IRS Prepaid or Wire Transfer Fraud
Scam:  The IRS contacts taxpayers by phone to demand that overdue taxes be settled via prepaid debit card or wire transfers.   Origins:  In March 2014, the IRS reported con artistsimpersonating their agents had stolen more than $1 million from thousands of people across the U.S. via a fraud perpetrated by telephone. The agency has called it "the largest scam of its kind" it has seen. In it, more than 20,000 people from nearly every state were successfully defrauded by fake tax agents who told victims they owed taxes and demanded payment by prepaid debit card or wire transfer. Those masquerading as IRS agents further informed their targets that if they refused to comply with their demands for immediate payment they could be arrested, deported, or lose their business or driver's licenses. Reports of the scam, which has been running since August 2013, continue to increase. The calls are made to look as if they originate with the IRS, with that agency's name appearing on the caller IDs of intended targets' phones. Often those conducting the fraud know the last four digits of their targets' Social Security numbers.  Some of the attempts to defraud also follow up with false IRS emails and phone calls in which the con artists pretend to represent the police or motor vehicles officials. Per the IRS's description of this fraud: IRS's description  Scammers use fake names and IRS badge numbers. They generally use common names and surnames to identify themselves.  Scammers may be able to recite the last four digits of a victims Social Security Number.  Scammers spoof the IRS toll-free number on caller ID to make it appear that its the IRS calling.  Scammers sometimes send bogus IRS emails to some victims to support their bogus calls.  Victims hear background noise of other calls being conducted to mimic a call site.  After threatening victims with jail time or drivers license revocation, scammers hang up and others soon call back pretending to be from the local police or DMV, and the caller ID supports their claim. As a rule, the IRS contacts those who owe on their taxes first by mail or with personal visits from field agents. Real IRS agents never insist on payment by debit card or wire transfer.  They also don't ask for credit card numbers over the phone. Says Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Russell George, "If someone unexpectedly calls claiming to be from the IRS and uses threatening language if you don't pay immediately, that is a sign that it really isn't the IRS calling."  The IRS advises: If you get a phone call from someone claiming to be from the IRS, heres what you should do:  If you know you owe taxes or you think you might owe taxes, call the IRS at 1.800.829.1040. The IRS employees at that line can help you with a payment issue  if there really is such an issue.  If you know you dont owe taxes or have no reason to think that you owe any taxes (for example, youve never received a bill or the caller made some bogus threats as described above), then call and report the incident to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484.  If youve been targeted by this scam, you should also contact the Federal Trade Commission and use their FTC Complaint Assistant at FTC.gov.  Please add "IRS Telephone Scam" to the comments of your complaint. Last updated:  20 February 2015    Norman, Jim.  "Authorities Warn of IRS Phone Scam."   The Record. 21 March 2014  (p. A5).    Richter, Ed.  "IRS scam continues to grow."   The Journal-News. 23 March 2014.
Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. Since at least 2020, various Facebook and Instagram ads claimed that U.S. citizens with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" could receive $610, $622, $710, or $712 as a government refund check, perhaps as part of a stimulus plan, if they simply entered their ZIP code into a form. For example, one video ad showed U.S. President Joe Biden signing a piece of paper and another person holding checks that appeared to resemble the design used by the U.S. Treasury. It also included a clip of a family celebrating something they saw on their computer. one video ad Joe Biden  The video of the family celebrating likely had something to do with the girl in the video being accepted to a college. It's unclear if they knew their video was being used in this Facebook ad.  This Facebook ad from the Edwin Parker Facebook page, which had more than 70,000 followers, read: "Enter Your Zip Code To See What You Get Back. US Citizens with no DUIs in the last 3 years are getting $610 back if they sign up before the deadline ends. HURRY." Edwin Parker Facebook page However, there was no truth to any of this. Biden did not sign legislation to provide $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other amount of money to drivers who hadn't driven under the influence in the last three years. No other U.S. government entity was providing money either. A picture of Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court also appeared in some of the ads as well, which was also misleading. These sorts of Facebook and Instagram ads often lead to little more than offers to change insurance providers. However, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) told us that these can also be scams that attempt to obtain your personally identifiable information for nefarious purposes. We previously reported about a similar scam that also used pictures of Biden and promised $3,600 stimulus checks from the government to homeowners. reported The ad on the Edwin Parker Facebook page led to the website expertsinfinance.online. We noticed that the website's terms and conditions page was rather short, and that the address it listed was in Mumbai, India. expertsinfinance.online terms and conditions page Mumbai, India  The Facebook ads claimed the dollar amount was $610 or $622, while the website resulting from the ad said $710 or $712.  