty-First Century Fox, the parent corporation of Fox News, via an investment firm.  WHAT'S :  The photograph of Megyn Kelly posing is a fabrication, and the Saudi prince is not really a "co-owner" of Fox News. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] Origins:  Rumors about Saudi nationals and the ownership of Fox News have been circulating online for years; and interest in the rumors was revived in August 2015 after Fox News political commentator Megyn Kelly grilled business magnate and GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump during a Republican candidates' debate earlier that month. Fox News Kelly (to a far larger degree than her co-moderators Bret Baier and Chris Wallace) was criticized by Trump and his supporters for supposedly treating Trump unfairly during that debate, and not long afterwards the meme displayed above began circulating online, casting Kelly as the face of a purported sinister alliance between Fox News and Saudi operatives. First of all, the image used in that meme is a fake, as the  unaltered original photograph of Kelly proves that her likeness was added to a scene at which she was not present: unaltered The claim that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is "co-owner" of Fox News is also misleading, though less a matter of Photoshop and more one stemming from the slightly complex realm of investments and holdings in relation to large media corporations. The term "co-owner" generally refers to a person who holds a 50% share in a business entity, or at least a share comparable to that of the other largest stakeholders, but Al-Waleed does not qualify on either count. According to news accounts, Prince Al-Waleed's investment firm, Kingdom Holding Company, holds a 6.6% stake in 21st Century Fox, the parent corporation of the Fox News Group (which includes the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network)  a sizable chunk, but far from a controlling or co-controlling interest in the company. news accounts Kingdom Holding Company If such minority institutional holdings qualify as "co-ownership," then Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal would also have to be considered a "co-owner" of business entities such as Twitter and Citigroup. Twitter Citigroup During ongoing national debate over a novel policy of separating families at the border, a photograph circulated (originally from Joshua Feuerstein, a self-styled "American evangelist, Internet and social media personality" who last made headlines in 2015 when he manufactured a so-called "Christmas cup controversy") that purportedly depicted a room full of immigrant children that former President Barack Obama had supposedly removed from their parents' custody: novel policy a photograph circulated self-styled Christmas cup controversy immigrant children The attached text read:As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #shareSome versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image:Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States:The meme's text read:INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOOHey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!!The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities:Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil.The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo:Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year.The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others.Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base:The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014.A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care.... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported.Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration.  The attached text read: As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #share Some versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image: Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States: described   The meme's text read: INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP 140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOO Hey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!! The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities: published Breitbart Breitbart unaccompanied Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil. The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo: National Review Immigration Bedlam Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year. The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others. widely reported Houston Chronicle Splinter News Los Angeles Times Mashable Reuters Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base: The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care. ... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported. Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration. family separation DeRuy, Emily and Jorge Rivas.  "Disturbing Photos Allegedly Show Texas Border Patrol Facility Packed With Immigrant Children."
  Splinter.  6 June 2014. Darby, Brandon.  "Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused In Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed."
  Breitbart.  5 June 2014. Hennessy-Fiske, Molly.  "Hundreds Of Migrant Youths Held At Texas Military Base."
  Los Angeles Times.  5 June 2014. Murdock, Deroy.  "Immigration Bedlam."
  National Review.   13 June 2014. Parker, Kolten.  "Leaked Photos Show Immigrant Children Packed In Crowded Texas Border Facilities."
  Houston Chronicle.  6 June 2014. Roug, Louise.  "How The U.S. Border Became A Humanitarian Crisis."
  Mashable.  8 July 2014. Reuters.  "U.S. To Open Third Military Base To Illegal Child Immigrants."
