Free Publix $100 Coupons Scam
Claim:  Publix is giving away $100 grocery coupons to Facebook users.  Origins:  In July 2015, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising a "Get $100 in Free Groceries when you spend $120 or more" coupon offer for the Publix supermarket chain.  These posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media.  On 12 July 2015 Publix took to Facebook to warn customers that these coupon offers are not an authorized promotion and advise them not to visit sites promoting them: Facebook  There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more"....Posted by Publix on Sunday, July 12, 2015There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more". This is not supported by Publix and this coupon is not valid at any of our locations. We recommend not participating in the promotion or providing your personal information. Thank you for your patience as we investigate this situation.  This coupon is a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards.These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network, there's a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts:Don't believe what you see. It's 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 there's 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 organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's 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. There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more".... Posted by Publix on Sunday, July 12, 2015 Publix Sunday, July 12, 2015  There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more". This is not supported by Publix and this coupon is not valid at any of our locations. We recommend not participating in the promotion or providing your personal information. Thank you for your patience as we investigate this situation.   This coupon is a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network, there's a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's 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 there's 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 organization's real website may have further information.  Watch out for a reward that's 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.
One of the avenues of approach taken by "birthers" in their quest to demonstrate that Barack Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States is to try to demonstrate that, even if he was born in the United States, he gave up his U.S. citizenship somewhere along the way, and, if he's not a U.S. citizen, then he can't legitimately be president. birthers Barack Obama Therefore, many birthers gleefully seized onto a supposed news report from April 2009, which purported that Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles under a scholarship granted only to students of "foreign citizenship." They spread the rumor via the below-transcribed text: text April 1, 2009 Final Nail In Obama's Lack Of US Citizenship Coffin? AP  WASHINGTON D.C.: In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administrations efforts to move the country in a new direction. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrios case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter. However, this item wasn't a news report at all  it was a hoax whose elements were demonstrably false: April Fool's Day Associated Press stylebook registered website Read these tiny words very closely: the group Americans for Freedom of Information does not exist, just like the supposed "AP article" you keep cutting and pasting into e-mails to your irritated family does not exist, just like the "Daily Mail article" referenced in the fake "AP article" does not exist. They're all fabrications. Fakes. Hoaxes. Ask yourself why you're so eager to believe these obvious fakes. No, really. Really, really ask yourself. Occidental College told journalists Occidental has no record of a "Barry Soetoro" ever attending [Occidental], nor was there ever any such court order [requiring the school to turn over his transcripts], said Jim Tranquada, Occidental College's communications director, who personally answers the inquiries, demands and pleas of people looking for proof that the president is not who he claims to be. Tranquada said: "Contemporary public documents, such as the 1979-80 freshman 'Lookbook' [a guide distributed to incoming freshman] published at the beginning of President Obama's first year at Occidental, list him as Barack Obama. All of the Occidental alumni I have spoken to from that era (1979-81) who knew him, knew him as Barry Obama." Fulbright scholarships AMINEF lawsuit Supreme Court United States Justice Foundation Months after the fake news story started circulating, another iteration of the rumor surfaced: This time, the claim focused on photographs of Obama posing with family members (his mother; his step-father, Lolo Soetoro; and his half-sister, Maya) and an Indonesian elementary school registration form. The below-displayed photo is an authentic image of Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, baby Maya Soetoro, and 9-year-old Barry Soetoro (Obama). authentic image  Then, there is the below-displayed image depicting a registration document that the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia, released publicly on Jan. 24, 2007. Much as been made of the document, which ostensibly shows Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, having listed his stepson's nationality as "Indonesian" (thereby supposedly indicating that Obama relinquished his U.S. citizenship at some point). The document also lists Obama's religion as "Islam." Fransiskus Assisi School  After her divorce from her first husband, Obama's mother married an Indonesian student, Lolo Soetoro, who was attending college in Hawaii. In 1967, the family moved to Indonesia, where Obama attended elementary school in Jakarta until 1971. After that, he returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents. However, Lolo Soetoro's putatively listing his stepson's nationality as Indonesian on a school registration form does not in itself demonstrate that Obama was officially regarded as an Indonesian citizen by the government of that country. In any case, it's a moot point, since the same form shows that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, thereby making him a U.S. citizen from birth. (U.S. law states that a foreign nationality acquired through a parent does not affect one's U.S. citizenship status, nor can a child's U.S. citizenship be renounced solely through the actions of his parents.) states Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a person under the age of 18 must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that they fully understand the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation; are not subject to duress or undue influence, and are voluntarily seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship. Immigration and Nationality Act The claim that Obama attended college in the United States as a foreign student and/or under the name Barry Soetoro has also spread online via a digitally edited photo of a 1998 Columbia University student ID card. via a digitally edited photo Abcarian, Robin.  "'Birthers' Claim Obama Applied to College as a Foreigner."
