We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977.
During the Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took aim at the nations economic record under President Barack Obama. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great under Obama, Cruz said. But we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Median wages have stagnated. And the Obama-Clinton economy has left behind the working men and women of this country. We decided to fact-check Cruzs statement that we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today since 1977. Cruz is on to something. One key employment statistic known as the civilian labor force participation rate is at its lowest level since the 1970s. This statistic takes the number of Americans in the labor force -- basically, those who are either employed or who are seeking employment and divides it by the total civilian population. Heres a chart going back to the mid 1970s. When the civilian labor force participation rate is low, its a concern, because it means there are fewer working Americans to support non-working Americans. But well offer two asterisks for Cruzs statement. First, as wevenoted before, a notable factor in the decline of the labor-force participation rate is the aging of the Baby Boom generation. As more adults begin moving into retirement age, the percentage of Americans who work is bound to decline. When we last looked at this question in 2013, Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist, told us he had estimated that the labor-force participation rate would have fallen in recent years on the basis of aging alone. That said, Cruz has a point that the recession exacerbated that decline. In a weak job market, some people who might otherwise want a job may return to school, become full-time parents or retire early. Second, theres another way to read Cruzs words. He said the lowest percentage of Americans working since 1977, which could also refer to a different statistic, the employment-population ratio. This statistic takes the number of people who are employed and divides it by the civilian population age 16 and above. The difference in this case is that using the employment-population ratio, Cruzs statement is incorrect. Unlike the labor-force participation rate, the employment-population ratio has actually been improving in recent years, although its below its pre-recession highs. Heres a chart showing this statistic over the same time frame:  If you exclude the Great Recession, the employment-population ratio was last at its current rate in 1984, not 1977. So by that measurement, hes close. Our ruling Cruz said, We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Hes put his finger on a trend that worries economists of all stripes, but his wording was sloppy. In addition, its worth remembering that this particular trend is being driven at least to a degree by demographic trends beyond the control of any president. We rate the claim Mostly True.
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 December 2020, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, the FBI and other federal agencies began to warn of fraudsters exploiting interest in the newly released vaccine. INTERPOL, as well, issued an Orange Notice alerting law enforcement to "potential criminal activity in relation to the falsification, theft and illegal advertising of COVID-19 and flu vaccines." approved warn Orange Notice One area where these scams have reportedly proliferated is the so-called dark web. Broadly speaking, the dark web refers to unindexed content on the internet that can not be searched for and that, among other things, contains several anonymous marketplaces and forums that purport to sell a wide range of illicit material. On Feb. 8, 2021, CBS News reported that "in just the last six weeks, the number of vaccine ads on the dark web has exploded," adding that "the asking prices have doubled or even quadrupled." reportedly refers reported For a Dec. 25, 2020, segment on PlanetMoney, NPR spoke to Chad Anderson, a senior security researcher at the cyberthreat intelligence agency Domain Tools. "We're a cyberthreat intelligence data company," he explained, "so we scan the entire Internet as many times as we can every single day and give insights to customers based upon what we see." Back then, he argued the vaccine ads popping up on the dark web were clearly scams. NPR Chad Anderson "For one thing," NPR correspondent Stacey Vanek Smith explained, "the Pfizer vaccine requires a very intense cold storage chain. The vaccines have to be kept at negative 70 degrees Fahrenheit." And also, she added, "the COVID vaccine ads are mixed in with ads for all kinds of other things, and Chad says that tends to be a red flag." At the time of this reporting, the only two FDA-approved vaccines are the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. Both shots are mRNA vaccines, and as such they both require this high level of refrigeration for transport. explained Snopes reached out to Anderson to ask if ads for vaccines on dark web marketplaces still appeared to be scams, as of February 2021. "Just went and took a look at the last of the 'reputable' markets [on the dark web] and I still don't see any COVID vaccines for sale on there," he wrote to us by email, adding that he did see some ads for the largely discredited treatment hydroxychloroquine, but not much else on the COVID-19 front. One problem with the dark web, however, is that there is no requirement for "reputable behavior" and few safeguards against predatory behavior. Several media reports have cited a dark web market named Agartha as having ads for COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed it does  several hundred of them, according to a recent analysis by Snopes  but these ads are all comically obvious frauds. One ad listed under "opiates," for instance, asked