  9 June 2014 On Jan. 7, 2021, a day after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., a picture started circulating on social media that supposedly showed damage done to the Oval Office:   This is not a genuine photograph of a desecrated Oval Office, and the picture predates the riot. It should also be noted that the Oval Office is located in the White House, not the Capitol. While the Capitol was vandalized during the riot, no damage was done to the White House.  The above-displayed picture has been circulating online since at least November 2020 when it was shared on social media along with messages mocking U.S. President Donald Trump in the wake of his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden.  This image was created by Nick den Boer, an animator, director, and digital artist who posts on social media under the handle @smearballz. This image, along with three others depicting a tarnished Oval Office, was originally posted on Twitter on Nov. 8, 2020, (the day after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election) along with the caption: "Aftermath." Nick den Boer declared the winner  Another set of similar images depicting a trashed Oval Office was posted to @Smearballs Instagram page in November 2019. Den Boer explained to us that the above-displayed images are all 3D models of the Oval Office.  Instagram page While this is a digital creation that does not depict any actual damage done to the Oval Office, the Capitol was truly vandalized during a mob riot that included the deaths of five people. deaths of five people NBC News reported: reported Hundreds of President Donald Trump's supporters swarmed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, leaving the halls of Congress with broken windows, vandalized walls and ransacked offices. Among the wreckage were pieces of broken furniture, battered doors and heaps of trash littering the hallway floors. A thick film of dust and tear gas residue remained throughout the building that contains the Senate and the House of Representatives. Stolen and damaged items were reported in elected officials' offices, including the wood and gold placard above House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office. Updated [8 January 2021]: Article updated to credit the original artist. Claim:  St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch runs a charity called Backstoppers that sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund. : : St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch was the president of Backstoppers, an organization aimed at supporting the families of first responders in crisis, during the controversy in Ferguson.      : Backstoppers sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2014] Is St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch Helping RaiseMoney for Ofc. Darren Wilson?   Origins:  On 24 November 2014, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced in the course of a lengthy press conference that a grand jury had declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown. The decision was both controversial and widely criticized, and it intensified existing criticism regarding McCulloch's putative partiality toward law enforcement officers. McCulloch is the president of the board of Backstoppers, a local organization that supports the families of first responders (particularly those killed in the line of duty). A Washington Post opinion column published following the press conference on 24 November 2014 criticized McCulloch's role in the Mike Brown case with respect to his personal and professional history: president criticized Asked Monday night whether he had any regrets about the way he handled the case, McCulloch replied, "No, not at all." This shouldn't be a surprise, given McCulloch's history. That his father, a police officer, was killed by a black suspect doesn't by itself disqualify him, but his record should have: not a single prosecution of a shooting by police in his 23 years on the job. Four times he presented evidence to a grand jury in such a case and didn't get an indictment; now he can add a fifth. The points made by the columnist were not unique; in fact they dovetailed with rumors that started in St. Louis in the weeks following Brown's death. According to claims that began to circulate on or around 15 September 2014, McCulloch's partiality outstripped even his charitable work and record of not prosecuting officers. Several blog posts from mid-September 2014 focused on an Internet fundraising effort using the web site Teespring.com. Folks with an interest in the case noticed an online T-shirt fundraiser selling shirts that read "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" (with "PRO POLICE" printed on the back) touted a connection between Wilson's defense and McCulloch's organization. The shirt's description explained: explained "I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON" is an officer inspired design to show support for officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department in Missouri. Donations from purchases will be divided between a fund set up for Officer Wilson at gofundme.com as well as The BackStoppers Inc. organization which can be visited at backstoppers.org for more information. A post on 14 September 2014 included the following board member list (which did not reflect McCulloch's move from Vice President to President of the organization):  The controversy made it