Obamacare permits mandatory home visits.
Claim:  A provision of Obamacare allows federal agents to conduct forced home inspections and remove children from the custody of their parents.  Examples:  [Green, September 2013] Grassfire's Liberty News team is reporting on a little-known aspect of ObamaCare  FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS. Simply put, provisions of ObamaCare allow federal agents to activate forced home inspections. The inspections are being sold as a simple act to ensure eligibility, but upon digging deeper we find the agents will have broad authority in using the new tool to clamp down on privacy and violate American rights. Homeschool your kids? Smoke a cigar from time to time? Have a member who was at one time active duty military? ObamaCare enables agents to force a home inspection upon you. And no state will be off limits to the ObamaCare inspections.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] DID YOU KNOW... Even your children belong to the government. Under Obamacare, on October1, 2013, CPS field agents, armed with a manual published by Human Healthand Services and codified under Obamacare will begin operating under thepower granted to them by Obamacare. Subsequently, they will be able toconduct forced home visits without a warrant. Things such as a (yetundefined) bad grade, missing more than 5 days in school in any one month,can get a parent to be declared guilty of educational neglect. Having agun or beer in your house can get your children removed from your custody.Even the traditional act of grounding your child for misbehavior will getyou declared to be guilty of "isolation neglect" and subject your childfor removal from your authority and your home. If you are a parent and youhave not heard of this provision of Obamacare, I would suggest you readthe 110 page manual that was created by the United Nations. This is theHHS/CPS field manual that goes into effect this week! Origins:  This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites.  The original entry claimed, in part, that: blog post According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the "high-risk" categories below:  Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be "eligible." In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to "help parents and children." Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to "enhance program sustainability." Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, "This is not a 'voluntary' program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries' The sky is the limit." No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections."  What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and MIECHV development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs" by awarding development grants to states that "currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts." The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention.  (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were  extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) extant  As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): press release "Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation's efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child's well-being and healthy development," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both the formula and competitive grants will be used by state agencies to support home visiting programs that bring nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  They work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child's health, development, and ability to learn.  Research has shown that home visiting programs can improve outcomes for children and families, including improving maternal and child health, reducing child maltreatment, increasing parental employment, and improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones. HHS undertook an exhaustive review of the research evidence on different home visiting programs to identify the models that have been shown to work. The PPACA defines high-risk households as: Low-income eligible families. Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces,including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of theUnited States. However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households.  The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."  PPACA Last updated:  5 October 2013
Fear-mongering articles reporting that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (triggered by the tsunami that followed the Thoku earthquake of 11 March 2011) had caused a 100% infant mortality among orca whales born since then have been circulated online for several years. The web site Humans Are Free renewed interest in that rumor in September 2016 when they published an article with the clickbait title "Radiation from Fukushima Now Causes 100% Infant Mortality Rate in West Coast Orcas": published  The Humans Are Free piece was sourced from an article by the disreputable Natural News web site that employed a similarly misleading title ("West Coast Orcas Experiencing 100% Infant Mortality Rate as Radiation from Fukushima Drifts Across Ocean") even though the text of that article plainly admitted that there was no proven connection between the Fukushima disaster and the mortality of infant orcas: No one has yet proven that there is a direct link between the 100 percent mortality rate seen among orca infants and the effects of the radiation contamination of the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima reactor leak in Japan, but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. Natural News listed several sources about whale deaths at the bottom of their article, but none of those sources mentioned radiation from Fukushima as likely or definitive cause. listed several sources bottom article Quotes from Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, were also misleadingly reproduced out of context by Natural News to bolster a claim that Balcomb's statement didn't support: The recent discovery of a carcass off the coast of British Columbia  that of a 19-year-old orca female, which was believed to be in the late stages of pregnancy, is just one example of the recent orca deaths that have scientists and conservationists worried. Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center For Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, said: Her death doesn't bode well for the southern resident population and certainly not for that matriline. Her mother died young. Her aunt had two sons and she's probably post-reproductive. She hasn't had any babies in the last 12 years. So there's no future. Balcomb also remarked: We haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years. We have had stillborns and newborns die and a number of whales that appear to be pregnant but didn't ultimately produce any calves. It's like zero survival in birth rate here. While Balcom did say that "we haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years," he was talking about the local Puget Sound orca whale population only, and he didn't in any way connect a 100% infant orca mortality rate to radiation from Fukushima. His quotes originated with a story published by the Seattle Times in December 2014 about a baby orca whale that had died in the Pugent Sound, and while the exact cause of that whale's death was unclear, Balcolm suggested that the whale likely died due to a diminished food supply (and not radiation): suggested But two of the whales three biggest problems  the buildup of pollutants such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls in their blubber, and disturbance by marine traffic  appear to be worsened by a third, a reduction in available prey. These whales can eat sockeye and halibut, but overwhelmingly prefer fatty chinook from Puget Sound and Canadas Fraser River, distinguishing them from other fish by using sonar to sense differences in the animals swim bladders. And Puget Sound chinook numbers have dropped to about 10 percent of their historic high. They, too, are listed for protection under the ESA. For Balcomb, the loss of J32 suggests its time to consider drastic measures, such as a ban or steep curtailment in chinook fishing, even though fishing is likely the least of the threats chinook face. Its a wake-up call  we know what the problem is, whether its dams or fishing or habitat destruction, he said. Its just what happens when millions of people move into the watershed. (But) stopping fishing, at least for a while, is something we can do immediately. [...] The reality is, the basic problem is food, Balcomb said. Although apparently no baby orcas survived long after birth in Puget Sound in 2013 or 2014, that wasn't the case in the immediately following years, as 2015 saw nine successful orca births in Puget Sound: births In just over a year, Puget Sound has welcomed nine baby Southern-resident orcas to the fold, as the pod continues to rebound from 30-year-low numbers reported at the end of 2014. While radiation from the Fukushima disaster did have a major impact on marine life, the leak of radiactive material from the plant leak did not cause a proven "100% infant mortality" rate among orca whales. Moreover, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not list nuclear radiation (from any source) among the threats currently facing the world's whale population.  impact Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  Welch, Craig.  "Puget Sound Orca Numbers Rise Fast After 30-Year Low in 2014."
  The Seattle Times.  20 January 2016. Welch, Craig.  "Ten Years After ESA Listing, Killer Whale Numbers Falling."
  The Seattle Times.  20 December 2014. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner says presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a lot of ammunition to fire at Donald Trumps business record. To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that hes a successful business guy. Hes failed miserably, bankrupt four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va.,saidduring a June 21 interview on CNN. We looked at Warners contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when shespokein front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J.. Earlier this year, many of Trumps GOP primary opponents also accused him of running businesses into the ground. Kevin Hall, Warners communications director, sent us a series of media reports about Trumps business problems. Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcylaw, which shields businesses from creditors as as they reorganize with hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of its liabilities over time. Thats different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a companys assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors. PolitiFact National has explored several claims about Trumps business record and has tallied a list of bankruptcies for his companies. Lets take a look. 1991 bankruptcy Trumps first bankruptcy came when he sought protection for the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump funded most of the casinos $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates,accordingto the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt. As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015story. 