Did Police in NC 'Escort' Proud Boys to LGBTQ Library Event?
In June 2022, viral social media posts claimed that police in Wilmington, North Carolina, had "escorted" protesters from the far-right Proud Boys group towards an LGBTQ reading event for children, at a local public library. For example, on June 22, trans rights activist Erin Reed posted several photographs to Twitter, along with the following description: posted Proud Boys stormed the Pine Valley Public Library in Wilmington, North Carolina. I did some research from people who witnessed things on the ground and took pictures, and it would seem that not only was the Sheriff's office ineffective - they ESCORTED the proud boys to the room!   Also on Twitter, @wapplehouse shared similar photos and wrote:  shared similar photos the fucking Proud Boys showed up to a local Pride story time event today for 7 year olds and to the surprise of absolutely no one were escorted into the building and right to the room it was being held in by the [New Hanover Sheriff's Office]. A spokesperson for the New Hanover Sheriff's Office (NHSO) firmly denied to Snopes that any officer had "escorted" the Proud Boys towards the event. The spokesperson told Snopes the agency had video footage which corroborated that assertion, but its public release was unlikely because of the demands of North Carolina state law.  demands of North Carolina state law Either way, no one has so far made public any evidence that definitively establishes the truth of that law enforcement agency's role in the June 21 incident. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If relevant evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly.  The event in question was an LGBTQ "Pride reading time" for children, and took place at Pine Valley public library in Wilmington, North Carolina, on June 21.  It was protested by local members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group. Earlier in June, several of that movement's leaders were charged with seditious conspiracy over their alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.  far-right group charged with seditious conspiracy More broadly, the summer of 2022 had seen a rising tide of homophobia and transphobia in the U.S., with a particular rhetorical focus on purportedly protecting children from "groomers"  a homophobic slur with a long and odious ancestry.  long and odious ancestry The photographs and descriptions that formed the basis of viral "police escort" claims were originally published by Angie Smith Kahney, who was present at the library at the time of the protest.  In a series of Facebook and Instagram posts, she shared pictures of NHSO deputies talking with protesters, as well as walking and standing near them. In one, she wrote that the sheriff's deputies had "led the Proud Boys and their entourage right through the library TO THE ROOM FULL OF CHILDREN..." talking with protesters walking she wrote Snopes put those allegations  that police had "escorted" the Proud Boys into the library and/or towards the room where the event was taking place  to Lt. JJ Brewer, a spokesperson for the NHSO. Brewer firmly denied them, saying "That's 100 percent incorrect." Rather, he said, an NHSO supervisor had endeavored to walk ahead of the crowd of protesters and make sure they could not enter the room where the Pride reading time event was taking place. According to Brewer, while the protesters were legally permited to enter the main library building, they would have needed to be properly registered, and accompanied by children, in order to attend the event itself.  He added that none of the protesters ever entered that room, nor did they attempt to enter it, and "at no time did they cause a disturbance in the library." We asked Smith Kahney for her response to those assertions, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. However, in an earlier Facebook post, she insisted that the Proud Boys were indeed disruptive and intimidating inside the library, and shouted obscenities at children and their parents, and said it was library staff  rather than sheriff's deputies  who ensured the protesters did not have access to the room. earlier Facebook post Snopes also asked New Hanover County officials for their account of the events that took place at the Pine Valley library  which is operated by the county  on June 21.  In a statement provided to Snopes, Linda Thompson, the county's chief diversity and equity officer, said the protesters only entered the library building after the reading event had concluded, although some attendees still remained inside the room: ...After the Storytime program had ended, several members of the protesting group wanted to come inside. Anyone from the public is permitted inside the building as long as they are not actively protesting or disturbing other patrons, based on the library's code of conduct.  The library director came inside with them and deputies quickly made their way to the door of Storytime, to ensure safety for library patrons and staff who were still in the room. The members of the protesting group were not allowed in the closed room where the event had been held and families were still in, and there was no disturbance inside the building.  Sheriffs deputies and library staff also provided help to parents and kids who were still in attendance (some had left already) on where to exit the library following the event. Parents and children were not in danger at any time. Video footage will likely be required in order to definitively answer questions about the NHSO's role in the incidents, and whether or not they "escorted" Proud Boys towards the event. So far, such footage has not been published, and it is not clear what actions and events are shown in the still images posted online by Smith Kahney. Brewer told Snopes that the sheriff's office did have such footage, and that it clearly demonstrated that deputies did not "escort" the protesters towards the room, so that they might intimidate or harass attendees at the Pride event.  However, as Brewer himself pointed out, North Carolina has unusually strict rules around the publication of police bodyworn camera footage. Police, for example, cannot unilaterally release such footage, but a judge can authorize its release. Brewer told Snopes it was therefore not likely that the bodycam footage would imminently be made public.  unusually strict rules Until or unless relevant evidence does become available, our rating remains "Unproven." Groomers Rhetoric Targeting LGBTQ People Nothing New. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-campaign/. Accessed 23 June 2022.  Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach. 6 June 2022, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and.  Who Are the Proud Boys Trump Told To Stand Back and Stand By? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/. Accessed 23 June 2022.