to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by 15 September 2014, at which time the newspaper spoke with Backstoppers' executive director, Ron Battelle. Battelle told the outlet Backstoppers had not initiated the fundraiser, was not affiliated with it in any fashion, did not know who was responsible for selling the shirts, and should any money be offered from the proceeds to Backstoppers, the group would reject the funds. newspaper The controversy abated but resurfaced on 25 November 2014 in the wake of McCulloch's statement to the press on 24 November 2014. A Facebook user shared an image questioning Backstoppers' connection to the shirts: shared  In response, Backstoppers issued a statement via Facebook, reiterating the fundraiser was not connected with their organization: statement Contrary to recent posts on social media, The BackStoppers is not participating in or has benefited from any fund raising activity involving the Ferguson matter. We scrutinize our contributions and if we receive funds involving the Ferguson matter, those funds would be rejected by the Board of Directors. Our mission is to provide assistance to families of police, fire and EMS officers who die in the line of duty. We are currently helping 66 families which includes 64 children. This is and always will be our first priority! We greatly appreciate the support of the St. Louis community! Thank You!! Ultimately, only nineteen "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts were sold during the initial Teespring campaign. It isn't clear who created the fundraiser or how the proceeds were distributed; but any party is free to raise funds for any other party, and someone's pledging half their proceeds to Backstoppers does not indicate Backstoppers was necessarily involved with or even aware of the fundraising effort.    Last updated:  26 November 2014 < Admit it: When the federal government decided last fall to spend hundreds of billions to stabilize banks through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, you thought the money was as good as gone. Not so, President Barack Obama said at the White House on June 9, 2009. Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers, he said. And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit. A quick summary of how we got to this point: As part of the TARP, the government invested about $200 billion in 600 banks across the country, essentially buying up preferred stock. A lot of banks now want out. The government money came with strings, including restrictions on executive compensation. Plus, there was a stigma attached to participating in the government program. On June 9, the Treasury Department announced that 10 of the largest financial institutions that participated in the Capital Purchase Program (through TARP) have been approved to repay $68 billion. Yes, they had to be approved to repay the money. The companies had to prove they no longer needed the money, because the government doesn't want them begging for more down the road. To date, those 10 companies have paid dividends on their preferred stock to the Treasury totaling about $1.8 billion, the Treasury announced. Overall, dividend payments from all of the 600 bank participants has come to about $4.5 billion so far. That's commensurate with the 5 percent (annualized) dividend return that was part of the terms of the program. Now, the government borrowed the money it invested in the banks, and so dividends from the preferred stock are offset by interest the government has had to pay on its loans. But that interest rate has been lower than the 5 percent dividend rate. So when the companies repay the loans, it will result in some profit to the government, banking analysts told us. There's another potential profit center. As part of the deal with banks, the federal government received warrants to buy stock at a future date (with the hope that as the economy improved and bank stock value rose, the government could share in the bounty). According to the Treasury announcement on June 9, firms that repay their preferred stock have the right to repurchase those warrants at fair market value. Experts believe that could fetch the government several billion dollars. That's in addition to the dividends. David John, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while it's accurate to say the government is turning a profit on these specific transactions, it was so costly to create the TARP that you can't say the overall program is a moneymaker. And, John said, the 10 financial institutions that will be repaying the Treasury are among the strongest. It remains to be seen how the others will fare, he said. It's way too soon to judge the entire program, John said. I'd be surprised if it ends up anything better than break-even. Still, the public too often tagged TARP as a bailout, said John Hall, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association. It's as if people thought money was handed out to banks, Hall said. It wasn't. And it drove us nuts. The government has turned a profit. It made money plus some. Bank analyst Bert Ely said while the government may end up losing money on investments in some financial firms, it's likely the entirety of the bank portion of the TARP will ultimately turn a profit. The 5 percent paid in dividends on preferred stock purchased by the Treasury will certainly outpace the interest rate on money borrowed to finance the program, he said. And the warrants could also prove profitable. People think the government gave banks money, Ely said. They made investments in banks. As for Obama's claim, he is careful to note that the overall program could still cost taxpayers money, but he is correct to say the government turned a profit on the first round of repayments. We rate his statement True. Claim:  A moratorium on Internet taxation expires in 2007. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] This should be considered  "urgent".  As you know the "MORTORIUM" on the so called internet tax expires in 2 or 3 days. It was reported on Fox News a few minutes ago, that  the Senate is now considering this bill. The House has passed their version of the Bill by Voice vote to keep the moratorium in place. The news on fox reported that the Senate is considering a "TAX ON EVERY ITEM ON THE INTERNET TO INCLUDE  a TAX ON EACH EMAIL SENT OUT." I have voiced my opinion to the offices of Sen. Thad Cochran and Sen. Trent Lott, I have asked them to vote AGAINST ANY TAX. The Staff members said they would relay my feeling. I also told them I wanted to know how my two Senators voted on this. I would suggest that each addressee call today and ask their Senators to VOTE against any TAXES  on the internet. Origins:  In October 1998, Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which called for a 3-year moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access and multiple or discriminatory taxes on e-commerce.  After the provisions of ITFA expired in October 2001, they were extended for two years by passage of the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (ITNA), then extended again for a further four years in  ITFA ITNA 2003. The Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation intended to extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, was introduced to Congress in 2003.   It was passed (as H.R. 49) by the House of Representatives on 17 September 2003 (under a motion to suspend the rules, agreed to by voice vote), passed by the Senate (as S. 150) on 19 November 2004, and signed by President Bush and made into law on 3 December 2004. It is set to expire on 1 November 2007. passed S. 150 The 2003 claim that the Senate was considering a "tax on every item on the Internet, to include a tax on each e-mail sent out" was incorrect. The Senate was merely considering whether or not to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes created by the earlier Internet Tax Freedom Act  and Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act; the Senate was not proposing any specific Internet-related taxes at that time.   As described by The New York Times, the bill hung up in 2003 in a Senate debate over whether a permanent moratorium on Internet taxes might eventually become too broad a ban and deprive states of much-needed revenue streams: The argument over the bill has been as heated as a chat-room brawl. Opponents contend that state coffers will be emptied as more areas of commerce  like telephone service  become Internet-based and fall within the ban. "Every time we, in our wisdom, tell a state or a city that it cannot use this tax, all we are doing is increasing the chance that Minnesota or Tennessee will increase some other tax, or fire some teachers or lay off some employees or close some parks," Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said Tuesday on the Senate floor. Supporters argue that the states want to tax every e-mail message, even every electron. The bill, they say, will not have the dire effects that opponents predict.  The only thing that both sides agree on, it seems, is that the bill has nothing to do with banning sales taxes on online purchases. The moratorium bans taxes on Internet access, including high-speed access through telephone digital subscriber lines; "discriminatory" taxes, which include taxes by multiple states on the sales of a single item; and taxes that would treat Internet purchases differently from sales at brick-and-mortar stores.    Sources:   Dalrymple, Mary.  "Permanent Ban on Internet Service Taxes Bogs Down as Temporary Ban Runs Out."   Associated Press.  31 October 2003.     McCullagh, Declan.  "Ban on Internet Access Tax Stalls in Senate."   CNET News.com.  7 November 2003.     Schwartz, John.  "Senate Debate Due on Hotly Contested Internet Tax Bill."   The New York Times.  6 November 2003  (p. C1).     Shiver Jr., Jube  "Internet Tax Ban Stalls in Senate."   Los Angeles Times.  26 November 2003  (p. C3).     Bloomberg News.  "Senate Postpones Vote on Internet Tax Ban."   The New York Times.  8 November 2003  (p. C1). Claim:  Burying a statuette of St. Joseph on the property will help speed the sale of a home.  LEGEND Example:  [Cohen, 1997] Many realtors have their "Believe It or Not" stories.  Such was the case of a woman who moved from Maryland to Arizona.  After eight months of paying the mortgage on her unsold home in Baltimore, she sent her agent a statue and burial instructions.  Within two weeks, the house sold.  Another case involved a couple moving because of a new job. But their house, which was in a very active neighborhood, wasn't doing anything, even with St. Joseph in the ground. But St. Joseph's presumed inattention turned out to be for the better. The husband got a better job offer, and that's when the house sold.  