1992 bankruptcies Two more of Trumps Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press Internationalreportedat the time. A fourth bankruptcy also occurred in 1992 when Trump sought protection for The Plaza hotel in midtown Manhattan. The hotel, which Trumpboughtfor $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company,accordingto The New York Times. Most recent bankruptcies Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he still was the companys largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according toABC News. The companydeclaredChapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the companys chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trumps name in licensing. All told, the record shows that three of Trumps Atlantic City casinos as well as The Plaza hotel went bankrupt in the 1990s. His overall casino and resort company went bankrupt twice in the 2000s while operating under different names. So you could argue that five Trump companies have gone into bankruptcy. Beyond the numbers The next question: Is Trump personally to blame for driving these ventures into bankruptcy, as Warners statement says? Trump defends his use of bankruptcy laws, saying theyve allowed him to keep businesses afloat and that hes rarely relied on them during a career of making hundreds of business deals. In a statement released the day Clinton made her Atlantic City trip, Trump pegged the number of bankruptcies at four. It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs, Trumpsaidin a July 6 statement. ExpertstoldPolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didnt entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled. A 1991articleby United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the citys 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses. The New York Times noted in astoryearlier this month that Trumps share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined. Trump told the newspaper that his casinos ran into trouble because they began competing against each other - a statement that The Times said was a tacit acknowledgement that he overbuilt. Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine,toldthe Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly. But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino resorts, doesnt blame Trump for the bankruptcies. HetoldForbes magazine in 2011 that he didnt blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money. Theyve all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged, Viscount told Forbes. What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it. Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015poston a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesnt demonstrate a lack of business acumen. Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes its because of factors beyond their control, Levitin wrote. And indeed, how much, if at all, was Trump involved in the management of the companies? Levitin wrote. I wouldn't be shocked if he was basically licensing his name. Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that its not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his companys bankruptcies because hes acted as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,Levitinsaid. The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space, Levitin said. These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him. Our ruling Warner said Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses. The number, if anything, is conservative. We count five. But beyond the number, Warners statement also asserts that Trump was the cause of the bankruptcies, and thats harder to parse out. Theres no doubt he had a role in many of the failings, having larded his casino operations with huge debts. But analysts note that Trump wasnt acting alone; he had willing investors who put up big sums of money in the risky gaming industry. Theres also questions about how involved he was in running all of the casinos that bore his name. So on the whole, we rate Warners statement Mostly True. U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-11th, recently invoked the name of Ronald Reagan to drum up support for raising taxes for a new stimulus program.During a June 5floor speech, Connolly lamented the refusal of House Republican leaders to allow the American Jobs Act to come up for a vote. The bill, proposed by President Barack Obama, calls for $447 billion over 10 years to pay for infrastructure and school improvements, new job training programs, unemployment insurance, and temporary tax cuts for working families and small businesses.The stimulus would be funded by levying taxes on corporations and people earning more than $1 million a year.Connolly said the House, in considering the legislation, should ask, What would Ronald Reagan do?Many Republicans decried the use of additional revenue to help offset any increase in national debt, Connolly said. Apparently, they forgot that when faced with rising deficits, Ronald Reagan looked to revenue increases, broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and raising taxes. Yes, he raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.Lets start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.So its accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but theres a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.We examined data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that computes the nations tax revenues as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product -- the total of all goods and services produced.When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.For comparison, federal tax revenues for this fiscal year are estimated at 15.8 percent of GDP.Reagans efforts to cut top income tax rates at the same time he was increasing defense spending created strain, and the federal debt rose from $994 billion at the start of his first term to almost $2.9 trillion at the end. As a result, Reagan was willing to accept and sometimes promote proposals that would close loopholes and create a broader tax base, according to C. Eugene Steuerle, who organized the Treasury Department's 1984-86 tax reform effort and is now a fellow at the Urban Institute and Tax Policy Center.This April, President Barack Obama said Reagan understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. PolitiFact National rated the claimMostly True, noting that Reagan did not repeatedly propose increases but agreed to tax hikes put forth by Congress.Our rulingConnolly said Reagan, as president raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Reagan did, in fact, sign off on at least one tax increase during each of those years.Some of the increases were modest in scope. And its important to note that overall U.S. taxes, when measured as a portion of the nations GDP, went down during Reagans presidency.But theres no doubt that Reagan was willing to cut budget deals that included raising revenues. We rate Connollys statement True. At the end of March 2022, social media users reported that a message was circulating on WhatsApp offering a free chocolate Easter basket from Cadbury. This was not a genuine offer from the famous chocolate company. This message was part of a phishing scam that used promises of free chocolate to lure users and trick them into giving away their personal information.  