In late May 2023, a number of Twitter accounts retweeted and criticized a post supposedly written on May 28 by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), about farmers: retweeted and criticized  (@Shamrock168339/Twitter)   (@GSchifanelli/Twitter) Contrary to what most of these users apparently assumed, however, the "Farming should be illegal" tweet attributed to AOC was actually posted by a parody account: "Farming should be illegal" tweet AOC parody account  (@AOCpress/Twitter) It was a joke. AOC did not tweet that "Farming should be illegal." No such tweet or sentiment appeared on her official Twitter account. Twitter users were similarly fooled by a previous tweet from the parody account, also fact-checked by Snopes, in which Ocasio-Cortez supposedly said "Printing money is the only way out of inflation." previous tweet fact-checked by Snopes In a May 30 tweet from her official account, Ocasio-Cortez informed the public that the parody account was "impersonating" her and "releasing false policy statements," and noted that Twitter owner Elon Musk "has engaged it, boosting its visibility": May 30 tweet FYI there's a fake account on here impersonating me and going viral. The Twitter CEO has engaged it, boosting visibility. It is releasing false policy statements and gaining spread. I am assessing with my team how to move forward. In the meantime, be careful of what you see.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 30, 2023 May 30, 2023  This is the @AOCpress tweet that Musk engaged with:  (@elonmusk/Twitter) Snopes has also fact-checked fake tweets attributed to AOC that were created image-editing software. In one such fake tweet that circulated during the COVID-19 pandemic, she allegedly urged that businesses be kept closed until after the 2020 election. In another, she allegedly called for Democrats to commence with "The Purge" (a reference to the 2013 horror film) after U.S. President Joe Biden was elected. businesses be kept closed commence with "The Purge" 2013 horror film For background, here iswhywe sometimes write about satire/humor. why Mikkelson, David. "Did AOC Tweet That Businesses Should Be Shut Down Until the Election?" Snopes, 23 June 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-businesses-closed-tweet/. Palma, Bethania. "No, AOC Didn't Tweet About 'The Purge.'" Snopes, 12 Jan. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fake-aoc-purge-tweet/. Claim:  Legislation currently under consideration would cut $100 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status:  Was true; proposal has been defeated. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year  $100 million  and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Origins:  Although a long-outdated  piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. piece In June 2005 the House Appropriations Committee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting. If this budgetary plan were approved it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), money which currently makes up 15% of the funding for public broadcasting.  As the Washington Post reported: CPB A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  which passes federal funds to public broadcasters  starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million. In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue. The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format. Although this legislation, if approved, would not  (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue. On 23 June 2005 the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Other areas of public broadcasting, however, may still face budget reductions if proposed funding cuts are not overturned: But Elmo and Big Bird remain at risk. The House did not restore all of the public broadcasting funding cuts proposed for 2006. Although yesterday's amendment would bump CPB's general budget back to $400 million, the 2005 funding level, an additional $102.4 million that had been shorn from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrites the production of such PBS children's programs as "Sesame Street," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." The money that would be cut also pays for satellite technology, basic equipment purchases and a federal mandate program to convert public TV stations from analog transmission to digital signal technology.  Last updated:  24 June 2005    Sources:   Farhi, Paul.  "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House."    The Washington Post.  10 June 2005  (p. A1).    Gold, Matea and Jube Shiver.  "Public Broadcasting Funds May Be Halved."    Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2005  (p. A28).    Murray, Shailagh and Paul Farhi.  "House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds."    The Washington Post.  24 June 2005  (p. A6).    Taylor, Andrew.  "House Rescinds Proposed Cut in Federal Support of Public Broadcasting."    Associated Press.  23 June 2005. FACT CHECK: Is an infant named Ember Graham missing from her Happy Valley, California, home?      Claim:  An infant named Ember Graham is missing from her Happy Valley, California, home.    