Fraudulent Free Dunkin' Donuts Coupon Offer
Social media users are frequently targeted by anniversary giveaway and survey scams, with one common form of bait being fake coupon offers for free boxes of Dunkin' Donuts:  Such scams typically provide links which lead to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Dunkin' Donuts) displaying the Dunkin' logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing those pages and writing thank you in the comments field. The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). A representative for Dunkin' Donuts wrote on the company's official Facebook page that the online "free dozen" coupon was not one offered by the chain:   The Better Business Bureau issued guidelines warning specifically of identical scams on Facebook that target shoppers: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website. Promotions
In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party.   It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim,  Hahn, Steve.  "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan."
  AARP.  26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?"
  Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org.  "IRS Definition."
  3 March 2011. AARP. org.  "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity."
  Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA."
  1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young. After the presidenttalked up national job gains, a Central Texas member of Congress suggested things havent been rosy. U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, whose district stretches nearly to Fort Worth, said in a Jan. 12, 2016,responseto the State of the Union address: Its been seven years since President Barack Obama took office. In that time, the United States has accumulated the largest national debt in its history, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency and the executive branch has expanded its power immensely  the president has chosen which laws to enforce and created new ones without Congress approval. Thenational debt, in raw dollars, is at a record high, and Obama has issued provocative executive orders though, PolitiFactfound in 2014, fewer orders than most recent predecessors. A reader asked us if Williams was correct about the country having fewer working adults than when Carter was president from 1977 into January 1981. Just given population growth, could that be? We asked Williams spokesman Vince Zito how Williams reached his conclusion and didnt hear back. In 2012, PolitiFact explored similar territory,finding Mostly Falsea claim that the American workforce was smaller than when Carter was president. The word workforce refers to the absolute number of people employed or seeking work; that tally was way up by 2012 compared with Carters era due to population growth and, through the 1990s, the expansion of working women. Counting workers So, did the number of working adults subsequently plunge to Carter-era levels? No, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose figures indicate that in 1980, around 100 million people were in the civilian workforce. In 2015,bureau figures show, nearly 150 million Americans were in the workforce -- up about 50 percent from Carters last year as president. By phone to our inquiry, economistStephen Roseof the Urban Institute, a former deputy in the Department of Labor, told us Williams claim isnt supported. Not close, Rose said. Achartin the 2015 Economic Report of the President shows 99.3 million people comprised the civilian workforce in 1980 and 146.3 million were in the workforce in 2014. Another bureauchartindicates 149.7 million people in the workforce in December 2015 and also that the workforce increased nearly every year from 1980 through 2015 -- with the exceptions of 1982, 1991, 2002 and 2008 through 2010, a period encompassing the end of George W. Bushs terms and the first two years of Obamas tenure. From 2010, when an Obama-low 139 million people were in the workforce, the count inched to nearly 140 million in 2011; 143 million in 2012; 144 million in 2013 and 146 million in 2014, according to the bureau. Employment-population ratio By another indicator, Rose said, its possible to compare the share of Americans who had jobs in Obamas years with the share of job-holders when Carter was president. The BLS, drawing on results from the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, calculates the employment-population ratio to reflect the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over thats employed. The highest ratio under Obama was 60.6 in January 2009, the month he was sworn in. The lowest ratio on his watch, 58.2, was set in November 2010 and June and July 2011. In Carters four years as president, according to the bureau, the highest ratio, 60.1, was reached in February and December 1979 and the lowest ratio, 57.0, occurred in January 1977, the month he was sworn in (it nudged to 57.2 the next month). Labor force participation We wondered if another indicator might be relevant. That statistic is the civilian labor force participation rate --meaningthe labor force, civilians 16 and older working full- or part-time, divided by the civilian population. According to the BLS, 62.6 percent of the population comprised the labor force in December 2015, the latest month of available figures. While Carter was president, a bureau chart indicates, the participation rate fluctuated from 61.6 percent in January 1977 to 64 percent in January and February 1980. Score one for Williams, though the rate on Obamas watch peaked at 65.8 percent in February 2009--which was higher than any rate in Carters years or the first seven years of successor Ronald Reagans tenure. The rate was 66.5 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989. Labor force changes Theres another chewy issue: Demographics, particularly the aging of the population, have affected changes in the workforce, making comparisons between current times and Carters era tricky. In the 2000 Census, Americans aged 60 to 69 -- that is, those who had recently hit