On WhatsApp, many people encountered the following message:    There are a few red flags here. First, social media users should be wary of any message offering something for free. Second, social media users should be wary of unfamiliar URLs. While companies may truly offer giveaways on occasion, these promotional offers will come from official company sources. The above-displayed message, however, was not posted by Cadbury, and the above-displayed link is not a link to Cadbury's official website.  The Dorset Police Cyber Crime Unit wrote on Facebook: Dorset Police Cyber Crime Unit wrote on Facebook Keep your eyes peeled for this fairly convincing Cadbury themed phish! It's clearly designed to mirror the current Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt campaign, with the chance to win one of 5000 possible free gifts. The only thing more wrong than this is the act of biting the top off of a Creme Egg to lick the filling out. First thing to pay attention to is that short URL. There's a good reason why we don't like short URLs in the Cyber Crime Unit... They make it much harder to tell where you're actually heading. Also, that .ru domain. There's no good reason for Cadbury to have a Russian address. Then there's the website itself. DON'T CLICK THE LINK. Our Cyber Protect Officer has done it for you. The site looks fairly convincing, however the only buttons that actually work are the ones to answer the questions. The search icon and the three little lines do nothing at all. Once you answer those question, you're taken to a little game where you have to "find your prize". Conveniently, your first and second tries won't be successful, but you'll "win" on your third go! At that point, to claim your "prize", you'll be asked to hand over all sorts of personal information. That's where the scam comes in! Far too high a price to pay for some free chocolate. Especially when Creme Eggs are two for a quid!   The 2022 Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt scam follows the same formula as other social media scams. The fraudsters use an enticing offer (free chocolate) to lure consumers and get them to click on a link. Then, the fraudsters use various tactics (in this case a brief game to "find your prize") to trick users into giving away personal information (such as a credit card number).  same formula as other social media scams   These scams often target consumers of well-known brands, such as Cadbury, and include media or logos that imitate the visual design of those companies. In fact, Cadbury has been repeatedly used in such scams. In 2020, for example, a scam claimed that Cadbury was giving away chocolate hampers for Christmas. scam claimed that Cadbury was giving away chocolate hampers for Christmas In March 2022, the Cadbury UK Facebook page posted a message warning its fans about the current scam: Cadbury UK Facebook page Weve been made aware of circulating posts on social media, claiming to offer consumers a free Easter Chocolate basket. We can confirm that this has not been generated by us and would urge consumers not to interact or share personal information through the post. Customer security is our priority and were working with the relevant organisations to ensure this is resolved. On 18 April 2018 Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections: Newly Press meme   A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates:    However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented monies to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member: Roll Call A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the  midterm elections. Targeting [people of color, young people, and women] is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in the previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and dont build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative  which the coalition is calling Win Justice  are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization: Planned Parenthood Votes  Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend monies on political activities.   According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors: prohibited Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities which are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." involved stipulates The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." Super PAC In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law.  Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage is such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections. Bois, Paul.  "Planned Parenthood Spending $30 Million on Midterm Elections."
  Daily Wire.  18 April 2018. Bradner, Eric.  "First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to Target 8 States, Spend $20 Million as Part of Midterm Battle Plan."
  CNN.  1 March 2018. Connolly, Griffin.  "Planned Parenthood, Other Groups to Spend $30 Million on Midterms."
  Roll Call.  16 April 2018. Federal Election Commission.  "Types of Nonconnected PACs."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "Social Welfare Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Ballotpedia.  "Planned Parenthood Votes."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood.  "nformation For Attorneys And Other Professionals."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  "Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund Launch 2018 Electoral Program."