The website's landing page stated the following: People With No DUIs In Last 3 Years Are Getting $710 Back in Savings. ENDING SOON: Drivers Should Check Savings Before the 30th ... Disclaimer: This is an advertorial and not an actual news article, blog or consumer protection update. Our aim is to bring consumers the best information that may help them make informed decisions. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This site is not a part of the Facebook website or Facebook Inc. This site is not endorsed by Facebook in any way. FACEBOOK is a trademark of FACEBOOK, Inc. As for the Edwin Parker Facebook page, it listed 19 page managers in India, one in Germany, and one in the U.S. Also, its profile picture did not show a man named Edwin Parker, but rather Ezekiel Emanuel. profile picture Emanuel's bio said that he was "the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania." He was also listed as "a Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress." He appeared to do have nothing to do with the Facebook page and likely did not know his picture was being misused. bio In sum, no, drivers with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" were not eligible for government refund checks of $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other dollar amount. Readers as well as their friends and family are advised to steer clear of these kinds of ads and websites. For the reasons stated within this story, along with guidance from the BBB, we have rated this claim as a "Scam." On 13 February2016, the web site Newslo published an articleclaiming that Alabama congressmanRobert Aderholt proposed the introduction of "hunger tests" before food stamps were issued to potential recipients: A top Republican wants the federal government to spend half a billion dollars so states can make people on food stamps pass drug tests. Legislation Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) proposes would cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending by $1.2 billion, then plow $600 million into grants for states to carry out drug testing programs. Federal law doesnt currently allow states to drug test food stamp recipients, an obstacle that has prevented Republicans in Georgia, Wisconsin and elsewhere from carrying out the policy. Aderholts bill would allow drug tests, but not require them. ...in addition to allowing states to wilfully administer drug tests to food stamp recipients, the controversial bill would also require potential recipients to be tested for actual hunger every time prior to being issued food stamps. Look at whats going on right now, the Alabama Rep. said. The United States budget is hemorrhaging money because of drug addicts who are misusing food stamps to purchase narcotics, but what many people dont realize is the fact that they are only part of the problem. There are many other so-called legitimately poor people who are also receiving food stamps, but are using them to buy things like hot-tubs, motorbikes, finance pool parties and getting their hands on the latest iPhone or MacBook...Thats why, as a way of making sure food stamps actually go to hungry people, I propose we introduce hunger tests prior to issuing the stamps to every potential beneficiary. The logistics of it are still in the works, but from what I can gather, wed be using a benign chemical that would be able to tell whether or not a person is experiencing hunger from their saliva. The chemical would be located on the stamps themselves, and upon licking the stamp, as you would a simple stamp at a post office, we would know straight away if a person is trying to trick us or if they really deserve food. While it's true that Rep. Aderholt introduced a bill on 11 February 2016 in support of requisite drug testing for food stamp recipients, all but the first paragraph quoted above was embellished(asNewsloitself indicated). Articleson the self-styled"hybrid" news site Newslo(as well as sistersites Religionlo and Politicalo) regularly build upon controversial news items with fabricated details that range from subtle to outlandish. bill Newsloand related pagesdisplay an interactive feature allowingreaders to "Show Facts" or "Hide Facts":   However, contentpublished by Newslo, Politicalo,and Religionlodisplays by default in "Hide Facts" mode, ensuring thatmanyvisitors areunaware that fabricated details appearedalongside otherwise accurate news items. In addition to the "Show Facts/Hide Facts" feature, Newslo's disclaimerstates: disclaimer Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. PreviousNewslo, Religionlo,andPoliticalo articles that proved confusing to social media usersincluded items claiming that Marco Rubiosaid women shouldbe placed in custody if it was suspected they were considering anabortion, that Pat Robertsonsaid gay people should wear specific colors by which heterosexual people couldeasily identify them, that Pastor John Piper decreed bikiniwaxes a sin in the eyes of God, that David Bowie was alive but held hostage by operatives of Satan, and that Ted Cruz believed God would not have allowed Antonin Scalia to die at a time that was potentially not politically expedient. abortion colors waxes David Bowie Antonin Scalia