retirement age or would do so soon -- numbered about 20 million. But thanks to Baby Boomers, that number surged in the 2010 Census to more than 29 million, for almost a 50 percent increase. This matters because the more people aged 60 to 69, the more people who pass into retirement age -- or, put another way, leave the labor force. Even though more people proportionally remain in the workforce after retirement age, the difference isnt big enough to cancel out the flood of new retirees. In 2015, Atlantic magazine published a chart contrasting the workforce in October 1977, in Carters first year as president, and June 2015, in the seventh year of Obamas tenure:  SOURCE: Story,How America's Workforce Has Changed Since 1977,the Atlantic, July 2, 2015 (accessed Jan. 21, 2016) Our ruling Williams said that under Obama, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency. This claim doesnt hold up in that far more people were working the past few years than in Carters time as president. According to a government calculation, about the same share of adults was employed during each Democrats presidency. We rate this statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. As a series of hurricanes made landfall in August and September 2017, those living in the affected areas have been searching for a communication tool that would enable them to send messages in the event of a service outage. An app called "FireChat" is one of the most widely suggested tools, due to its purported ability to send messages without an internet connection:   web site When no Internet connection or cellular networks are available, FireChat uses the radios inside our phones to connect them directly with one another. In that case (which is also called "offline" or off-the-grid), messages will travel up to 70 meters (210 feet) from one phone to the next. If there are more than two devices, they will form a network and messages will bounce from one device to the next, thus extending the range of the network. The more people use FireChat, the better the network gets for everybody. This is why FireChat works really well for very large groups of people. In other words, FireChat wouldn't be able to send a text message from Miami, Florida to Seattle, Washington (a distance of more than 3,000 miles) unless an unbroken chain of tens of thousands of FireChat users spanned that distance. However, it can be used to send messages within a community of FireChat users without the Internet: used What's unique about FireChat is that it also works when there is no Internet connection or cellular phone coverage. It even works on a plane. When your community gets together, it creates your own free communication network and doesnt rely on traditional networks. You don't have to do anything special: just keep FireChat on your smartphone and keep Bluetooth and WiFi on (yes, even if there is no Internet access). This is game-changing since you can create local communication networks at zero cost and also stay connected during sports games, rallies, music festivals, and in emergency situations.  The MIT Technology Review explained more about how the app works in an article that was published shortly after FireChat's initial release in 2014: explained FireChat makes use of a feature Apple introduced in the latest version of its iOS mobile software, iOS7, called multipeer connectivity. This feature allows phones to connect to one another directly using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi as an alternative to the Internet. If youre using FireChat, its nearby chat room lets you exchange messages with other users within 100 feet without sending data via your cellular provider. Micha Benoliel, CEO and cofounder of startup Open Garden, which made FireChat, says the app shows how smartphones can be set free from cellular networks. He hopes to enable many more Internet-optional apps with the upcoming release of software tools that will help developers build FireChat-style apps for iPhone, or for Android, Mac, and Windows devices. This approach is very interesting for multiplayer gaming and all kinds of communication apps, says Benoliel. Christophe Daligault, the vice president of sales and marketing for the app, told NPR that it works on a "mesh" network: NPR  Mesh networks can be used to set up temporary networks in disaster zones, and even to spread the Internet to remote areas beyond the reach of existing wireless networks and cables. That's the technology that Google and Facebook are counting on for their plans of spreading the Internet across the globe with balloons and drones.  [...] "Once you build a mesh network ... now you have a network that is resilient, self-healing, cannot be controlled by any central organization, cannot be shut down and is always working," Daligault says. "I think that solves many other drawbacks or challenges of the mobile broadband Internet today." He says none of this would be possible without the rapid spread of smartphones, because that means no extra hardware is needed. "Each [phone] becomes a router and in a sense you're growing the Internet  everyone who joins the mesh network creates an extension of the Internet," Daligault says. "In a year or two from now, I think people won't even remember that you had to be on Wi-Fi or get a cell signal to be able to communicate." The FireChat app can send messages without Internet service as stated. However, the app does some have limitations. Potential users, especially those searching for an emergency communication tool to use during a natural disaster, should visit the FireChat home page to make sure that they understand how the app works: FireChat The messaging app Zello was also widely suggested for emergency communications in September 2017. Although there are several benefits to that particular app during an emergency (it is billed as a "walkie-talkie" app), Zello does not work without the internet.  Zello Toor, Amar.  "This App Lets Rescue Workers Send Offline Alerts When Disaster Strikes"
  The Verge.  19 May 2016. Yu, Alan.  "How One App Might Be A Step Toward Internet Everywhere."