  1 March 2018. During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021. In August and September 2021, an old quotation, attributed to the English novelist George Orwell, re-emerged on social media. For example, on Sept. 5, the Scottish historian William Dalrymple posted the following widely shared tweet: "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more they will hate those that speak it." George Orwell   In reality, Orwell never wrote or uttered those words, even though they have a broadly Orwellian ring to them. Rather, that maxim was first written by a conservative writer in 2009, but has been almost universally misattributed to Orwell in the intervening 12 years. The bogus Orwell quotation has appeared in countless social media posts and opinion columns in recent years, with various small tweaks. Former U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who railed against former President Donald Trump before leaving the Senate in 2019, included it in a Washington Post column in May, and in a Senate speech back in January 2018. column Senate speech In February 2019, former FBI Director James Comey also used it to criticize Trump, but the quote has also been favored by conservatives, and by supporters of whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. In 2012, rapper Soulja Boy posted a version of the same quote on Twitter. used it to criticize Trump favored conservatives Edward Snowden Chelsea Manning Soulja Boy However, the earliest version we could find, and apparently the original, came in a May 6, 2009, column by the conservative writer Selwyn Duke, on the right-leaning website RenewAmerica.com.  May 6, 2009, column Duke's column railed against what he presented as political correctness and left-wing censorship and contained several Orwellian references, including his use of the phrase "today's 1984 Britain," and his use of the line "telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (To add irony upon irony, the true provenance of that quotation is unclear, and Orwell almost certainly did not come up with it).  Orwell almost certainly did not come up with it In conclusion, Duke wrote, "The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." Several years later, Duke himself firmly asserted authorship of the line, writing, "You can imagine my surprise when I learned people were quoting it and that Orwell was taking credit for it." firmly asserted authorship of the line Snopes was unable to find any earlier version of the quotation than Duke's, despite consulting a newspaper archive that stretches back far beyond Orwell's lifetime. As a result, we are satisfied not only that the quote did not originate with Orwell, but also that its original author was indeed most likely Duke. In early May 2020, Facebook users reported seeing a headline circulating on the social platform stating, "Pelosi To Seniors: 'You Are Not Entitled to Social Security! It's Gone!'" The story was published on the website BIZ News. website The story contained a number of sensational and false statements such as, "Socialist politicians in the Democratic Party have tried for years to eliminate Social Security, a source of income relied upon by millions in this country just to get by in their old age." While the story didn't actually contain the quote in the headline above, the copy did include an Ebenezer Scrooge-like statement falsely attributed to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:To be clear, no record exists that Pelosi made this remark or the quoted remark in the BIZ News headline. However, a similar, also-fake quote about Social Security that was attributed to Pelosi circulated in April 2020.  similar,  This item is nothing more than an example of junk news. We therefore rate this claim  Speaker.gov."Pelosi Statement on 84th Anniversary of Social Security."
14 August 2019. In May 2018, right-wing blogs pounced on a New York Post story concerning alleged campaign contribution violations by actress and comedian Rosie O'Donnell. According to the Post, the former co-host of The View exceeded the $2,700 limit on individual campaign contributions in donations to several Democratic Party candidates via the fundraising web site ActBlue, while using five different New York addresses and four variations of her name. According The report also said that O'Donnell donated $90,000 to 50 different committees and candidates for federal office. O'Donnell reportedly told the Post via email that she did "nothing nefarious," adding that she did not choose to donate over the limit. The newspaper also quoted her as saying: My anxiety is quelled by donating to those opposing trump [and] his agenda  especially at night  when most of these were placed. Conservative bloggers seized on that remark to accuse O'Donnell of "pleading insanity": accuse Trump-hating liberal Rosie ODonnell has accused President Trump of many bogus crimes. She has been obsessed with trying to accuse President Trump of nonsense. She has became completely obsessed with President Trump. Her Twitter feed is filled with incohrrent [sic] rants. Now the Trump curse continues as she is pleading insanity in hopes of not paying the penalty for breaking campaign finance laws. She is facing criminal charges thanks to a campaign finance scheme. In fact, there has been no announcement of an investigation into the alleged donations, let alone "criminal charges." The Federal Election Commission did not comment on the Post's report. While the Post's report has been aggregated by blogs and other news outlets, no second source has emerged corroborating its findings. An ActBlue spokesperson, Chris Fleming, did not comment on the story, but did tell us: ActBlue does not allow over the limit contributions in any one transaction, and ActBlue offers donors the option of saving all their info in an account where they can track their cumulative giving through