  Los Angeles Times.  30 May 2012. Corcoran, Monica.  "Barack Obama Went Hawaiian Casual at Occidental College in L.A."
  Los Angeles Times.  18 January 2009. Gordon, Larry.  "Occidental Recalls 'Barry' Obama."
  Los Angeles Times.  29 January 2007. New Jersey has gone into debt to cover unemployment benefits for people who lost their jobs in the Garden State.Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-Morris) made that argument in a recent NJToday interview about his opposition to proposed legislation aimed at providing unemployment benefits to certain individuals whose hours at work have been reduced.It might be a good idea. The problem I have is that our unemployment insurance trust fund is broke, Webber said during the Nov. 28 interview. We're over a billion dollars in debt to the federal government, and what this bill does is create another stream of income out of the fund.PolitiFact New Jersey found that Webber is right.After more than two and a half years of borrowing money to cover unemployment benefits, New Jersey still owed about $1.3 billion to the federal government as of Dec. 6, according to federal and state officials.Kerri Gatling, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development, said the state expects to pay off the loan in late 2013.There is currently a negative fund balance resulting from the severe economic downturn whereby unemployment insurance benefit payments exceed contributions to the fund, Gatling said in an email.Webber told us the fund must be protected and its solvency ensured.Regardless of how we got there, now weve got to fix it, Webber said.Heres how we got into so much debt:New Jerseys unemployment insurance trust fund is made up of payroll taxes paid by employers and employees. The fund is used to pay unemployment benefits to people who worked in New Jersey.The idea behind such trust funds is to build up reserves when the economy is performing well in order to pay unemployment benefits during economic downturns.But state officials repeatedly diverted money from the trust fund to cover charity care payments to hospitals, ultimately reaching a total of about $4.6 billion in funds by 2005, according to the states nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services.Then, as more people lost their jobs during the recent recession and sought unemployment benefits, the trust fund was depleted by March 2009 and the state began borrowing from the federal government to cover the payments, according to OLS.The borrowing reached its height in April 2011, when New Jersey owed $2.1 billion for the loan, Gatling said. On Sept. 30, New Jersey paid nearly $48 million to the federal government to cover interest on the loan, she said.The state anticipates an interest payment of between roughly $55 million and $60 million to be made in September 2012, Gatling said.As we minimize the interest expense, we take excess funds and pay the loan balance, Gatling said. Payroll taxes are used to pay benefits and pay the loan balance.In November 2010, New Jersey voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting the diversion of money from the unemployment insurance trust fund and other benefit funds for any other purposes.But New Jersey isnt the only state that owes the federal government money to cover unemployment benefits.As of Dec. 6, 27 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands owed a total of roughly $38.3 billion in principal alone, including New Jerseys roughly $1.3 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. California owes the most, about $9.4 billion, according to the department.Our rulingWebber claimed in a television interview that New Jerseys unemployment insurance trust fund is broke. We're over a billion dollars in debt to the federal government.The assemblymans statement is on target. New Jersey currently owes more than $1 billion to the federal government for money borrowed to pay unemployment benefits.We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine had an old prediction tossed back at him during a debate this summer. It was thrown by moderator Judy Woodruff, the anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour. She reminded Kaine that in 2016, when he was the Democratic nominee for vice president, he said the election of then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump would be a disaster for the economy. Woodruff asked Kaine to square that with the strong economic results during the first 18 months of the Trump administration: about3 million new jobs, the unemployment rate dippingbelow 4 percent, and soaring corporate profits. Kaine replied, The national economy was strong, in its longest expansion in private sector jobs, before President Trump came into office. We fact-checked Kaines claim that Trump, when he became president on Jan. 20, 2017, inherited the nations longest expansion of private jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keepsmonthly recordson private sector employment back to 1939. They show that the U.S. experienced 82 months straight months of private sector job growth before Trump became president - from March 2010 through December 2016, when Barack Obama was in the White House. That easily qualifies for the longest streak during the eight decades the BLS had been keeping the statistics prior to Trumps presidency. The streak is still alive under Trump and - through August 2018, the latest statistics are available - is up to 112 months. The second longest streak was 64 months. It ran from May 1995 through October 2000, when Bill Clinton was president. The longest continuous drop in private employment lasted 22 months - from January 2008 through October 2009 during the Great Recession. That was during the last year of George W. Bushs administration and the first year of Obamas. Presidents from both political parties traditionally have been quick to claim the credit for good economies and fast to dodge the blame when times turn bad. Economists have repeatedly told us its mostly a political dance; that the policies of presidents and  governors dont drive economic ups and downs. Our ruling Kaine said, The national economy was strong in its largest expansion of private sector jobs before President Trump came into office. Data shows hes right. We rate his statement True. Claim:  Signing a petition will help overturn a recent Senate decision to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2009] Subject: Petition to President Obama It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone.  