On Aug 22, 2023, a photo of a November 2021 headline from the National Review went viral on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The headline asserted that "In Germany, you must be fully vaxxed before your death by assisted suicide." a photo headline  The headline was never accurate, and the underlying story, at the time tweet went viral in August 2023, was out of date. In late November 2021, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a German euthanasia association, Verein Sterbehillfe, issued a news release mandating compliance with so-called 2G regulations. As described by the BBC, "2G stands for genesen (recovered in the past six months) or geimpft (vaccinated)." Many predominantly right-wing publications highlighted this press release as an example of Covid-19 regulations gone too far. The Spectator, for example, wrote on Nov. 28, 2021, that: news release described wrote Irony has been declared many times in this pandemic but now, from Covid-riddled Germany comes the final proof: you can't kill yourself now unless you've been vaccinated. As European countries battle to limit the spread of the virus, Verein Sterbehilfe  the German Euthanasia Association  has issued a new directive, declaring it will now only help those who have been vaccinated or recovered from the disease. Several important pieces of context are missing from both the headline claim that Germany mandated this compliance and also the notion that this organization mandated these health regulations for the safety of the person ending their life. Neither implication is true. Verein Sterbehilfe is not a German governmental agency  it is, instead, a not-for-profit membership-based club that offers assistance and planning for people and their loved ones looking to exercise their right to self-determination in their death: i.e., to end their life instead of progressing through a painful or incurable illness. is not It was on behalf of the later population that the COVID policies were mandated, per Sterbehilfe's news release: news release Euthanasia and the preparatory examination of the personal responsibility of our members willing to die require human closeness. But human closeness is a prerequisite and breeding ground for the transmission of the coronavirus. As of today, the 2G rule applies in our club, supplemented by situation-related measures, such as quick tests before encounters in closed rooms. Snopes reached out to Verin Sterbehilfe to ask if any COVID-19 restrictions remained in place at the organization at the time of this reporting, but we did not receive a response. Because Germany made no such regulation regarding assisted suicide, because Verin Sterbehilfe is a nongovernmental organization, and because the story at issue was multiple years out of date, the assertion was False. "Covid: Germany Puts Major Restrictions on Unvaccinated." BBC News, 2 Dec. 2021. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180. Hufige Fragen | Verein Sterbehilfe. 1 Apr. 2020, https://www.sterbehilfe.de/haeufige-fragen/. "In Germany, You Must Be Fully Vaxxed before Your Death by Assisted Suicide." National Review, 28 Nov. 2021, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/in-germany-you-must-be-fully-vaxxed-before-your-death-by-assisted-suicide/. Steerpike. "German Euthanasia Clinics Refusing Unvaccinated Customers." The Spectator, 26 Nov. 2021, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/german-euthanasia-clinics-refusing-unvaccinated-customers/. Sterbehilfe Nur Noch Fr Geimpfte Und Genesene | Verein Sterbehilfe. 20 Nov. 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20211120122435/https://www.sterbehilfe.de/sterbehilfe-nur-noch-fuer-geimpfte-und-genesene/. Claim:  Opinion piece by London Daily Telegraph editor criticizes President Obama's handling of foreign policy. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2011] THIS FROM THE " LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH" EDITOR This is a very sobering article.  Our handling of relationships with the Britons over the oil spill won't help either. From The London Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign Relations Quote: "Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people.  I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States .  But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue." One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama's animosity toward Great Britain, presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963). One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11.  He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags. The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America's closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists. Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified." There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September.  "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House," said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes.  Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable," Mr. Hughes said. The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina 's specious claim to the Falkland Islands, a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina .  When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British  with strong support from President Ronald Reagan  expelled them. "It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history," wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. "Does Britain 's friendship really mean so little to him?"   