for "mutual trust" in its effort to sell some "Moderona" vaccine: media reports   Other ads claim to be able to ship the Pfizer vaccine, which as a reminder requires extreme refrigeration for storage, by FedEx at no additional cost. Many ads, like the one below, don't even specify what vaccine product they purport to sell. Instead, the ad appears to be a bait-and-switch for a seller peddling other drugs ranging from marijuana to fentanyl:   According to DomainTools' Anderson, "Agartha is considered an entire scam market." He added that "I've never thrown money into my user wallet on there, but I have heard from others that the moment you do it's immediately siphoned off to another wallet that I would assume is the wallet of those running the site." CBS News, in its reporting, cited the work of cybersecurity company Check Point. That firm attempted to purchase COVID-19 vaccines from various dark web sellers, even sending a Bitcoin payment to one. "A few days after the Bitcoin transaction, Check Point received a message from the vendor saying the vaccine had been shipped, CBS reported. "Then a few days later, that vendor's account completely disappeared from the site." They never received any product in return, and the firm concluded that none of the sellers they found actually had any vaccine to sell.  reported Overt fraud aside, a possibility remains that as more easily transportable vaccines are approved and produced, a dark web black market for vaccines could develop. "As time goes by, and more people get access to legitimate doses, there's always the possibility that some of that real product could make its way onto the dark web," CBS reported. "More providers will lead to looser shipping restrictions," Anderson agreed. reported The risks from engaging in these transactions are multifaceted. Outside of a potential loss of money, there are risks of receiving unknown and dangerous drugs instead of a vaccine or having identifying information stolen. "In addition to the dangers of ordering potentially life-threatening products," a December 2020 Interpol news release stated, "an analysis by the INTERPOLs Cybercrime Unit revealed that of 3,000 websites associated with online pharmacies suspected of selling illicit medicines and medical devices, around 1,700 contained cyber threats, especially phishing and spamming malware." In other words, even if these listings were not overt scams, it's not worth the risk. stated Because at this time there are several ads for COVID-19 vaccines on various dark web markets of low repute, but that none of them appear to be legitimate, we rate the claim that the vaccines are for sale as "false." Before Gov. John Kitzhaber released his budget proposal for the next two-year cycle, he gave a few hints at how hed budget some of the biggest pieces of state government. In an e-mail sent out before the Feb. 1, 2011, budget announcement, he says hell allocate some $5.56 billion for the states K-12 public school system.But thats not all. He gets even more specific. Kitzhaber plans to make 52 percent of the total (about $2.89 billion) available in the first year of the cycle.This, he says, is the equivalent to a $5.78 billion budget for school funding. The effect is to provide an increase in state funding for the 2011-12 school year.That, naturally, piqued our curiosity given that most of what you hear down in Salem is worrying comments about how education will have to take a cut going forward. And yet, heres Kitzhaber talking about increased spending.Could he really be offering the schools more money next year? We decided to find out.To start off, its helpful to have a clear understanding of where funding is currently. The thing is, the budget for public education has fluctuated several times over the past couple of years. The state revenue forecast is consistently down, which has led to reductions in the budget. Meanwhile, theres been movement on the federal level to kick funds to states, which have helped balance, in part, some of those earlier cuts. But not all of them.To get the most recent number, we called Oregon's Legislative Fiscal Office. According to the offices most recent calculations, K-12 education is operating on a budget of $5.756 billion. Thatincludes the promise of $35.5 million from a state education stability fund, which may or may not come through. But, for the purpose of this article, well keep it in the total.Of that $5.75 billion, $342 million has come from the federal government in various forms and $5.41 billion has come from the state. To parse it even more (who doesnt love lots of numbers? ), $2.94 billion went to schools during the 2009-10 school year, while the remaining $2.82 billion went to schools for the current year.So, lets compare these numbers to what Kitzhaber is proposing. According to the e-mail statement, Kitzhaber is suggesting a K-12 budget of $5.56 billion for the next two-year period. But for next year in particular, he is suggesting $2.89 billion go to schools. Thats a clear increase in funding (not just state funding, but overall funding) this year over next, by about $70 million.Still, its important to note here, that funding, overall, will take a hit. Sure, the state is throwing in more cash for the upcoming biennium than it did the current -- about an extra $150 million. And yes, the school system will have more cash to work with next year than it did this year. But overall the bienniums budget is down, $5.756 billion to $5.56 billion. Thats because the states increase in funding still doesn't offset lost federal dollars.Whats more, under Kitzhabers proposal, that reduction will be felt strongest come the 2012-13 school year. Whereas there will be a $70 million more to work with next year, as compared to the current school year, there will be a $150 million decrease the following year, if you use the current year as the