If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives? As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow 'illegal' aliens access to Social Security benefits. Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service. Instructions are below.  If you don't forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names. If you do not want to sign it, please just forward it to everyone you know. Thank you! To add your name, click on 'forward'.  Address it to all of your email correspondents, add your name to the list and send it on. When the petition hits 1,000, send it to comment@whitehouse.gov  PETITION for President Obama: Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security.  We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a pre-requisite for social services in the United States. We further demand that there not be any amnesty given to illegals, NO free services, no funding, no payments to and for illegal immigrants. We are fed up with the lack of action about this matter and are tired of paying for services to illegals.   Origins:  This item is a textbook example of the worst aspects of Internet petitions: It's an outdated exhortation that suggests dealing with a non-existent issue in a largely ineffective manner, yet it is regularly updated to make it appear as if it is addressing a real and current issue. This petition is an updating of one which first began circulating in mid-2006 (with "President Obama" since substituted for "President Bush"), and thus the referenced Senate action took place not "last week" but back in May 2006.  Moreover, the Senate did not vote in May 2006 to "grant Social Security benefits to illegal aliens"  as we covered in a separate article, back then the Senate tabled a prospective amendment that would have prohibited former illegals who had since gained legal status from being given credit for payments they had previously made into the Social Security system.  Not only has Congress enacted no recent legislation granting Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, but Social Security officials themselves have noted that undocumented immigrants have a positive net effect on the Social Security system: article In its 2008 annual report, Social Security officials said undocumented immigrants actual benefit the Social Security trust fund. One reason is that many of them pay Social Security taxes but never collect benefits. In previously published reports, Social Security officials have said undocumented immigrants paid about $7 billion into the trust fund in 2005, the latest year for which numbers are available. Moreover, regardless of the validity of the issue addressed, the mechanics of this e-petition are rather poor:  As with all petitions sent via e-mail, the process of circulating them poses a number of problems. Forwarding a petition through e-mail duplicates the names of hundreds and thousands of earlier signatories as each recipient adds his name and  then fans out his copy to multiple acquaintances.  Moreover, there is no verification or validation process to ensure that completed copies were actually "signed" by the persons listed  (rather than having their names added by someone else).  As well, any "break" in one branch of the chain caused by recipients' not forwarding the petition along to others means that all the collected signatures unique to that branch will be permanently lost.  The designated target for the receipt of completed petitions  in  this case  the general comments e-mail address for the White House  is not a good choice.  Petitions seeking legislative changes are best addressed to the legislative branch of government (i.e., the members of Congress who represent the petitioners).  The petition's goals are neither clear nor well-articulated.  It starts out protesting the notion that the Senate supposedly "allowed illegal aliens to access our Social Security" (a false premise), then demands that citizenship should be required as "prerequisite for social services in the United States."  Which is it?  Social Security and social services are two very different things.  In the case of social services, how should this restriction be enacted? Should abused children be denied state protective services unless they can demonstrate legal residency?  Should all emergency medical treatment be withheld from patients until they can provide documentation of their immigration status?  And in the absence of a national ID card, what standard would be used for documenting eligibility? A much more effective approach is to start with a legitimate issue; propose a clear, well-defined course of action to address it, and then phone, mail, or fax your Congressional representatives directly about it. Last updated:   7 June 2010 On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. Claim:  By default, all U.S. federal income tax refunds paid in 2010 will be issued in the form of U.S. savings bonds.