One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him? "I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office," wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. " A lot of hemming and hawing ensued."   One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, "Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama." Mr. Obama certainly doesn't care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense.  Honduras and Israel also can attest that he's been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend.  Ironically, our relations with both  Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse.  Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama's abandonment of missile defense.  Russia and China won't support serious sanctions on Iran.  Syria's support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations.  The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at "engagement" by deepening its ties to North Korea . And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him. For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by itsadversaries.  Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama's relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparentlyhave yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community. They soon will. London Daily Telegraph editor  Alex Singleton Origins:  This item about Barack Obama is actually a combination of two opinion pieces, neither of them written by the London Daily Telegraph's political editor, Alex Singleton, or published in that newspaper.  Both segments were penned by Jack Kelly, a former Marine and Green Beret who was a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration and is now a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade.  The first section (up through the quote "Does Britain'sfriendship really mean so little to him?") comes from Kelly's 15 March 2010 column ("Administration animosity against allies not limited to Israel") and the second portion (from the quote "I recently asked several senior administration officials" onwards) was taken from Kelly's 14 March 2010 column ("Feckless foreign follies"). animosity Feckless Somewhere along the way, in writing about Kelly's columns, someone included an excerpt from an 11 March 2010 opinion piece ("Barack Obama has made me want to boycott America") by London Daily Telegraph contributing editor Alex Singleton.  This excerpt (quoted below) was subsequently placed at the head of the piece and resulted in all of Kelly's writing being credited to Alex Singleton rather than just the single opening quotation: included boycott Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favour of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States. But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems  bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue. Last updated:  4 April 2011    Kelly Jack.   "Feckless Foreign Follies."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  14 March 2010  (p. A21).    Singleton, Alex.   "Barack Obama Has Made Me Want to Boycott America."   London Daily Telegraph.  11 March 2010. An image supposedly showing a large moon sitting perfectly in the middle of a stone arch formation is frequently circulated on social media under the title "The Eye of the Moon in Utah."  The Eye of the Moon in Utah     This isn't a genuine photograph, in the sense that this scene was not visible with the naked eye. However, this isn't a digitally altered image, either. The original picture was taken by photographer Zach Cooley by using an in-camera double exposure technique. In short, Cooley snapped a photograph, then snapped a second photograph, and layered the images on top of one another. (By labeling it "Misleading," we don't mean to accuse Cooley of misrepresentation. Rather, it's to point out that in many cases the image has been shared on social media with no explanation of how it was constructed.) Zach Cooley Masterclass explains: explains Double exposure photography is a technique that layers two different exposures on a single image, combining two photographs into one. Double exposure creates a surreal feeling for your photos and the two photographs can work together to convey deep meaning or symbolism. A similar technique, called a multiple exposure, is when you combine more than two exposures in a single image Cooley provided some of the technical details behind this image in their Instagram post. They wrote that they traveled to Utah in October as the moon was aligning with this arch, that they used an in-camera double exposure to create this image, and that the two images used were taken about a minute apart. Compared to what was seen with the naked eye, the moon is enlarged and centered. Instagram post Here's the original Instagram post:   Cooley writes: Happy Halloween weekend! I planned an entire vacation mostly around the fact that the moonrise would align with this arch and I could get something resembling a spooky eye on the week of Halloween. Over two nights I got some single shots and double exposures, I thought this one was best for the eye look, what do you think? Can't wait to share more with you all!In-camera double exposureMoon: ?550mm?F/9?1/160sec.?ISO 160Arch: ?250mm?F/9?1/5 sec.?ISO 160 Notes: Photos taken about a minute apart and moon was enlarged and repositioned in the process.  