  NPR.  7 April 2014. Simonite, Tom.  "The Latest Chat App for iPhone Needs No Internet Connection."
  MIT Technology Review.  28 March 2014. A few lucky souls in a Gwinnett County city could see their paychecks rise by 50 percent. So how did they become so fortunate, and do they have any openings? Well, they voted themselves the potential raises. Norcross City Council members recently voted 4-1 to increase the pay for their positions from $5,400 a year to $8,100. The mayors pay will rise from $6,900 a year to $10,350. The increases will take effect in January, two months after the next municipal election. WXIA-TV recently did a story about the raises and criticism of the idea. The station reported that Mayor Bucky Johnson said the raises would bring Norcross in line with other liked-sized communities. Johnson told us a councilman made the initial claim. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether the officials are right. A Norcross official sent us a salary survey of elected officials in 43 cities in metro Atlanta. The annual pay for top elected officials ranged from $147,500 for Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed to Buford City Commission Chairman Phillip Beard, who doesnt receive a salary. Atlanta, which has a population of more than 400,000 residents, isnt necessarily the most appropriate city for such a comparison with Norcross, which had 9,116 residents in the 2010 U.S. census. The city's population rose to an estimated 15,000 residents in 2012 after Norcross an annexation, Johnson said. We looked at cities with similar populations. Since serving on the Norcross City Council is considered a part-time position, our second criteria was finding elected officials who are also part-time. Lilburn, the closest municipality to Norcross, has a part-time City Council and pays its elected officials slightly less than what Norcross approved. The population is slightly higher, nearly 12,000 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. That citys mayor makes $5,000 a year and council members are paid an annual salary of $3,500, a Lilburn official told us. Another part-time City Council further east in Gwinnett County, Loganville, offers compensation to its elected officials thats pretty close to Norcross. Loganvilles mayor is paid $12,000 a year while its council members make $6,000 a year. Loganville officials are part-time. The citys population in 2010 was 10,458. We also looked at Doraville, which had 8,330 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. The mayor and council members receive annual salaries of $70,000 and $8,400, respectively, city officials say. The council voted in 2011 to cut their annual pay by $6,000 as City Hall grappled with across-the-board budget cuts, The Champion Newspaper reported. For three decades, Doravilles mayor handled the citys daily operations. Residents voted to put a city manager in charge of running Doraville on a daily basis and hired one in February 2012. In all, we looked at 10 cities in the region with populations that seemed reasonably close to Norcross. The average annual mayoral salary was $19,418. The average yearly city council salary was $8,437. The salaries are higher than what Norcross adopted. But only six of those cities have mayoral salaries that are higher than what Norcross passed. Just four of those cities have city council salaries that are more than what Norcross approved. To sum up, Norcross officials claimed the salary increases for its mayor and City Council would put them in line with other liked-sized communities. If you consider the average salaries for 10 similarly sized cities, Norcross officials would still make less than their counterparts. If you examine each of those cities separately, the Norcross officials would make more in some cases and less in other instances. From what weve reviewed, Norcross has a pretty good argument here. The council will be in the middle of other liked-sized communities concerning pay. We rate the claim True. In April 2022, researchers warned about the potential risk of a global food shortage, spurred on in part by Russia's ongoing attacks on Ukraine. While there are currently no nationwide food shortages in the United States, nor widespread disruptions in the supply chain, the potential of such shortages caused many people to feel that their food security was suddenly uncertain.  researchers warned about the potential risk of a global food shortage currently no nationwide food shortages in the United States In the wake of this uncertainty, unfounded rumors began to spread that attempted to lay the blame for any coming food shortages on nefarious forces. One such rumor claimed that there had been an unusual number of fires at food processing facilities in 2022. The explanation offered by conspiracy theorists for this untrue claim was that these fires were being intentionally set in order to create a food crisis. In reality, the number of fires was not extraordinary, the causes of the fires were not unusual, and the damage caused by the fires was minimal.  the number of fires was not extraordinary, the causes of the fires were not unusual, and the damage caused by the fires was minimal As unfounded rumors related to the cause of a yet-to-happen food crisis circulated online, many people started to point fingers at a favorite target of conspiracy theorists, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.  One of the most prevalent claims related to Gates and the potential for food shortages is that the billionaire owns a suspicious amount of farmland in the United States. On social media, we found people claiming, for example, that Gates owns the "majority" of U.S. farmland -- 80%, they claimed -- and that Gates is trying to buy up "all" of the farmland.   These claims are not true. Gates does not own anywhere close to the majority of America's farmland.  Gates does own a lot of farmland. In fact, he reportedly owns more farmland than any other individual in America. According to 2021 article from the Land Report, a magazine about land ownership, Gates owns approximately 242,000 acres of farmland. While this is certainly a lot of acreage, it represents less than 1% of all the farmland in the United States.  