baseline.By front-loading 2012, you necessarily leave 2013 with a smaller slice of the funds.Kitzhaber explains his logic in the e-mail: Front-loading the funding also provides a year to find cost savings through consolidation and other efficiencies to maintain this level of classroom support during the 2012-13 school year.Whether those cost savings will be realized, nobody can say, so well stick the initial statement, which is that this proposed budget represents an increase in state funding for the upcoming 2011-12 school year. Kitzhaber is right, it does. That said, its important to recognize that even with the increase in state funds, the school system will have to make do with less sooner or later. Kitzhaber seems to have chosen later.Since we think that bit of context is important, we rate this claim Mostly True. Comment on this item. In his 1948 book The Affairs of Dame Rumor, Jacobson mentions this rumor "flooded the Atlantic states in 1934" and notes the story had been published in the Boston Traveler a few years earlier: Example: [Brunvand, 1984] This teen age girl, growing up in a California coastal town, was obviously pregnant  stomach starting to swell, morning sickness, etc. She, however, tearfully insisted to her mother that she couldn't possibly be pregnant. She had never "done it" with a boy and it just wasn't possible. As time went on, however, the signs continued. Her stomach continued to grow, her appetite increased, and so forth. Her mother insisted she was pregnant. The girl insisted it wasn't possible. She was still a "good" girl. Finally x-rays were taken and the girl was vindicated. She had a large tumor in her stomach and surgery was performed immediately. To everyone's amazement the surgeons removed not a tumor but a small, live octopus that had fastened itself to the lining of the girl's stomach. What happened to this girl supposedly is really possible. Octopus eggs are microscopic in size and laid in clusters of tens of thousands. They are usually affixed to kelp at the ocean bottom by a sticky secretion. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a few could escape and float to the surface where they could be swallowed by an unsuspecting swimmer . . . Anyway, don't scoff, because the girl was a close friend of my older brother's girlfriend. Fishbein's 1930 book Shattering Health Superstitions includes the text of the Traveler piece: A London factory girl is reported to have swallowed something while taking a swim, and immediately after was seized with terrible pains. A local doctor and a specialist both failed to diagnose the case, but an X-ray examination finally showed that she had swallowed an octopus egg, which had hatched out inside her anatomy. Folklorist Jan Brunvand points out there is a traditional folk motif assigned to this type of tale:  B784.1.4  Girl swallows frog spawn; an octopus grows inside her with tentacles reaching to every part of her body. How an octopus can grow from frog spawn remains unexplained, however. There are numerous versions of the basic legend:  All of these tales might be considered variations of the "bosom serpent" legend, described by Harold Schecter as a tale in which "through some unfortunate circumstance or act of carelessness . . . a snake. . . is accidentally ingested by, or grows inside the body of, the unlucky individual, where it remains until it is expelled or in some way lured out of the victim's body." This motif remains popular in films such as Alien, which features a crew member "impregnated" by an alien creature; once the incubation period is complete, the alien lifeform is "born" by bursting out through his chest. As Schechter notes, "like the traditional, oral versions that have been popular for hundreds of years, [the] only purpose [of the birth scene in Alien] is to produce emotional response: shock, revulsion, morbid fascination." In June 2004 the Iranian daily Etemaad reported that an unnamed woman from the south-eastern city of Iranshahr had given birth to a frog. According to that paper, the woman's gynaecologist confirmed that the lady in question, whose period had stopped for six months, had undergone sonography in May which showed she had a cyst in her abdomen and that following severe bleeding, she gave birth to a live grey frog accompanied with mud. Numerous news outlets subsequently carried the story, but in the manner of reporting that an Iranian paper had run the item, not as a confirmation of the facts of the account. If the photo of the frog (as initially provided by the BBC  it was later stripped from their online article and replaced by a map of Iraq) was accurate, it disproved the theory that the purported mother of Kermit came by her amphibian pregnancy through having swum in or drunk frog spawn, because the lily pad jumper so pictured was of a species not native to Iran. In any event, it was always a case of news outlets repeating a weird story that had come to them, not of vetting the tale's claims. Humans cannot give birth to frogs, or snakes, or fish, or lizards, or octopuses  our biology rules it out.  Also told in:   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 77).  The Big Book of Urban Legends   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Choking Doberman.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.  ISBN 0-393-30321-7  (pp. 110-111). The Choking Doberman   BBC News.  "Iranian Woman Gives Birth to Frog."
  27 June 2004.   Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.
  London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 74-75). The Tumour in the Whale   Fishbein, Morris.  Shattering Health Superstitions.
  New York: Horace Liveright, Inc., 1930  (pp. 90-97).   Jacobson, David J.  The Affairs of Dame Rumor.
  New York: Rinehart & Co., 1948  (p. 23). The Affairs of Dame Rumor   Schecter, Harold.  The Bosom Serpent: Folklore and Popular Art.
  Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1988. In his bid to take the seat of Texas retiring U.S. senator, businessman Tom Leppert draws on his private-sector background plus nearly four years as mayor of Dallas that ended in February 2011.When I came in, the biggest challenge was in public safety -- the crime rate, Leppert said in a Jan. 12, 2012, debate held in Austin for the Republican candidates vying to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. In the space of the three years, 08, 09 and 10, we brought the crime rate down by 30 percent -- numbers any city would love to have. And the way we did it is we increased the police department by 20 percent.We wondered if the rate fell that much -- and if Leppert is justified in taking credit.Leppert spokesman Daniel Keylin told us by email that Dallas crime rate dropped from 78.45 crimes per 1,000 residents in 2007 to 55.67 crimes per 1,000 in 2010, a decrease of 29 percent.Keylin sent us a 2010Dallas police reportwith those numbers and others, including a chart that shows the crime rate per 1,000 residents from 1970 through 2010. The crimes counted are the FBIs index crimes: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft.But the rate started dropping several years before Leppert became mayor in June 2007.After hovering for several years at around 93 crimes per 1,000 residents, the rate declined in 2004 and each subsequent year through 2010 -- with the rates falling more steeply each year after 2007, according to the department. The 2010 rate of 55.67 crimes per 1,000 was a 30-year low. (Clickhereto view the chart.) A caveat: Comparing the rates before 2007 to those after 2007 is complicated because Dallas police changed how some crimes were reported.The post-2007 declines track with crime tallies that the Dallas Police Department reports to the FBI.Next, we asked Leppert what steps he took or contributed to toward the rate reductions.Keylin told us that increasing the number of Dallas police officers was a main goal in Lepperts 2007 mayoral campaign. Soon after his election, Leppert held a City Council retreat during which he advocated expanding the force, Keylin said, and during Lepperts tenure, the council allocated money in each of four budgets to hire a total 679 additional officers. Keylin also cited the addition of 176 squad cars.Dallas Morning News stories fromJanuaryandMarch2011 indicate the force had around 2,860 officers in 2000, 2,900 police in 2006, and 3,684 officers at the end of 2010.The Dallas police sent us figures for net job gains and losses that reflect a considerable increase in hiring during Lepperts tenure. In 2003-2004, the force saw small losses; then, small gains in net jobs came in 2005-2006. Large gains came in 2007-2010: 168, 203, 208 and 93 net jobs, respectively (after retirement and other departures are subtracted from the number of hires). In 2011  after Lepperts exit  the Dallas police lost 179 positions.We consulted other sources before circling back to Leppert.According to a July 25, 2007, Morning News article, public safety was a big part of Lepperts 2007 mayoral bid and of the post-election council retreat he called. However, the article says lowering the crime rate and adding police were already established city priorities.Shortly before Leppert took office, the News reported that city manager Mary Suhm had drawn up a preliminary budget proposal to hire 200 police officers in each of the next four years. In thatJune 18, 2007, news story, Mayor-elect Leppert calls the plan a good start.In a telephone interview, Dallasmayor pro tem for 2007-09, Elba Garcia, told us that from at least 2004 on, there was unanimous consensus among council members that reducing crime was a priority. Garcia, initially elected to the council in 2001, chaired the councils public safety committee. A Democrat, she isnowa Dallas County commissioner.Garcia said of the crime rate reductions: It took the leadership of many people, and the mayor (Leppert) wasnt there when we started that crime decrease.The News reported July 30, 2003 that the city was headed towards its sixth year with the highest crime rate for cities of over 1 million residents as gauged by a national report. Amid public dismay, Mayor Laura Miller met with federal and county officials, and began meeting weekly with police Chief Terrell Bolton, according to the paper, as one council member called for an outside review of the department.Bolton was fired less than a month later -- partly because of the crime ranking, the paper reported. Under the new chief, David Kunkle, who took the post in 2004, crime rates went down and public trust in the police went up, the News wrote in aJan. 26, 2011, story.In 2005, two local leaders cited concern over the citys crime ranking when they founded Safer Dallas, Better Dallas, a nonprofit group that sought private donations to support Dallas police. That year, they garnered a$15 million giftfrom the W.W. Caruth, Jr. Foundation Fund, used to start apolice leadership academyandpurchasepolice equipment,accordingto the Dallas Morning News.Garcia told us that at the July 2007 council retreat, the council vowed to get Dallas out of the No. 1 spot on the big-city-crime list -- a goalachievedin 2009 (and Dallas dropped from No. 2 to No. 3 the next year).The Morning Newssaid in a blog post Oct. 19, 2010: To get out of the top spots, the city has substantially increased the size of its police force.In aJan. 8, 2011, Morning News storyabout the Dallas crime rates steady march downward that started seven years ago, the paper said police credit factors from public surveillance cameras to specialized crime reduction operations to the addition of 750 officers since 2004.We wondered how to isolate Lepperts contributions to the rate decrease on his watch.In a telephone interview, Leppert acknowledged that Dallas leaders had been talking for years about adding police. But, he said, It wasnt until I came in that we said, We are going to do it. This is going to be absolutely a commitment to it. There was never a commitment to a long-term effort to do it, and they never looked at the way that you finance it, and we did all of those things, he said. For those police hires, Leppert said, the city made a fundamental shifting of resources to public safety, a claim we couldnt immediately confirm.There were a lot of people involved in this. I clearly led the effort, he said. We worked together, and we made it happen. And I understood where we had to go.Still, its not clear how much Leppert directly influenced the police force increase that occurred on his watch.One criminologist