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Please be aware that when filing your income taxes for 2009 earnings, the IRS has decided that all refunds due clients will be paid in US Savings Bonds unless you choose to "opt out". So watch carefully and find the area on the forms or inform your preparer of your intentions regarding this.  I would think that MOST PEOPLE would not want to receive savings bonds as opposed to a refund check in the event of a refund comingto them.   Origins:  Income taxes are a subject of near universal agreement: Nobody likes paying them, nearly everyone thinks they're too high, and many folks are disgruntled that they have to pay their taxes in advance (through payroll withholding) and wait until the following year for the government to refund any overage.  To most, it would be adding insult to injury if, as suggested above, the government stopped issuing income tax refunds in cash (via check or direct deposit) and instead started paying them out in the form of U.S. savings bonds (especially since savings bonds generally cannot be redeemed for their full value until the purchaser has held them for one year). However, the described refund switch isn't happening this year; someone has misinterpreted the introduction of a new option as a system-wide change to be imposed on everyone by default. In his weekly radio address of  5 September 2009, President Obama announced new initiatives for retirement savings, one of which was the following: radio We'll make it easier for people to save their federal tax refunds, which 100 million families receive. Today, if you have a retirement account, you can have your refund deposited directly into your account. With this change, we'll make it easier for those without retirement plans to save their refunds as well. You'll be able to check a box on your tax return to receive your refund as a savings bond. But taxpayer participation in the described initiative isn't a mandatory or default plan, and (for now, at least) it isn't as simple as "checking a box on your tax return." For refunds to be issued in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has implemented a program under which taxpayers may opt to receive part or all of their refunds (up to $5,000) in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds. This program is described in the "Buying Savings Bonds" section of the IRS' informational page entitled "Taxpayers Can Now Use Refunds to Buy Savings Bonds": program page This year, a taxpayer for the first time can request a portion of his refund be used to buy up to $5,000 in low-risk, liquid Treasury I Bonds, which earn interest and protect owners against inflation. The resulting bonds will be issued in the taxpayer's name. If the refund is a joint refund, the bonds will be issued in the names of both taxpayers. No beneficiary may be selected. The taxpayer need not have a TreasuryDirect account to purchase I Bonds using this option. You can buy Savings Bonds in denominations of $50, $100, $200, $500 and $1,000. You buy them at face value, meaning if you pay $50 using your refund, you get a $50 Savings Bond. In any single calendar year, you can buy up to a total of $5,000 of U.S. savings bonds of any series whether using your refund or some other method. If you buy $250 or less of Savings Bonds with your refund, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued. If the amount is over $250, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued up to $250 and the fewest possible additional Savings Bonds will be issued for the remaining amount. Follow the instructions on Form 8888 to tell the IRS to make a direct deposit of the amount you designate to an IRA, to buy U.S. savings bonds, or to a savings account or other savings vehicle. As noted in that description, the program for receiving refunds via savings bonds is an option taxpayers can request to participate in; not a default applied to everyone except those who specifically take action to opt out of it.   Taxpayers who wish to take part in this new program must proactively indicate their desire to do so by filling out and submitting IRS Form 8888 with their returns. Form 8888 Additional changes may be coming in future years, but taxpayers filing federal income tax returns in 2010 for income earned in 2009 need not "watch carefully" to avoid receiving their refunds as savings bonds. Last updated:  26 January 2010    Liberto, Jennifer.  "Obama to Workers: We'll Help You Save."   CNNMoney.com.  5 September 2009.    Nicklaus, David.  "How to Promote Savings? The Humble Savings Bond Is Part of the Answer."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  9 September 2009.    Rosato, Donna.  "Help Consumers Save More of Their Dough."   Money.  January 2010.    Tompor, Susan.  "Put Away Debt, Put Money Into Savings."   Detroit Free Press.  7 January 2010.    Trumbull, Mark.  "Uncle Sam Wants You to Save More Money."   The Christian Science Monitor.  5 September 2009. 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 January 2021, Snopes received several inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely shared meme that claimed Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man charged with taking part in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-U.S. President Donald Trump, was in fact a registered Democrat and supporter of President Joe Biden. Seefried came to the attention of the FBI after photographs showed him carrying a Confederate flag inside the halls of Congress. The meme consisted of one of those photographs, along with the following text: "This 'domestic terrorist,' who brought a Confederate flag into the Capitol during this outrageous attack on America has been arrested in his home state of Delaware. His name is Kevin Seefried. He's a registered Democrat and Biden supporter. Is Pelosi going to impeach Biden now too?"   