reportedly owns more farmland According to a 2021 report from the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Agriculture Statistics Service, there are 895,300,000 acres of farmland in the United States. Gates' 242,000 acres amounts to about 0.03% of the total.  2021 report from the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Agriculture Statistics Service To put that into perspective, if you put all of the land that Gates owns into one place (his holdings are spread throughout the country), you'd cover an area about a quarter the size of Rhode Island.  you'd cover an area about a quarter the size of Rhode Island While viral conspiracy theories baselessly conjecture that Gates is buying up farmland in order to starve Americans for some unknown reason, there's likely a simpler explanation: Gates makes money off this land.  Gates started purchasing farmland circa 2013 through his investment group, Cascade Investments. Agfundernews.com, a website about agricultural investments, reported in 2021 that Gates' investments were part of a broader trend that started after the financial crisis of 2008, as investors looked for reliable returns.  Agfundernews.com For many years, farmland was not a common asset class among financial investors ... The tide began to shift in the early 2000s, when institutional investors began to give farmland a closer look. Momentum accelerated during the 2008-2009 Great Financial Crisis, when investors grew desperate for alternatives to traditional safe haven investments like bonds and gold. In this short period of time, there was a proliferation in funds that were specifically focused on farmland investing. In 2020, there were 166 such funds globally, nearly a 9x increase from only 19 in 2005. [...] Bill Gates investments in farmland can be seen as part of this trend. The Gates have been quietly acquiring farmland through their investment manager, Cascade Investment, for over 10 years. While many have also speculated that Gates' land purchases were in some way related to his efforts to curb climate change, Gates has said that the two are unrelated. Gates said during a Reddit AMA: Reddit AMA  My investment group chose to do this. It is not connected to climate. The agriculture sector is important. With more productive seeds we can avoid deforestation and help Africa deal with the climate difficulty they already face. It is unclear how cheap biofuels can be but if they are cheap it can solve the aviation and truck emissions. During times of uncertainty, people often look for someone to blame, and peddlers of misinformation are quick to tell others at whom they should be pointing their fingers. Oftentimes, those fingers get pointed at Gates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine-hesitant Americans were inundated with false rumors claiming that Gates was putting microchips into vaccines, that he was working on a mind-altering vaccine, that Gates had input tracking devices into vaccines, and that he once called for vaccinations as a way to depopulate the planet. These rumors, like the present rumor about Gates buying up the majority of farmland in the United States for nefarious purposes, are all false.  Gates was putting microchips into vaccines working on a mind-altering vaccine Gates had input tracking devices into vaccines vaccinations as a way to depopulate the planet Sources: Bill Gates: Americas Top Farmland Owner | The Land Report. 11 Jan. 2021, https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farmland-owner/. Bill Gates Uses Farmland as an Investment Outlet Buying up Potato, Carrot and Onion Farms. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mcdonald-s-french-fries-carrots-onions-all-foods-come-bill-n1270033. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022. Bill Gates Uses Farmland as Investment Vehicle, Owning 269,000 Acres of Land. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/bill-gates-is-nation-s-largest-farmland-owner-114566213692. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022. Estes, Nick. Bill Gates Is the Biggest Private Owner of Farmland in the United States. Why? The Guardian, 5 Apr. 2021. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-gates-climate-crisis-farmland. If Not for Climate, Then Why Is Bill Gates Buying so Much Farmland? AFN, 27 Aug. 2021, https://agfundernews.com/gates-if-not-for-climate-then-why-is-bill-buying-up-so-much-farmland. On 7 August 2018, Texas governor Greg Abbott posted a 9gag.com-branded meme on Twitter which included a statement attributed to former British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill about how "fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists":   However apt this quote may (or may not) be, it did not originate with Winston Churchill. Abbott deleted his tweet after critics pointed out that fact to him, but he said during a press conference that knowing who originally made the statement was "irrelevant" because he believed in its sentiment regardless of who said it: "What I tweeted was a sentiment that I had. It was irrelevant to me who may or may not have said that in the past. I didn't want to be accused of plagiarism for saying it. If no one else said it, attribute the quote to me because it's what I believe in." press conference So who does deserve credit? Similar quotes positing the idea that fascism would come to America disguised by a different name can be traced at least as far back as 1936 (although they weren't attached to Churchill's name until decades later).  On 18 March 1936, for example, the Cincinnati Inquirer reported on words delivered by Norman Thomas, an American Presbyterian minister who was running for president as the Socialist Party of America's candidate, at an informal luncheon: "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name."   