told us it takes sustained effort to turn around a citys crime rate. Speaking to the Dallas turnaround, Melinda Schlager at Texas A&M University-Commerce said in a telephone interview: Many of the seeds for change were planted under Kunkle, the chief who served from June 2004 through May 2010, and if you look at when the decreases in crime began, they began under Kunkles watch.Dallas three-year, 29-percent rate drop seems high, but plausible, criminologists told us, noting that national and state crime rates also dropped. From 2007 to 2010, basically Lepperts time as mayor, Texas saw an 8 percent drop instatewideFBI index crimes, andnationwidethe decline was 10.7 percent; Houston saw a 11.4 percent drop over the same years, Austin a 9.4 percent drop. San Antonios rate rose and fell, but the city ended with a net gain of 0.1 percent for the period.Garcia said of Lepperts 30-percent debate statement: Im glad he used the word we.... All that took a lot of people supporting these recommendations, supporting the chief ... It took a lot of people and a lot of leadership.We asked Leppert if its possible the crime rate would have fallen at a similar pace anyway, considering it was going down before he became mayor and continued to drop after his tenure. If they did the same things we did, he said. I needed the city council, I needed to work with the police department; not only the leaders in the police department but the people who were out on the street doing a great job every single day.Our rulingLepperts estimate of a 30-percent, three-year drop is on target, though crime was dropping years before his tenure and factors beyond his influence surely contributed to the drop he touts --  among them private donations before he was mayor and the earlier hiring of a new police chief. Yet the police force grew substantially on his watch. We rate his statement Mostly True. Claim:  "Little History Lesson" article accurately explains origins of many common phrases.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2000] In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining.  The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."   Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." Origins:  In 1999, a spurious missive purporting to explain the origins of a number of common phrases appeared on the Internet. That laughable compilation, titled "Life in the 1500s," was pulled together as someone's idea of a joke. 1500s In 2000, the pranksters went at it again with yet another specious list of purported word and phrase origins, this time dating it to the1700s. Typically titled "Little History Lesson," it offered the set of false etymologies listed in the Example section above. Below we analyze each entry in order: In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". While some portrait artists might have charged extra for the inclusion of additional details in commissioned works, we know of none that charged per limb displayed. (Most varied their fee by the size of the canvas requested.) The "costs an arm and a leg" saying instead first surfaced around the 1940s, with a meaning of "An exorbitant amount of money," and it likely developed from much older phrases wherein arms and legs were used as examples of extremely valuable items their possessors might be persuaded to surrender in exchange for things desired even more. "If it takes a leg" (used to express desperate determination) dates to 1872. Similarly, print sightings for "I'd give my right arm" (to be able to do something especially desired) go back as far as 1616. As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. Full immersion bathing didn't become the norm for a very long time because it took a fair bit of work to haul the amount of water and wood needed to fill and heat a bath. However, that folks weren't routinely taking what we would consider proper baths doesn't mean that they didn't regularly clean themselves. Cleaning one's body was a matter of taking what we would regard as "sponge baths": wetting oneself down with a damp cloth, followed by scrubbing the body with a soapy cloth,  rinsing with a wet cloth, and finishing off with a toweling dry. Even in the 1700s in locales and social strata where the wearing of wigs was common, these headcoverings were indeed washed (albeit carefully); they were not inserted into loaves of bread and baked. (One has to wonder about an explanation that posits folks who were afraid they'd damage expensive goods by washing them would happily risk incinerating them.) Print sightings of "big wig" and "big wigged" date to 1781 and 1778 respectively, with the term's always having referred to someone regarded as societally prominent by virtue of wealth, position, or power. While the term does find its origin in the rather impressive wigs sported by the upper crust, said wigs were deliberately constructed to be large and imposing; they didn't get that way from having been baked in bread to kill lice. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining. The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." People have been eating off tables of various forms for about as long as humans have been recording history. We're wholly unaware of any society wherein a board hinged to the wall was let down at dinnertime so that folks seated on the floor in front of it could eat from it. The "board" in "chairman of the board" refers to a board of directors, generally a group of successful businessmen appointed to oversee the running of a corporation. The word "chairman" dates to 1654 and refers to the occupier of a chair of authority. Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."  Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." While throughout history women have used odd (and sometimes dangerous) substances on themselves in pursuit of beauty, we're unaware that at any point they were coating their visages with wax.  "Mind your own beeswax," a phrase first noted in 1934, is no more than a cutesy way of saying "Mind your own business," with "beeswax" used as an ear-pleasing substitute for the more staid "business." The saying it's based upon, "To mind one's business," dates to 1660 and means to tend to one's own concerns in preference of involving oneself in the doings of others. One "cracks a smile" in the same way that one cracks a joke or a boast; there is no physical crevice made in anything, let alone the fictional wax masks women were supposedly parading about in. Sightings of "crack" used in the sense of uttering something loudly and with flair date to 1315, with "crack a boast" to 1386. The linguistic concept of "losing face" (or saving it) didn't enter the English language prior to contact between British traders and the Chinese and was first noted in 1834. The "face" the Chinese were so concerned about wasn't an anatomical one but rather the publicized image of oneself, in the sense of the "face" one displays to the world at large. Two Chinese words, one meaning "moral character," the other "social prestige," were each translated into English as "face," with "to lose face" meaning to have damage done to one's reputation or to be publicly embarrassed.  Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." "Strait-laced" does derive from the tying of corsets, but the proposed etymology given in the article has it backwards: The term's origin has to do with the tightness of the lacing and the consequent constriction of such garments, as opposed to the moral character of the persons wearing these underpinnings. (One needs to remember that a multitude of men and women, from the wholly proper and dignified right down to the entirely disreputable, wore corsets.) "Strait" came into the English language from the Latin verb "stringere," which means "to strain; draw tight." Other "strait" words we're familiar with, such as Straits of Gibraltar and strait-jacket, likewise employ its narrowing or restraining elements. "Strait-laced" was first spotted in 1430, and while at that time it did have to do with the tightness of corsets, by the 1540s the term had expanded to encompass things that were narrow in range or scope or people that were uncommunicative (i.e., kept a great deal of themselves in). By the 1550s, it was used to describe folks who were excessively rigid or scrupulous in matters of conduct. Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Taxes were levied on playing cards in England at various times in its history, with the earliest instance occurring in 1588. However, when this tax was in force, the basic duty was applied to each deck, not just a specific card within it. Once the tax had been paid, one card from the now-taxed deck was stamped with a special seal to show that the duty had been properly rendered. Over time, that card came to be the ace of spades (most likely because it's the one on the end of the deck). "Not playing with a full deck" is simply one of countless sayings of the same ilk as "two bricks shy of a load" or "a couple of French fries short of a Happy Meal"; a phrase indicating that the person referred to lacks ordinary intellectual capacity. Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." "Gossip" descends from "God sib," an ancient term (1014) for godparent or sponsor. (A christening ceremony was a "gossiping.") Along the way to its current meaning, "gossip" picked up the additional meaning of "chum" or "friend." One of the activities folks engage in with their friends is chewing over the events of the day, and over time the word "gossip" shifted away from the person chatted with to the activity itself, as well as coming to attach to people overly fond of discussing the doings of others. At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." In an nutshell (with the non-nutshell version to be found here), while the definitive origin of this phrase has yet to surface, ones that most certainly can be ruled out are the "pints and quarts served in a bar" explanations. The first print sighting of the saying dates to 1756 (or even earlier if we accept a 1602 sighting of a variant of the phrase), which means it long predates the selling of beer in pints and quarts. here While the "Little History Lesson" e-mail has remained surprisingly static across its decade-plus existence, one additional item about freezing the balls off a brass monkey has come to be added to it.  One more: bet you didn't know this! In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon. However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem... how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a "Monkey" with 16 round indentations. However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make "Brass Monkeys." Few land lubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would come right off the monkey. Thus, it was quite literally, "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey." (All this time, youthought that was an improper expression, didn't you.) That writeup first appeared on the Internet in September 2002 as a stand-alone item. By March 2004 it began showing up as the completing entry in the "Little History Lesson" mailing. In a further nutshell, (with the non-nutshell version offered here), while the etymology of this pronouncement is still up in the air, the "cannonballs" explanation should be dismissed because  when the saying started appearing in print in the mid-19th century, various body parts (ears, tail, nose, or whiskers) were said to be about to fall off a brass monkey thanks to the cold. here Barbara "frozen assets" Mikkelson Last updated:  1 November 2010    Lighter, J.E.  Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang.   New York: Random House, 1997.  IBSN 0-679-43464-X. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang    The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.   Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. On Feb. 3, 2021, a tweet by @ialhusseini appeared to share heartwarming news about nine parents who were deported during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The tweet claimed the adults had landed back in the U.S. the same day the tweet was posted and had been reunited with their children: tweet   However, the photograph used in this tweet was miscaptioned. It's true that nine parents who were deported from the U.S. were later reunited with their children, but that occurrence took place a year before the tweet shown above was posted. Pictured in the Feb. 3, 2021, tweet were David Xol and his son, Byron. The Associated Press had reported their story in a Jan. 23, 2020, article headlined "9 parents separated from families return to children in US," along with the photograph shown in the tweet.  