The popularity of the meme can be seen in the following screenshot, which shows just a selection of Facebook posts containing it: Facebook posts   As evidence in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat, some Facebook users cited a listing for a "Kevin D Seefried" on the website VoterRecords.com: listing   However, the only credible evidence available strongly indicates that Seefried is a supporter of Trump, who took part in a destructive effort to overturn the lawful and legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, which Biden won. In court filings, an FBI special agent wrote that Seefried had said he traveled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 "to hear President Trump speak."  Furthermore, the only supposed evidence presented in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat and Biden supporter is fatally flawed. The voter registration listing came from an unofficial source, and in any case referred to a voter born in 1986, and therefore decades younger than Seefried, who is 51 years old. Since we don't have voter registration information for Seefried, we can't definitively say that he is not a registered Democrat, and so we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." However, the available evidence strongly indicates that, whatever his voter registration might be, Seefried acted in support of Trump and took part in an effort to overturn Biden's legitimate victory  hardly in keeping with the meme's baseless description of him as a "Biden supporter." The Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, which led to several deaths, damaged the reputation of the movement  spearheaded by Trump  to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election using baseless conspiracy theories that falsely alleged widespread electoral fraud. widespread electoral fraud As a result, some Trump supporters attempted to distance that movement from the events of that day, falsely claiming that the attack had been planned or perpetrated by left-wing agents provocateurs, in particular antifa (short for "anti-fascist"). We have addressed and debunked several strands of that conspiracy theory, and the "Biden supporter Seefried" meme appears to be just another such example. addressed debunked several strands On Jan. 14, Seefried and his 23-year-old son Hunter were charged with the following three offenses each: charged An affidavit written by an FBI special agent stated that: both Seefried and his son were captured on video breaking into the Capitol through a broken window; that Hunter Seefried had cleared glass from that semi-broken window in order to clear a path for entry; and that once inside, Seefried brandished a Confederate flag through the halls of the Capitol.  affidavit According to the FBI affidavit, the two men were identified because of a tip-off from one of Hunter's co-workers, who claimed Hunter had bragged about his participation in the attack on the Capitol. The co-worker also recognized Hunter's face from a police flier requesting information from the public about persons of interest from the riot. According to the FBI, both men confirmed their involvement in the attack on the Capitol during interviews conducted on Jan. 12. The affidavit states that Kevin Seefried told federal agents he had travelled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 in order to hear Trump speak at a rally at the Ellipse, near the White House, and that he had subsequently marched from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Seefried reportedly told the FBI he had brought the Confederate flag with him from Delaware, where it normally flies outside his house. Worcester County, Maryland court records list Kevin Seefried's month and year of birth as March 1969, meaning he was 51 years old when he was charged. The address listed in those records is located in Laurel, Delaware, and matches the location of his family home, which the Delaware News Journal visited and described in a Jan. 15, 2021 report. report The same residential address is found in Worcester County court records for Hunter Seefried, and those records list his month and year of birth as November 1997, meaning he was 23 years old when charged.  Given that Kevin Seefried is 51 years old, he could not be the same individual listed as a registered Democrat on VoterRecords.com  the only piece of supposed evidence put forward to support the claim that Seefried is a secret Biden supporter. However, Seefried's actual voter registration information, if it exists, was not readily available, so we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that he is registered as a Democrat, notwithstanding his current political views. Snopes contacted attorneys for both Kevin and Hunter Seefried, in an effort to clear up those uncertainties, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  If we receive information that clarifies Seefried's voter registration status, we will update this fact check accordingly. For now, we're issuing a rating of "Unproven." In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole  Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers   This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern.  First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: 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. 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. 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.