In 1995, Betsy Moyer was determined to sell her house on Lake Avenue in Baltimore at a premium. She listed it for $15,000 more than other sellers in the same neighborhood. After seven quiet months a friend recommended that Moyer plant St. Joseph. The next week a group of nuns arrived to look at the house. Three months later, the house was sold at the highest price ever in that area, according to her agent. Origins:  Those trying to sell a home often feel in need of a miracle when a quick sale fails to materialize. Folklore purports to have the remedy: Bury a plastic statue of St. Joseph in the yard, and a successful closing won't be long in the offing. Realtors across the nation swear by this. The reputed origins of the practice vary. Some say an order of European nuns in the Middle Ages buried a medal of St. Joseph while asking   the saint to intercede in its quest for a convent. Others claim it may be connected to a practice of German carpenters who buried the statues in the foundations of houses they built and said a prayer to St. Joseph. Yet others trace the connection to a chapel building effort in Montreal in the late 1800s. Brother Andre Bessette wanted to buy some land on Mount Royal in Montreal to construct a small chapel called an oratory. When the landowners refused to sell, Bessette began planting medals of St. Joseph on the property. In 1896 the owners suddenly relented and sold, and Bessette was able to build his oratory.  But these theories may well be instances of retrofitting lore to a custom because mentions older than contemporary times have failed to materialize in standard folklore references. That the custom now has an interesting backstory does not mean its backstory is valid or even that old. The practice of burying a plastic St. Joseph to help speed the sale of a home dates at least to 1979 in the U.S.A. In 1990 it seemingly became all the rage, with realtors buying plastic saints' statues by the gross. The standard practice calls for the statue to be dug up once the property has sold and placed on the grateful seller's mantel or in another place of honor. Some, however, who have trouble remembering where they interred their statues prefer to leave the buried saints where they've been placed to help protect the properties for the new owners. (Which may not work all that well  some believe leaving the statue underground will cause the land to continue changing hands.)  But why Joseph, you ask? Why not another saint  say, St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes? Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, is the patron saint of home and family in the Roman Catholic religion. According to one of the hottest new customs, the statues are buried upside down and facing the road in front of a house for sale.1 Actually, different realtors quote different placements of the statue:   Upside down, near the 'For Sale' sign in the front yard. (An upside down St. Joseph is said to work extra hard to get out of the ground and onto someone's mantel.)  Right side up.  In the rear yard, possibly in a flower bed.  Lying on its back and pointing towards the house "like an arrow."  Three feet from the rear of the house.  Facing the house.  Facing away from the house. (One who tried this reported the house across the street sold, and it hadn't even been up for sale.)  Exactly 12 inches deep. The custom of burying St. Joseph has become so widespread that some retailers even offer a Home Sale Kit, which includes a plastic statue, a prayer card, and an introduction to the St. Joseph home sale practice.  Home Sale Kit Prudent realtors also recommend the following advice in addition to burying Joe: "For this practice to be fully effective, the seller must, of course, first do such  practical yet all important chores as completing all necessary fix-ups, properly staging the home and finally, adjusting the price so as to exactly reflect market value."  Many who have experienced difficulty selling their homes have reported seemingly miraculous sales shortly after burying a statue of St. Joseph on their property. Stephen Binz's 2003 book, Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent, is replete with many such examples. However, one tale included in the book (which might well be apocryphal)  indicates that everything doesn't always go as planned. One impatient man moved his statue from the front yard to the backyard to the side of the house and finally threw it in the trash. A few days later the frustrated seller opened the newspaper and saw the headline "Local Dump Has Been Sold." Barbara "joe work" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 June 2011    1.  Beard, Betty.  "Answer to Special Prayers."   The Arizona Republic.  16 May 1998  (p. EV1).    Binz, Stephen.  Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent.   Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2003.   ISBN1-569-55361-0.    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.   ISBN 0-393-31208-9   (p. 181-184). The Baby Train   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 246-247). Too Good To Be     Cohen, Charles.  "And He Does It All Upside Down."   The [Baltimore] Sun.  30 March 1997  (p. M1).    Galletta, Jan.  "Believing that Faith Not Only Moves Mountains . . ."   Chattanooga Times.  8 April 2000  (p. E1).    Ivey,  James.  "Gregory With Statue of St. Joseph."   Omaha World-Herald.  9 December 1984.    Shea, Jim.  "Home Sellers Tap a Saint as Dealmaker."   The Washington Post.  16 August 1997  (p. E5).    Vigue, Doreen Iudica.  "St. Joseph Sells."   The Boston Globe.  7 December 2003.    Chicago Sun-Times.  "A New Compass Aims to Please."   14 January 1986  (p. 71).    Los Angeles Times.  "Desperate Sellers Dig That Saint."   25 November 1990  (p. K1).    Omaha World-Herald.  "Priest Doesn't Buy Story . . ."   21 November 1985  (p. K1).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 193). The Big Book of Urban Legends There's no evidence that Oprah Winfrey suffered a "tragedy" or died in early May 2022, nor did she endorse keto weight loss gummies. These claims, one of which resembled a death hoax, came from misleading text messages that were sent out to an unknown number of recipients. Oprah Winfrey keto Scammers sent the text messages with the words, "Fans react to the Oprah tragedy." The texts also included a link: Scammers Oprah    We don't recommend trusting text messages like these. Upon clicking the link, we were led to a fraudulent page that was purposely designed to mimic a Time magazine article. In reality, Time.com had nothing to do with the page. This bore similarities to another keto scam that used the image and likeness of "The Price Is Right" host Drew Carey, which we previously reported on days before publishing this story. Time magazine Time.com The Price Is Right Drew Carey reported The fake Time.com article mentioned nothing of Winfrey having died or suffered a tragedy, as the text messages were nothing more than misleading clickbait. The article falsely claimed Winfrey had personally endorsed keto weight loss gummies such as Keto Start ACV, Gemini Keto, Kwazi Keto Gummies, Slim Mediq Keto Gummies, Trim Life Keto + ACV Gummies, and perhaps others. It used both her image and likeness to sell the products. Winfrey Winfrey    Winfrey did not endorse any of these keto weight loss gummy products, nor did she die or suffer a tragedy in early May 2022. We noticed that the product name changed in the article when we refreshed. This perhaps indicated that the product name was rotated on a timed basis or that specific product names showed up in specific locations, depending on the user's IP address. Basically, the fake Winfrey endorsement was used for more than one keto gummies product. The articles on genuinesmother.com and newsurvey22offer.com began as follows: Oprah Launches First-Ever "Weight Loss Gummy" in Partnership with Weight Watchers After Being Forced to Lose 60 LBS in Just Weeks (Time) - In an insightful 1-on-1 interview, one of the world's most prominent talk show host reveals how she forced Weight Watchers to create a transformational weight loss product the world has never seen before. Gifted host, and business genius, Oprah Winfrey, made headlines after bringing the first ever "Weight Loss Gummy" to the market on live TV last week in memory of her heart failure just last year. Ever since Oprah was forced to lose 60 lbs due to her heart failure risk, Winfrey and her team have been working alongside the team at Weight Watchers to develop a better weight loss product that helps people quickly lose weight and keep it off for good. Oprah Winfrey Despite what's mentioned in the article, we found no evidence that Winfrey had suffered heart failure in 2021, nor did we find any data on Weight Watchers supposedly creating keto weight loss gummies. Both of these claims appeared to have been fabricated. Winfrey Weight Watchers The article went on to make the baseless claim that the long-running program "The Oprah Winfrey Show" had been "canceled because the producers were not happy with" her "weight and appearance." It also claimed that Winfrey appeared on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" to promote the keto weight loss gummies that had supposedly been created by Weight Watchers. This also was false. Winfrey Ellen DeGeneres Weight Watchers The end of the page claimed that Winfrey herself was offering a "free" bottle of keto weight loss gummies to readers, whether that product be Keto Start ACV, Gemini Keto, Kwazi Keto Gummies, Slim Mediq Keto Gummies, Trim Life Keto + ACV Gummies, or another one. The article said, "The only thing you'll need to pay for is the shipping rate, which is less than $6!" Winfrey However, we read through the terms and conditions pages for the various products, which were not easy to find. The fine print said that purchasing a "free" bottle of the keto weight loss gummies enrolled customers in a "trial," "program," or "subscription" that would eventually charge the full cost on a monthly basis. One product's terms and condition page said the charges would occur "every 30 days after the initial purchase." In order to cancel a recurring order, customers would first need to contact the company to initiate the process. However, that might be a problem for anyone who opted for a "free" bottle of Kwazi Keto Gummies. In the terms and conditions for that specific product, it listed no phone number. The contact page on the Kwazi Keto Gummies website showed only this email address: care@buykwazi.com. Even worse, the area that was supposed to show the return shipping address was left blank, making it more difficult for people to get their money back:    A package won't get very far without a shipping address. We contacted Kwazi Keto Gummies to ask about the absence of the phone number and shipping address. Within minutes, the page with the fake Time.com article that used Winfrey's image and likeness changed to a fake keto endorsement from the cast of "Shark Tank," which we reported on before. It then switched to another scam page that claimed