The picture was credited to Ringo HW Chiu/AP, and its original caption read: "David Xol-Cholom, of Guatemala, hugs his son Byron at Los Angeles international airport as they reunite after being separated by the Trump administration." reported Both Xol and his son were featured in that AP story: LOS ANGELES (AP)  As his long-lost son walked toward him in an airport terminal, a sobbing David Xol stretched out his arms, fell to one knee, and embraced the boy for about three minutes, crying into his shoulder. He had not held the child since May 2018, when border agents pulled then-7-year-old Byron away inside a detention facility. They were separated under President Donald Trumps zero-tolerance policy  the father deported to Guatemala, the son placed in a series of government facilities before ending up with a host family in Texas. Xol was one of nine parents who won the exceedingly rare chance to return to the U.S. after being deported under family separation. They arrived Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport to be reunited with children they hadnt seen in a year and a half or longer under the order of a federal judge who found the U.S. government had unlawfully prevented them from seeking asylum. A video was also included with the AP story showing the moment that Xol and his son embraced for the first time in more than a year and a half: https://youtu.be/r_QFc8bIIww      The tweet from @ialhusseini received thousands of retweets and likes, with one viewing replying,  "Grateful for the Biden Administration for this beautiful pix." Others thanked both U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden. However, these families were reunited a year before Biden was sworn in as president. After taking office on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden did move forward on plans to reunite children who were deported and separated from their parents under the Trump administration. On Feb. 2, 2021, The Associated Press reported that the wheels for those unifications were in motion: reported Alejandro Mayorkas, who was sworn in as Homeland Security secretary after his nomination was confirmed by the Senate, will lead a task force on family separation, focused largely on reuniting parents and children who remain apart. It is unclear exactly how many, but about 5,500 children have been identified in court documents as having been separated during Trump's presidency, including about 600 whose parents have yet to be found by a court-appointed committee. "We're going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration," Biden said. The review will address the possibility of legal status in the United States for separated families and providing mental health services. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to reunite families, has asked the administration for legal status in the United States for all of the thousands of families that have been separated, as well as financial compensation for those families and attorneys at government expense. In sum, a tweet from Feb. 3, 2021, reported a news story as if it had just taken place. However, although the story was true, it was a report from more than a year earlier. Twitter users shared the tweet and its accompanying picture as if it were new and current, and for this reason we have rated this story as being "Miscaptioned." Featured photograph caption (top): "A Honduran asylum seeker, recently released from federal detention with fellow migrants, holds the hand of her six-year-old daughter at a bus depot on June 11, 2019, in McAllen, Texas." A Facebook post resembling a genuine news item reporting that musician Kid Rock had been found dead at his home was circulated over 4th of July weekend in 2017: circulated   Although this post resembled a genuine news item, it was actually a product of the "prank" web site Channel23News.com. Channel23News.com Channel23News.com  enables users to "prank" their friends by creating and sharing fake news stories. The user provides the headline, a brief text about the fake news item, and an image, and the web site formats this content to resemble a genuine news bulletin posted via social media: Create A Prank And Trick All Your Friends! Simply Create Your Own Prank And Then Share It On Your Social Network Pages! Tips: You must be creative but keep in mind to make it fun.Fake Title: Choose a catchy title for your joke. Make your friends curious.Description: Be creative and make your friends curious.Image: Upload one or search one via google images Although these items resemble real news items when they are shared on social media, readers who click through to visit the underlying article and web site are greeted with a "You Got Owned" meme and the following disclaimer:   We do NOT support FAKE NEWS!!! This is a Prank website that is intended for Fun. Bullying, Violent Threats or posts that Violate Public Order are NOT permitted on this Website. In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities. May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an expos of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart. A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a "pay-for-play" scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation  The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction insofar as it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security  uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves (a fraction re-estimated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at closer to one-tenth of the United States' uranium production capacity in 2017)  thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits. one-tenth During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million, Schweizer claimed in Clinton Cash. Among those who followed Schweizer in citing the transaction as an instance of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City: speech Hillary Clintons State Department approved the transfer of 20% of Americas uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Trump's campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton "gave American uranium rights to the Russians": press release ad  An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, "So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?"   The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton's to Veto or ApproveAmong the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can.  nine law All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton "never intervened" in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn't personally involved. said said There Is No Evidence That Uranium Went to Russia That a change of company ownership occurred doesn't mean that 10 to 20 percent of America's uranium literally went to Russia. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ (Rosatom's mining subsidiary) is licensed to export uranium from the U.S. to other countries. Some exports did occur, however. A 2015 letter from NRC official Mark Satorius to a member of Congress revealed that an unspecified amount of yellowcake (semi-processed) uranium was shipped from a Uranium One facility in Wyoming to Canada between 2012 and 2014 for conversion (additional processing to prepare it for enrichment). A portion of that uranium was subsequently shipped to enrichment plants in Europe. letter The transfers to Canada were legal despite Uranium One's not holding an export license because the NRC granted such a license to the company that transported it. The transfers to Europe were legal because they were approved by another agency, the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Satorius stressed that the transfers were subject to NRC oversight and all applicable safety and national security regulations: Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services  or any other export license or license amendment  the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements. Additionally, a small amount of that exported uranium was, in fact, sold to other countries. According to a 2 November 2017 article in The Hill, Uranium One officials acknowledged that approximately 25 percent of the yellowcake exported for conversion was subsequently sold via "book transfer" to customers in Western Europe and Asia (yellowcake being a fungible commodity, that doesn't necessarily translate to a physical transfer of the product, however). article To date, there is no evidence that any of this uranium made its way to Russia. An NRC spokesman cited by FactCheck.org in October 2017 reaffirmed Satorius's assurances that "the U.S. government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia." NRC officials also say they're unaware of any Uranium One exports from the U.S. to foreign countries since 2014. cited The Timing of Most of the Clinton Foundation Donations Does Not MatchOf the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share  $131.3 million  came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.  came sold off Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times  Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company's chairman: according His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra's charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. "Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years," he said.  In addition to the Clinton Foundation donations, the New York Times also cited a $500,000 speaking fee paid to former president Bill Clinton by a Russian investment bank in June 2010, before the Uranium One deal was approved: The $500,000 fee  among Mr. Clinton's highest  was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences. Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One's stock, assigning it a "buy" rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was "the best play" in the uranium markets. The timing of Telfers Clinton Foundation donations and Bill Clinton's Renaissance Capital speaking fee might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary  that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all. Moreover, neither Clinton nor her department possessed sole power of approval over said transaction. Foundation Admits to Disclosure MistakesOne fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation's practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed  specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells: pledged discussion It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors. Such awkward collisions between Bills fundraising activities and Hillarys public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a former U.S. secretary of state and presidential candidate, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more. At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it's crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it  however little that may be. Update On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval  information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony "indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clintons charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal. reported On 24 October 2017, the U.S. House intelligence and oversight committees announced the launch of a joint investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Russian purchase of Uranium One. announced Becker, Jo and McIntire, Mike."Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal."
The New York Times.23 April 2015. Becker, Jo and Van Natta Jr., Don."After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton."
The New York Times.31 January 2008. Diamond, Jeremy and Collinson, Stephen."Trump: Clinton Is a 'World-Class Liar.'"
CNN.22 June 2016. Giustra, Frank."Statement of Frank Giustra."
Geo.ca.25 April 2015. Grimaldi, James V., Ballhaus, Rebecca, and Nicholas, Peter."Gifts to Hillary Clintons Family Charity Are Scrutinized in Wake of Book."
The Wall Street Journal.22 April 2015. Herb, Jeremy.  "House Republicans Investigating Obama-Era Uranium Deal."
 CNN.  24 October 2017. Hirsh, Michael."Bill and Hillary's Excellent Adventure."
Politico.25 April 2015. Kessler, Glenn.  "The Repeated, Incorrect Claim that Russia Obtained '20 Percent' of Our Uranium."
 The Washington Post.  31 October 2017. Kiely, Eugene. "The Facts on Uranium One."
FactCheck.org. 1 November 2017. McElveen, Josh.  "CloseUP Rewind: Hillary Clinton's First 1-on-1 Interview Since Declaring."
 WMUR.  27 July 2016. Pilkington, Ed."Clinton Cash: Errors Dog Bill and Hillary Expos  but Is There any 'There' There?"
The Guardian.5 May 2015. Qiu, Linda.  "Donald Trump Inaccurately Suggests Clinton Got Paid to Approve Russia Uranium Deal."
PolitiFact.30 June 2016. Robertson, Lori."Fact Check: Trump's False 'Corruption' Claim."
NBC News.25 October 2015. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison.  "FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Administration Approved Controversial Nuclear Deal with Moscow."
 The Hill.  17 October 2017. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison. "Uranium One Deal Led to Some Exports to Europe, Memos Show."
The Hill. 2 November 2017. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "NRC Approves Transfer of Control of Uranium Recovery Licenses to Russian Firm."
 24 November 2010. U.S. Dept. of Treasury."The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)."
20 December 2012. Updated [17 October 2017]: Added synopsis of new reportage by The Hill. Updated [1 November 2017]: Added clarifications, more sources, and the announcement of a congressional investigation. Correction [16 November 2017]: Previous versions of this article incorrectly stated that no Uranium One-produced uranium had been exported to foreign countries. After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020.