ActBlue and compare/add to offline giving. While the Post reported that FEC violations only rarely lead to penalties, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said that it can depend on the jurisdiction. "For instance, some cities and states are much more aggressive about finding and fining people for these violations than others," said Levinson, who focuses on campaign finance in her work: On the federal level, it is true that the Federal Election Commission is a model of inaction. I think it would be fair to say that fines are not common, but I'm not really convinced that these types of violations are terrifically common. For her part, O'Donnell accused the Post on Twitter of employing "sinister ways to warp the truth." She also posted a photograph depicting her contributions on the ActBlue platform, listed at 66 donations totaling $75,500: Twitter   She told the Post that candidates should refund donation money that exceeds the individual limit, adding, "I don't look to see who I can donate most to.... I just donate assuming they do not accept what is over the limit." FEC regulations state that campaign committees that receive individual donations over the $2,700 limit have 60 days to refund the excess amount, redesignate it toward another election, or reattribute the money to someone else. In the event of a redesignation or reattribution, the contributor must be notified of the committee's intent and offered the chance to collect a refund instead. state The newspaper's report centered on contributions from O'Donnell to two current Democratic congressional candidates  Lauren Underwood in Illinois and Omar Vaid in New York  as well as campaigns for three current lawmakers from the same party: Rep. Adam Schiff from California; Doug Jones of Alabama; and Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania. Lamb's campaign will reportedly contact O'Donnell and offer to either refund or redesignate her excess contributions; Vaid's told the Post that it would amend its filings. A spokesperson for Underwood told us: Because of the data point differences in name, address, and employer, our systems did not flag these contributions as totaling above the limit. In the coming weeks, we will be amending our report. Bloggers also attempted to compare O'Donnell's purported violations to the outright illegal donations that led to the 2014 conviction of right-wing documentarian Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza was sentenced to five years probation and eight months in a halfway house after pleading guilty to making illegal contributions in the names of others. D'Souza asked two friends and their partners to donate $10,000 apiece in 2012 toward Republican Wendy Long's senatorial candidate. sentenced "I do think we could find a distinction between what D'Souza was charged with  making a contribution of about 10 times the legal limit  with what O'Donnell is accused of  making a total of $5,400 in contributions over the legal limit to five different candidates," Levinson said. "O'Donnell's error seems more believably to be one of ignorance, while it is hard to believe that D'Souza believed a $20,000 contribution was legal." Sanders, Anna. "Rosie O'Donnell's Campaign Donations to Dems Went Over Legal Limit."
  New York Post. 5 May 2018. Federal Election Commission. "Remedying an Excessive contribution." Federal Bureau of Investigations. "Dinesh D'Souza Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to Five Years of Probation for Campaign Finance Fraud."
  23 September 2014. In March 2020, the prospect of the U.S. government's sending out $1,200 stimulus checks to individual taxpayers as part of a $2 trillion emergency economic package for dealing with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic created a prime opportunity for grifters who engage in scams that involve luring victims by mailing checks to them. In particular, one several-year-old, check-scam warning was widely recirculated via social media:  Such warnings served a useful purpose in alerting many viewers to be wary of receiving checks in the mail from unexpected sources. However, they also poorly served audiences in misstating how the underlying scams connected with those checks work. It is not the case, as claimed in the warning reproduced above and in the following news clip, that the scammers who mail out these checks "do this in hopes of getting your account information when you deposit the check," and then using that information to clean out your bank account:  A little common sense would be relevant here: If your simply depositing a check provided the sender of that check with the means to obtain your personal banking information and drain your bank account, it would be unsafe for any bank customer to ever deposit any check  and clearly that is not the case, as millions of people maintain checking accounts without regularly falling victim to scammers. All such check scams have two essential components: 1) Scammers mail out counterfeit checks (often made out in the names of real organizations) to lure their victims into believing they are receiving money. 