While the "Eye of the Moon in Utah" photograph gives a slightly distorted view of what you would see if you were standing next to the photographer, it isn't that far off from reality. Here's a single-exposure photograph from Cooley that shows a very similar scene:    Cooley elaborated on this in-camera double exposure technique in another Instagram post that showed a large moon over Phoenix, Arizona, writing: Double exposure effects are often achieved in Photoshop or a similar program by importing and manipulating 2 different photos. However, many digital cameras today allow you to merge multiple photos at the time you take them, but of course with none of the flexibility you get with editing software. For this image for example, I captured the city in one shot, then zoomed in and positioned the moon where I wanted it to overlay, and when I snapped that second photo the camera merged it with the first since it was in double exposure mode. Zooming in for the moon photo makes it appear larger in comparison to the city than it did in real life (4X larger in this case). This all may sound easy, but a lot of things have to be just right for this to work out.Ive mentioned this before, but to be clear, I have zero issues with Photoshop - its a pretty cool tool that opens doors to infinite creativity, among other things. I'm personally just in a place where I have yet to learn how to do things like this in Photoshop, and I'm enjoying trying different things with my camera. Ive been hesitant to post this, probably most of all because I take pride in a lot of single exposure moon photos Ive taken, and I fear mixing in images like this could lead people to believe those single exposures are more of the same. Like Ive said though, I will always specify in the caption. At the end of the day, Im proud of this image too and happy to share creative work without walls, even if its not purist photography. Im definitely wanting feedback on all this, from photographers and not photographers alike, so please let me know what you think! And thanks for reading my book. ?? Here's the moon over Phoenix image: Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple.   . Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6). A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. Claim:  A collector deliberately placed three valuable U.S. coins into circulation in New York in April 2006.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] A friend told me that she heard that a millionnaire put a penny worth a million dollars in circulation by using it to buy a hot dog at a vendor cart. Supposedly you can tell because it has a "J" under the year.   Origins:  One of the many windfall schemes that some of us dream about in our idle moments is fortuitously turning up a rare old coin worth hundreds or even thousands of   dollars  perhaps through discovering one stashed away by a relative who has forgotten about it, uncovering one hidden beneath some dirt or debris, or simply finding one in a handful of change.  The last of these routes rarely yields lucky finds anymore, as collectors and treasure-seekers have long since plucked every coin of significant value from circulation, but in April 2006 the odds of making such an advantageous discovery got a little bit better. To help introduce more people to "the magic of coin collecting," Scott A. Travers, a 44-year-old former vice president of the American Numismatic Association and author of The Coin Collector's Survival Manual, decided to mark National Coin Week in mid-April 2006 by deliberately spending three valuable old pennies as he made routine purchases around Manhattan.  "I'm planting a seed, and I hope that a new generation of people will come to appreciate the history that coins represent," he said. The three coins Scott Travers spent were all relatively low-mintage U.S. one-cent pieces nearly one hundred years old:  a 1908-S Indian Head cent, and 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincoln cents.  (In the conditions released by Travers, at the time those coins were worth roughly $200, $1,000, and $300, respectively.) Mr. Travers said he put the  1908-S 1909-S VDB 1914-D 1914-D Lincoln cent into circulation on 12 April 2006 when he purchased a pretzel from a food stand outside the NASDAQ offices in Times Square, and a few days later he spent the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent to buy a bottle of water from a different vendor in Times Square, then walked a block to a newsstand where he used the 1908-S Indian Head cent. Within a few weeks, seven people came forward saying they had found the $1,000 coin (i.e., the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent), but Travers said that although the proffered coins were real, none of them was the one he released into circulation.  As of 2009 there had been no reports of anyone's finding any of the three rare pennies, but Scott Travers may never find out what happened to them, as it's quite possible the valuable cents ended up lost, squirreled away as oddities by people who didn't know their true value, or retrieved and sold by lucky finders unaware the coins were deliberately placed into circulation.  Indeed, Mr. Travers has tried the same stunt more than once, and he hasn't ever learned the fate of some of the valuable coins involved in those previous attempts: Travers has spent rare coins before. In 1999, he did it to coincide with the numismatic association's convention in New York, although he never found out whether one of the rare pennies was rediscovered. Past coin drops, in 1997 and 2002, succeeded in sparking interest in coin collecting, but Travers doesn't know if anyone "cashed in" by finding the coins. Travers has met many people who believe they've discovered his coins, and though they may have found valuable coins, they weren't his. Last updated:  17 March 2011    Healey, Matthew.  "Find a Penny, Pick It Up, Sell It for 1,000 Bucks."   The New York Times.  14 April 2006  (p. B3).    Schapiro, Rich.  "Coins in Circulation May Be Worth Up to $1,000, Says Expert."   [New York] Daily News.  9 January 2009. Claim:  The federal government is preventing Volkswagen's XL1 model car from being sold in the U.S. because the vehicle is too fuel-efficient.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] Volkswagen's New 300 MPG Car Not Allowed In America Because It Is Too Efficient Would like to know of the article is valid. Origins:  For many years conspiracy rumors have circulated positing that a collusion between Big Oil and the U.S. government has prevented the American public from having the opportunity to purchase fully developed, market-ready automobiles capable of obtaining fuel efficiencies of 200-300 MPG.  Such rumors have taken the form of everything from mysterious forces stealing cars equipped with miracle carburetors to keep that technology's existence a secret, to the federal government's enacting regulations intended for the sole purpose of keeping high-mileage vehicles out of the U.S. market in order to protect the interests (and profits) of American oil companies. miracle carburetors high-mileage April 2014 saw the emergence of yet another entry in this vein, courtesy of Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist (the same "journalist" who promulgated the ridiculous story about a passenger on missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 who supposedly hid his cell phone in his rectum and used it to post a picture to the Internet after the flight was hijacked), positing that Volkswagen has a terrific 300 MPG vehicle that only costs $60,000 all ready to go, but it can't be sold (or even seen) in America because politicians in the pay of oil companies are conspiring to keep it unknown and unsellable in the U.S.: Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist ridiculous You won't find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place. No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss. The answer is obvious. Simply for the sake of raking in huge profits from $4 a gallon gas, getting guzzled at 10X the rate it should be, the corporations have via campaign contributions and other types of pay outs succeeded in getting the FED to legislate the best cars off the road for irrelevant trumped up reasons.  Even after being hand made with "exotic" materials in an intentionally limited edition, the Xl1 still only costs $60,000. There is a lot more of a market for this car than 2,000 units at that price, have no doubt, this car is being held back on purpose. In this case the vehicle in question is the Volkswagen XL1, a two-person,  "one-liter" concept car (i.e., a vehicle capable of averaging 100 km per liter of fuel, or about 235 MPG) originally shown to the public back in 2002 and modified (and renamed) several times since over the intervening years.  The latest unveiled version of the XL1, already put into production, is a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid described thusly by Green Car Reports: XL1 Green Car Reports The Volkswagen XL1 is a plug-in diesel hybrid with a body seemingly beamed in from a future time. It's the physical representation of the benefits of reducing weight and improving aerodynamics. The small body may only take two people, but it's allowed for an incredibly streamlined body with a drag coefficient of only 0.189. Low weight  only 1,752 lbs  means only a small engine and electric motor is needed to deliver respectable performance. Much of the car is constructed from carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium. VW says the car will do 261 mpg, though the real figure will be lower than that should it ever be tested under EPA guidelines. Even so, it'll still use comfortably less fuel than any vehicle currently on sale. A diesel engine of only 0.8 liters and 2 cylinders capacity produces 47 horsepower, with a further 27 horses delivered by the electric motor. Power reaches the wheels via a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox. Those figures sound miniscule by modern standards, but the XL1 should reach 62 mph in 12.7 seconds. Top speed is 98 mph. Operating alone, the small battery can deliver up to 31 miles of range, and can be charged via plug or regenerative effect. It's true that very few, if any, Volkswagen XL1s will likely be seen on U.S. roads in the immediate future, but that situation will be due to a confluence of factors that does not include a government/Big Oil conspiracy to keep them out of the U.S. First of all, it's not true that the XL1 has "been denied a tour of America because  it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of."  Existing safety and traffic regulations do limit where the current XL1 models can be legally driven in public roads in the U.S., but Volkswagen has taken at least three of the vehicles on tour around the U.S., and the staff of Jalopnik drove one around Manhattan at the end of 2013. Jalopnik Second, the primary reason the XL1 won't be seen in the U.S. anytime soon is that Volkswagen is only producing 200 units for retail sale (not 2,000 as claimed above), all of them to be sold in Europe via some sort of selection (i.e., lottery) process.     200 units But why only 200 cars?  