A few days later the same newspaper mentioned the same statement in a book review of In the Second Year, a dystopian novel by Storm Jameson set in a fascist Britain. That article added some additional words to the statement and reported that Thomas had been quoting Huey Long, an American politician who had been assassinated the previous year: Norman Thomas said recently in a speech made in Cincinnati "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name." In this statement he was repeating the words of the late Huey Long, but Huey added: "Of course we'll have it. We'll have it under the guise of anti-fascism." No one has yet been able to document Huey Long's having made such a statement, however. Several variations of this quote have appeared in print since Thomas' 1936 remark. In 1938, for instance, Rev. Dr Halford E. Luccock of the Yale Divinity School said that "When fascism comes to America, and it has already come to some parts, it will not be marked with the swastika and labeled 'Made in Germany ... It will not even be called Fascism ... But will be called by that high-sounding and highly praised name - Americanism." Playwright Clare Booth reportedly had a similar take: "Speaking of Fascism," she writes, "Of all national ways of life, it is, perhaps, the most quickly habit-forming. It is the alcohol and the opium of the political systems; it will rob us eventually of our physical and mental and even moral powers, but it gives us temporary illusion of escape from an inimical world, a lift of the spirit, a feeling of superiority, of power ... also, we are warned (though not loudly, not often enough) when -- or if -- fascism comes in all America she will come so prettily costumed in red, white and blue as to be practically indistinguishable from a music hall's Fourth of July performance 'Rockette,' than which nothing could look more charmingly, happily, uniformly american.  Apparently Churchill's name was spuriously appended to this statement about fascism circa 2010 more than 40 years after his death (and with no supporting evidence). 2010 Timothy Riley of the National Churchill Museum told us that these words do not appear in any of the articles, speeches, or books penned by Churchill: "Winston Churchill authored over 15 million words  in articles, speeches, books and other writings. There is no evidence that the statesman wrote the words in question.  It is impossible to know if he uttered the words in conversation, but I am not aware of any of Churchills contemporaries who recorded or recalled the statement." The Cincinnati Enquirer.  "Fascism Coming  Under New Name!"
  18 February 1936. JYK.  "This and That."
  The Morning Call.  5 March 1939. McD, J.F.  "A 'Lively Age' to Come?'
  The Cincinnati Enquirer.  22 February 1936. McGaughy, Lauren.  "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Tweets Fake Winston Churchill Quote About Anti-Fascists."
  The Dallas Morning News.  7 August 2018. Claim:  The accused Boston Marathon bombers attended expensive private schools.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April  2013] Can you tell me where the Boston bombers and their families got their monies?  There is no indication of a job (other than the father at one time being a US gov't employee) and I'm wondering how they got to an exclusive school and higher private education tuitions? Origins:  A number of inquiries from our readers like the one reproduced above suggests there is a common perception that accused Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended expensive private schools, a perception which has prompted many to raise the question of where the money to fund their educations came from (since the brothers apparently had no obvious substantial source of income).  Although detailed information about the Tsarnaevs' finances (and its sources) has not yet been made public, we can dispel the mistaken notion that they received costly private educations. According to various news accounts, the elder brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan (now deceased), attended high school at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and tookaccounting classes for three semesters between 2006 and 2008 as a part-time student at Bunker Hill Community College.  As the school's name indicates, Bunker Hill is a community college (i.e., a  Bunker Hill publicly funded two-year institution) with relatively low tuition rates for local residents. The younger brother, 19-year-old Dzhokhar, is likewise reported to have attended high school at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and then studied marine biology at UMass Dartmouth.  Although the names of these institutions might suggest otherwise, neither of them is a private school: Cambridge Rindge and Latin School (CRLS) is a public high school (part of the Cambridge Public School District) formed from the 1977 merger of Rindge Technical School and Cambridge High and Latin School, and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (or UMass Dartmouth) is one of the five schools that comprise the University of Massachusetts public university system.  Altogether, public high school, community college, and the University of Massachusetts is about the cheapest educational path a resident of Massachusetts could follow. CRLS University of Massachusetts This isn't to say that the Tsarnaevs' educations were either cheap or completely cost-free: the fees at UMass Dartmouth run over $10,000 per year for Massachusetts residents, and even Bunker Hill Community College's tuition costs a local resident $141 per unit.   And at least one of the brothers (Tamerlan) is reported to have been receiving welfare benefits at one pointHowever, Dzhokhar won a Cambridge City Scholarship in 2011, and either or both brothers might also have received student loans or other forms of financial aid.   fees tuition welfare Last updated:  24 April 2013    CNN.com.  "Timeline: A Look at Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Past."   22 April 2013. In an opinionarticlehe wrote for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for an end to corporate socialism and made a claim about wealth inequality. The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country, and they will do everything they can to block our agenda, wrote Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The latest-available data back up his statement, and it appears the gap is widening. A note aboutwealth, before we dig in: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home. But they also have debt, typically from a mortgage, credit cards or other bills. The result is that even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth   the more technical term for wealth. Sanders campaign told us his claim is based on a 2017 study from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. It used Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and data from agold-standardfederal government source on wealth. Those are 2016 figures, from the Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances, which are updated every three years. The study found that the three wealthiest individuals wereBill Gatesof Microsoft with $89 billion, Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $81.5 billion andWarren Buffettof Berkshire Hathaway with $78 billion. Their total wealth of $248.5 billion was higher than the wealth of the bottom 160 million Americans, at $245 billion. Despite Sanders suggestion that the three men would block his agenda, they have expressed centrist political views over the years, and Buffett was a well-known supporter of former PresidentBarack Obama, a Democrat. Whatever their views, Sanders is correct about their wealth, which is on the rise. Forbes latest annual rankingsfor 2018show Bezos, Gates and Buffett still ranked at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and that their total wealth was $345 billion. New federal figures for the bottom 160 million Americans arent expected to be released until sometime later in 2019. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study said. University of Michigan sociology professorFabian Pfeffer, whose research specialties include wealth inequality, was among a number of economists and wealth inequality experts who told us the federal figures used in the study are the best for assessing wealth in the population. He told us that the wealth gap is much greater in the United States than in other Western industrialized nations. Pfeffer said the top 5% hold more than 70% of all net worth in the United States. Thats compared to 44% in Austria and Sweden, and lower figures in other comparable nations. Sanders said, The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. The latest available figures indicate that the total wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett was $248.5 billion, exceeding the total wealth of $245 billion of the bottom half of Americans. We rate Sanders statement True. "If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" says the manta of the fact-checking industry. In December 2018, a number of social media users came across a post promising a chance at an ambassadorship with the popular brand Lululemon. The posting, which was shared by Instagram accounts such as @lulurecruitment.co (which has no affiliation with the real Lululemon) explained that anyone with 150 followers had a chance of obtaining free clothes and gift for simply sharing this advertisement with their friends on social media: @lulurecruitment.co   This is not a genuine offer from Lululemon, and the accounts sharing this message are not affiliated with the brand. Lululemon's social media team has responded to a few queries about the scam with messages similar to the following: responded FB User: Is this legit? I am assuming no Lululemon: Hi Michelle, You've got itour accounts are verified with the blue check mark, and our ambassadors are chosen individually by our stores rather than via our social channels. This account has been flagged to our brand protection team. Let me know if you have more questions! - Camilla The non-existent ambassadorship was only offered to users with a minimum of 150 followers, which is a relatively low bar for any sort of social media position, especially for a well-known national brand such as Lululemon. This scam also required potential "ambassadors" to follow the fake Lululemon account and then share its post with their friends. This allowed the scammers to build a following and ensured that their dishonest message would be spread to a greater number of social media users. This Lululemon scam followed a strategy similar to other "like farming" social media schemes. Such fraudsters offer something of value (in this case an ambassadorship) in exchange for social media engagement, which allows them to quickly build a following and then provides them the opportunity to sell the account to a third party. like farming One way to avoid this type of scam is to double-check to make sure that a company-affiliated post actually originated with the brand's official social media accounts: @lululemon can you confirm if this is real or fake? pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p @lululemon pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p  Jason Davis (@Jasonnn93) December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018  Social media users should also keep old adages such as "nothing in life is free" when they peruse the internet. Claim:  Man battles $0.00 charge that won't go away. LEGEND Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1998] In March 1992 a man living in Newtown near Boston Massachusetts received a bill for his as yet unused credit card stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April he received another and threw that one away too. The following month the credit card company sent him a very nasty note stating they were going to cancel his card if he didn't send them $0.00 by return of post. He called them, talked to them, they said it was a computer error and told him they'd take care of it. The following month our hero decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome credit card figuring that if there were purchases on his account it would put an end to his ridiculous predicament. However, in the first store that he produced his credit card in payment for his purchases he found that his card had been cancelled.  