singer-songwriter Adele Adkins, better known simply as Adele, had also endorsed keto weight loss gummies. All of this was false. reported Adele In sum, no, there's no evidence that Winfrey suffered a "tragedy" or died in early May 2022, nor did she endorse keto weight loss gummies that had been created by Weight Watchers. All of this was misleading and false. Winfrey Weight Watchers On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign: Jeremy Diamond INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  Diamond's tweet sparked a number of articles and blog posts stating it was "impossible" to cancel recurring Trump campaign donations, based solely or primarily on the anecdotal, secondhand claim made  in that tweet. Among the comments prompted by original tweet sent by Diamond were those left by other purported donors asserting that the claim wasn't exactly accurate:  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016 August 6, 2016   A large number of commenters expressed skepticism about the report, given that the claim was anonymously  sourced from a single individual: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP  Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  We were unable to turn up any reports about the issue that antedated Diamond's tweet. If any Trump donors had previously encountered difficulties canceling their recurring donations, they didn't seem to chatter very much about it on social media prior to 3 August 2016 (and ceasing to support Trump as a candidate is only one reason someone might seek to cancel a recurring payment). Diamond appeared to pass the baton on the story overall, updating followers later with a link to an article published by Mic: The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 @mic https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016  Diamond did not provide any further information about the claim, the claimant, or how he verified it before sharing it to Twitter. But Mic attempted to reproduce the problem on 4 August 2016 and gathered more information on the difficulty level of canceling recurring Trump donations. In a series of screenshots the site illustrated their findings, stating it was not possible to delete a stored credit card without replacing it with a separate valid credit card:  After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system  either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email. Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card  only "update" it. Then, when you click on "update card," you see a page that allows you to alter your payment information  but you cannot completely delete your credit card. You are forced to replace it with another valid card: Invalid numbers are rejected. One responder to the original tweet then objected to that claim, stating it was impossible to set up a recurring $1 donation:  .@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE  ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation: enter  Mic confirmed that if a putative donor set up an account, then it would be possible for that person to cancel a recurring donation made via Trump's web site: It turns out that there is a way to delete your card from the Trump campaign's system, but it seems you must have first registered an account and created a password: If you did not do so, there is no clear way to cancel your payment. Assuming you did create an account and have logged in, to stop your payment you must click the small gray question mark icon in the upper right corner of the donations page. Then you will see [a separate] screen. In order to delete your card, you must click "manage." Then will you be redirected to the website of the Trump campaign's vendor. There you must click "recurring plans," and only then can you cancel your monthly payment; notably, even after you cancel, there is still no obvious way to delete your card number without replacing it with another valid number. Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way.  Revv However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments: notes If you have regular, automatic deductions from your checking account (to pay for expenses such as insurance premiums or utility bills), the EFTA allows you to stop those payments. First, notify the vendor. Next, tell your bank about your request at least three business days before the money is scheduled to be transferred. Your notice to the bank may be oral, but the institution may require you to provide a written follow-up within 14 days to ensure that no additional payments are made. If you fail to provide a written follow-up, the bank is no longer responsible for stopping future payments. Stopping an automatic, recurring payment on a credit card is different. Start by putting in your request with the vendor. But if the vendor continues to charge your credit card, contact your card issuer. You'll have 60 days to dispute the charge, starting when the card issuer sends you the statement with the charges. While it appears to be atypically difficult to cancel a recurring donation to the Trump campaign, it is certainly not impossible, as individuals who create an account can do so via the web interface. Overall, it seemed the problem related more to the interface of a third-party vendor (Revv) to whom the Trump campaign had outsourced donations and not to the campaign itself.  Dennin, James.  "Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations."
  Mic.  4 August 2016.