And why only in Europe? As for the first part, the answer is that new vehicles like the XL1 are expensive to develop and produce (and therefore expensive for consumers to afford), and similar forms of automobiles have not yet met with tremendous success on the commercial market, so any automotive company that puts such a model into full-blown production risks sinking a whole lot of money into something that may not sell well at all (especially in the U.S. market, where consumers have very different expectations and preferences than European car buyers do). The XL1 is in many ways still a concept/prototype vehicle, and so Volkswagen is testing the waters by putting out a limited production run to see how many consumers are really interested in shelling out the equivalent of U.S. $150,000 (not $60,000 as claimed above) for a two-person car.  And the testers at Car and Driver found that while the XL1's fuel efficiency might be superb, it might also be somewhat overblown as presented in promotional materials: Car and Driver The XL1 should run 31 miles solely on electric power, says [VW development engineer Ulrich] Mitze. But on the cold and rainy April day we drove it, the small, 60-cell, 5.5-kWh, 150-pound lithium-ion battery pack needed a recharge after only 22 miles.  According to the on-board computer, we are fuel hogs. Having started with a full tank (2.6 gallons) and fully charged batteries, we ended our trip after 67 miles; fuel consumption plummeted at one point to a dismal 128 mpg. Achieving the XL1's theoretical 749-mile range would take a right foot as light as a moonbeam. As for why only Europe, the answer is that the U.S. does have many safety standards in place (enacted many years ago a variety of reasons, none of which was to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market) that all automobile manufacturers have to meet in order to legally sell their vehicles in America, regulations that sometimes require manufacturers to modify or retrofit models that were produced for sale under less strict regulations in Europe (or other parts of the world).  If Volkswagen wants to test-market their XL1 in limited quantities, there's no reason for them to expend millions of dollars preparing and certifying those vehicles for U.S. safety standards when they can vend  their small lot of cars just as well in the European market without all the added expense.  As noted by USA Today: The XL1 [is] a spaceship-like, ultra-high-mpg, plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. VW used exotic, but obtainable, materials and technologies to craft a mileage-above-all car able to get 261 mpg in European tests, equating, very roughly, to perhaps 200 mpg in U.S. tests. Barely a real production model, it's made in a factory, but largely by hand. It couldn't meet U.S. safety rules and needed changes in German rules to be on the road there. And if one buys into the conspiracy theory that the government and Big Oil are colluding to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market in order to protect profits from gasoline sales, one has to wonder why those powerful and malevolent entities aren't doing anything to stop Americans from purchasing cars produced by Tesla, superbly-performing vehicles that use no gasoline at all yet still deliver premium performance, have great range for electric cars, have received the highest rating of any automobile ever evaluated by Consumer Reports, are top-rated for safety even under tougher U.S. standards, but are widely available for purchase in the U.S.: Tesla Most Americans may never actually see a Tesla Model S sedan in person, but you will want to know why this car is so important to the automotive industry and what all the media fuss is about. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003 by a group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome. The name of the company pays homage to Nicola Tesla, a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system. As the California automakers first production model, the Tesla Model S is 100 percent electric, a car so advanced it sets the new standard for premium performance. This is not a hybrid, nor is it equipped with any kind of "range expanding" gasoline engine. At the heart of the vehicle is the proven Tesla powertrain, delivering both unprecedented range and a thrilling drive experience. The Tesla Model S has won the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award, received the highest rating of any automobile in history from Consumer Reports (99 out of 100) and achieved the best possible US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rating. Unlike the internal combustion engine with hundreds of moving pieces that spark, pump, belch, and groan, the Tesla motor has only one moving piece: the rotor. As a result, Model S acceleration is instantaneous, like flipping a switch. Hit the accelerator. In 5.4 seconds, Model S is traveling 60 miles per hour, without hesitation and without a drop of gasoline. As in so many cases, what is attributed to furtive conspiracy is more easily explained away as wishful thinking colliding with the hard, cold realities of economics. Last updated:  14 April 2014    Healey, James R.  "Test Drive: VW XL1 Shows How to Get 200 MPG."   USA Today.  7 December 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 Production Confirmed, Debuts Geneva."   Green Car Reports.  21 February 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "Orders for 261-MPG Volkswagen XL1 Exceed Production of 200."   Green Car Reports.  28 October 2013.     Zoellter, Juergen.  "2014 Volkswagen XL1."   Car and Driver.  June 2013.     Green Bay Press Gazette.  "2014 Tesla Model S Sedan Takes the Electric Car to a New Level."   14 April 2014.