He called the credit card company who apologized for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that having spoken to the credit card company only the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out. The next month he got a bill for $0.00 stating that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally giving in he thought he would play the company at their own game and mailed them a check for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the credit card company nothing at all. A week later, the man's bank called him asking him what he was doing writing a check for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank replied that the $0.00 check had caused their check processing software to fail. The bank could not now process ANY checks from ANY of their customers that day because the check for $0.00 was causing the computer to crash. The following month the man received a letter from the credit card company claiming that his check had bounced and that he now owed them $0.00 and unless he sent a check by return of post they would be taking steps to recover the debt. The man, who had been considering buying his wife a computer for her birthday, bought her a typewriter instead. What a world? (country NSW... (New South Wales.. Australia))... On Thursday, 24 January 2002,  Derek Guille broadcast this story on his afternoon program on ABC  radio. In March, 1999, a man living in Kandos (near Mudgee in NSW received a bill for his as yet unused gas line stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April he received another bill and threw that one away too. The following month the gas company sent him a very nasty note stating they were going to cancel his gas line if he didn't send them $0.00 by return mail. He called them, talked to them, and they said it was a computer error and they would take care of it. The following month he decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome gas line figuring that if there was usage on the account it would put an end to this ridiculous predicament. However, when he went to use the gas, it had been cut off. He called the gas company who apologised for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got  a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that having spoken to them the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake, so  he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out. The next month he got a bill for $0.00. This bill also stated that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally, giving in, he thought he would beat the company at their own game and mailed them a cheque [check] for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the gas company nothing at all. A week later, the manager of the Mudgee branch of the Westpac Banking Corporation called our hapless friend and asked him what he was doing writing cheque for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank manager replied that the $0.00 cheque had caused their cheque processing software to fail. The bank could therefore not process ANY cheques they had received from ANY of their customers that day because the cheque for $0.00 had caused the computer to crash. The following month the man received a letter from the gas company claiming that his cheque has bounced and that he now owed them $0.00 and unless he sent a cheque by return mail they would take immediate steps to recover the debt. At this point, the man decided to file a debt harassment claim against the gas company. It took him nearly 2 hours to convince the clerks at the local courthouse that he was not joking. They subsequently assisted him in the drafting of statements which were considered substantive evidence of the aggravation and difficulties he had been forced to endure during this debacle. The matter was heard in the Magistrate's Court in Mudgee and the outcome was this: The gas company was ordered to: [1] Immediately rectify their computerised accounts system or show cause, within 10 days, why the matter should not be referred to a higher court for consideration under Company Law. [2] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by the man. [3] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by all the Westpac clients whose cheques had been bounced on the day our friend's had  been. [4] Pay the claimant's court costs; and [5] Pay the claimant a total of $1500 per month for the 5 month period March to July inclusive as compensation for the aggravation they had caused their client to suffer. And all this over $0.00. This story can also be viewed on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) website. Who employed these idiots?? Origins:  This wacky tale of billing technology gone horribly wrong first appeared on the Internet in July 1997. It's pointless to ask if this e-mailed tale is a true story because not enough details were provided in the text to give anyone much hope of tracking this specific version to a source. We're told this happened in 1992 to a man in Newtown, Massachussetts, but there is no such town. (There is a Newton, however, in that area.) Neither the man nor the credit card company are named, adding to the difficulties of finding out if the particulars of this story are  real. Later versions of the same e-mail omitted the name of the town and altered the text to "A man living near Boston ..." Even later versions re-inserted the name of the town, this time changing it to Newton. In 2003 it reappeared as a tale about a man living in Australia. It's best we forget about trying to find this mystery man and instead look at the story. There's nothing implausible about receiving a zero-sum statement; people get them all the time. What elevates this particular cyber-version into the realm of legend are the additional details tacked on after that event. This story works as an engaging piece of fiction because of the mounting sense of frustration the victim endures as the people he turns to for help prove incapable of undoing what a machine has done. He finally (he thinks) figures a way to beat the machine at its own game by sending a $0.00 check to pay the $0.00 bill, but in doing so causes his bank's computer to hit the bricks and his check to bounce, prompting yet another dunning notice from the credit card company. It's great tale, but it's probably not a real one: It's unlikely that a zero-dollar check could or did cause a financial institution's computers to crash. If that were all it took, people looking for a few extra days before checks they'd written cleared their accounts (or pranksters merely seeking to wreak industrial havoc) would have routinely deposited zero-dollar checks in order to bring banking systems to their knees.   