2) Scammers instruct their victims to send back some of the funds they supposedly received from depositing the fake checks (usually via wire transfer, Western Union, PayPal, or gift cards). The scammers count on the fact that funds from deposited checks are often made available to bank customers before the banks can confirm that the checks are authentic and have cleared. The victims of these scams, mistakenly believing they have received "free money" once they have deposited their fake checks, are then usually receptive to sending some of that money back to the scammers for some legitimate-sounding purpose. But by the time the victims' banks discover the deposited checks were bad, the scammers already have the money their victims forwarded to them, and the victims are stuck paying all of those funds back to their banks: deposited checks The person running the scam convinces a victim to cash a check and then send, via wire transfer, a portion of the money to another location. The portion kept by the victim can be called payment for a job, part of a commission, or a prize. However, the check turns out to be a very convincing fake. Banks in the United States are required to make funds available within a few days, but it can take weeks for a fraudulent check to be discovered. This means the wire transfers will happen long before the bank, or the victim, discovers that the initial check was fake. This scheme is effective because many consumers aren't fully aware of how the check-clearance process works: check-clearance Unfortunately, the term clear sometimes gets used prematurely. An item has cleared only after your bank receives funds from the check writers bank. Bank employees might tell you that a check has cleared, and your banks computer systems might show that you have those funds available for withdrawal, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can spend the money risk-free. In many cases, when a bank employee tells you an item cleared, they are saying you can spend that money with your debit card, withdraw cash from an ATM, or set up a payment online. Most of the time, this informal terminology is fine because funds typically arrive as expected. Most of the confusion around checks comes from bank policies and federal laws that allow you to spend money before a check really clears. Banks are required to make a portion of your deposit available quickly -- usually the first $200 or, on certain official checks, $5,000 -- and they might need to release the remaining funds after several business days. But that policy might prematurely provide access to the money. It does not mean the funds successfully arrived from the check writers bank. If a check bounces, the bank reverses the deposit to your account -- even if you already spent some or all of the money from that deposit. If you don't have enough money in your account to cover the reversal, you end up with a negative account balance, and you could start bouncing other payments and racking up fees. Ultimately, you are responsible for deposits you make to your account, and youre the one at risk. The lures that scammers use to dupe their victims into sending them the illusory proceeds from the depositing of counterfeit checks are many and varied: o Mystery Shopping Scam: Scammers engage victims to act as "mystery shoppers" by making purchases from various vendors in order to rate their service. The scammers then send out counterfeit checks to their victims, instructing them to keep a portion of the funds to cover the costs of purchasing and returning the goods and to compensate them for their time, then wire back the rest of the money. o Reshipping Scam: Scammers engage job-seekers to act as work-at-home re-shippers, receiving (possibly stolen) goods and sending them on to other locations. Then the counterfeit checks those re-shippers are sent to compensate them for their efforts and to reimburse them the shipping charges they incurred bounce, and they're left holding the bag. o Payment-Processing Scam: Scammers hire job-seekers to work as payment processors. The victims are instructed to open business accounts in their own name, deposit (counterfeit) checks sent to them into those accounts, then disburse the deposited funds as directed by the scammers. When the business account overdraws because the deposited checks are fake and bounce, the victim is on the hook for making restitution to the bank. o Windfall Scam: Scammers send out counterfeit checks that they declare are the proceeds from an inheritance, lottery win, or some other type of prize giveaway. Recipients are instructed to deposit the checks and return a share of the money to cover processing fees, shipping and handling charges, legal fees, taxes, or other charges. o Online Sales Overpayment Scam: Scammers agree to purchase items that have been advertised for sale or auction online, then send out counterfeit checks for greater than the sale price and ask the victims to refund the overpayments. o Rental Scams: Scammers respond to ads seeking roommates or tenants, send a check to cover the rent plus a little extra, then ask that the overpayment be forwarded to another party to cover moving expenses. As the U.S. Federal Trade Commission succinctly describes such scams: describes Fake checks drive many types of scams  like those involving phony prize wins, fake jobs, mystery shoppers, online classified ad sales, and others. In a fake check scam, a person you dont know asks you to deposit a check  sometimes for several thousand dollars and usually for more than what you are owed  and wire some of the money back to that person. The scammers always have a good story to explain the overpayment  theyre stuck out of the country, they need you to cover taxes or fees, you need to buy supplies, or something else. But by the time your bank discovers youve deposited a bad check, the scammer already has the money you sent, and youre stuck paying the rest of the check back to the bank.  The best way to avoid falling victim to such scams is not to cash or deposit checks for people you do not know, not to wire money to people you do not know, and not to spend funds from large checks you have deposited until you have verified with your bank that those checks have fully cleared. Brunelli, Laureen Miles.  "How to Recognize a Fake Check Scam."
  The Balance.  11 November 2019. Pritchard, Justin.  "Did That Check Really Clear?"
  The Balance.  24 February 2019. Tressler, Colleen.  "Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam."
  Federal Trade Commission.  5 September 2018. Loftsgordon, Amy.  "Fake Check Scams Target Job Seekers."
  Lawyers.com.  Accessed 2 April 2020.