Variations on this story have been around for years. This one comes from a 1970 joke book: Winning a battle with a computer system is getting to be more fun than sneaking into the subway through an exit gate used to be when we were kids. Let's give a great big hand to latest winner Jerome T. Parker. Mr. Parker, for reasons unknown to him, received a bill from an oil company for several consecutive months for $0.00. He laughingly showed the bills to friends and waited for the bills to stop coming. When he got one marked "Final Notice," however, plus a threat to turn the account over to a notoriously tough collection agency, he wrote out a check for no dollars and no cents, signed his name thereto, and mailed it to the oil company with a note saying, "This pays my account in full." Damned if he didn't get a form letter in return thanking him for his patronage. The reason for this tale's growing popularity of late may well have been captured in the first line of that 1970 example: "Winning a battle with a computer system." As computers come to play ever-increasing roles in our lives, so grows our resentment of them. We fear the thought of someday falling at their mercy, and the $0.00 story expresses this anxiety. In this Kafka-esque tale, the hero is unable to get any of the humans he speaks with to unravel the mess and ultimately has to resort to playing the computer's game to beat it. Chilling thought, that, and we fear that is indeed the way our world is going. In August 1999, Ann Landers ran the following letter from a reader: DEAR ANN LANDERS: When I read your column about outrageous billing statements, I decided to send you my story. When I was in college, I took out guaranteed student loans. After graduation, while still repaying the loans, I was informed that they had defaulted and had been turned over to the state collection agency. I had no idea why.  It took seven years of letter writing, hiring a lawyer and appealing to my congressperson to straighten out the mess. It turned out that my file at the bank had fallen behind a filing cabinet. Can you believe it? It actually happened. I am not making this up. The U.S. Department of Education dropped all penalty charges, and I paid off the balance in full. End of story, right? Wrong. Keep reading.  After the loan was cleared up, I began to receive billing letters from the Department of Education. What was so funny, was that the bills reported no balance due  no principal, penalties or interest. But the letters began none too cordially with, "Warning-Warning-Warning! Your scheduled payment is seriously overdue!" The letters contained several threats about the consequences if I didn't pay off my zero balance immediately. Go figure. I received no fewer than 11 of these threatening letters, and wouldn't be surprised if there are more in the pipeline. In October 1999 another of Ann's reader's came forward to tell her $0.00 tale: Dear Ann: I just read the letter from C.M. in Milpitas, Calif., who said the Department of Education lost her file and kept billing her for her student loan. After the mess was finally straightened out, she received bills demanding she pay a balance of $0. That's right  zero dollars.  This happened to me as well. A financial-aid adviser told me that the quickest way to solve the problem was to ''pay'' the bill, so I wrote a cheque for $0. This is the only to stop the computer from sending statement letters. Calling customer services is useless because they don't always communicate with the billing departments. Since I sent that cheque, I have not been bothered. But get this  the billing department actually tried to cash it. Can $0.00 billings occur? Ask a bookkeeper who has dealt with a computerized receivables system that generates finance charges but does not round off the amounts. In a situation where an overdue account has attracted a finance charge, such bills can occur when the customer pays his bill. As far as the computer is concerned, a debt of < 1 still exists, so the program sends this information to the printer at statement printing time. However, because the program has also been coded not to print fractional cent amounts, it spits out a $0.00 statement.  (The same reasoning applies to one person's online explanation of why Yahoo! sent him a payment check for $0.00.) explanation In the now-vanished world where competent bookkeepers oversaw the receivables process, such oddities were caught before they were mailed out, and a reversing entry to cancel the fractional finance charge was entered to soothe the electronic beast. In the modern world, statements are all too often automatically stuffed into window envelopes (by yet more machines!), franked, and mailed, and accounting personnel think a reversing entry is something one performs to back into a parking space. One would hope that when matters reach the "telephone for help" stage they get straightened out, but then I still believe in the myth of the competent bookkeeper. Barbara "debit taunt of 1977" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 June 2014    Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."   13 October 1999  [syndicated column].    Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."   18 August 1999  [syndicated column].