Example:   [Collected via Facebook, August 2015] My Ember is STILL missing. She went missing July 2, 2015 from Happy Valley, CA. She was six months old, wearing a size 2 Kirkland diaper. She has brown hair, and distinct brown downturned eyes. She is approximately 15 pounds and 2' 1". She is now 8 months old. She is a epileptic and needs to take special medication for her seizures, BUT that does not mean she still is not alive, she could survive without it. I'm begging anyone with any sort of information to please come forward! It could even be anonymously. I just want my baby back! I NEED her back. You could drop her off at any hospital, church, or fire station. Anywhere public. Or you could call anonymously by dialing *67 before you enter in the number. There is a $10,000 reward for anyone with information leading to the wearabouts of my little girl. Please call the Nor Cal top line at (530) 378-4491. Anonoymously or not! Please help me bring my baby home. Even if you have no information, please share her picture out there and tell everyone you know. We're relying on the public and the community for help now, we have spent every single day searching the surrounding areas and have found nothing, we have run out of real estate. Please help find my baby. #northerncalifornia #california #emberskye #missing #baby #missingbaby #8monthsold #littlegirl #epilepsy #theresacaputo #nancygrace #dateline #missingpersons #dr.phil #pleasecomehome  Origins: On 25 August 2015, Facebook user JamieLee Tomlin-Graham published the above-quoted appeal to her personal Facebook page, seeking leads in the case of her missing infant daughter, Ember Graham. published A number of "missing child" pleas are outdated, inaccurate, or otherwise misstated on social media, but this one is relevant and current: Ember Graham indeed disappeared from her home in California in July 2015 and remains missing. Six-month-old Graham was last seen on 2 July 2015, and early in the investigation Shasta County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Pat Kropholler said father Matthew Graham was a person of interest in her disappearance: missing child Graham "In the case of Ember Graham the sole person of interest in her disappearance still remains with her father, Matthew Graham," Kropholler said in the press release. "The Sheriffs Office Major Crimes Unit has investigated tips received from the public and all other possible angles of a stranger abduction." "There is no evidence that a third party was involved, including anyone within the family," he said. "The motive of why he abandoned her or what lead to him disposing of her body died with him when he confronted officers with deadly force in Dunsmuir, California after he had carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint," Kropholler stated. A pacifier found on the side of a road in Ono, California, on 10 July 2015 was tested and determined to be baby Ember's. On 13 July Matthew Graham was killed in a shootout with police, an event that further complicated the investigation into Ember Graham's whereabouts: pacifier event Graham was spotted by Shasta County and Siskiyou County deputies and California Highway Patrol officers in Dunsmuir. He was shot and killed, according to the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. After the babys disappearance, authorities said Graham showed no remorse and didn't ask how they planned to find his daughter; they said he refused to submit to a voice stress test and asked for a lawyer. Investigators said they also found it tough to believe that a stranger could break into Grahams 25-foot camper trailer undetected and snatch Ember away, as he claimed. The home is surrounded by two fences and protected by guard dogs; the room where Ember slept apparently has no working door and can only be pried open with a screwdriver, which would make a lot of noise, detectives said. Pages on Facebook and Twitter have been created by Ember Graham's family to assist in the search for the child, and anyone with information has been asked to call the Shasta County Sheriffs Major Crimes Unit at (530) 245-6135. Facebook Twitter Last updated:  1 September 2015 Originally published: 1 September 2015 On 2 October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared during a visit to Saudi Arabia's consulate in Instanbul, Turkey. Although foul play was suspected, the Saudi government at first denied that any harm had been done to the journalist. Then they began releasing conflicting accounts, beginning with the claim that Khashoggi died accidentally in a "fistfight." Ultimately, the Saudis acknowledged that evidence provided by Turkish investigators pointed to his being slain in a "premeditated" attack, which they said was undertaken in a "rogue operation" not authorized by the Saudi royal family. Two senior government officials were dismissed, and 18 Saudi nationals allegedly involved in the murder were arrested. President Trump was criticized in the immediate aftermath of Khashoggi's disappearance for his apparent reluctance to hold the Saudis responsible for the incident. "We want to find out what happened," he said. But he also maintained that the United States' relations with the kingdom were "excellent" and he would not consider stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite calls from members of Congress to do so. Various commentators, including Washington Post contributor Brian Klaas, suggested that Trump's official dealings with Saudi Arabia are "compromised by deep financial conflicts of interest": suggested His business interests -- past, present, and future -- make it impossible for him to contemplate the kind of consequences that the Saudis deserve. In 1991, when Trump was $900 million in debt, he was bailed out by a member of the Saudi royal family, who purchased his 281-foot yacht, Trump Princess. Trumps other princess, Ivanka, is married to Jared Kushner, who has deep ties to the crown prince. In 2015, when asked about his relationship with the Saudis, Trump said: I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. As recently as December 2016, Trump owned companies in Saudi Arabia, as he sought to build a hotel there. Three days after Trumps inauguration, lobbyists working for the Saudi government funneled $270,000 directly to the Trump Organization by booking rooms at his Washington hotel. More recently, Trumps flagging Manhattan hotel got bailed out thanks to a lucrative visit from none other than the Saudi crown prince. It raises the disturbing possibility that Saudi Arabia will get away with abduction or murder because the president is beholden to Saudi money. Trump responded by tweeting that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia: tweeting For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter). Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  That same day, Fox News Research (a Fox News Twitter account that regularly posts newsworthy data) tweeted a list highlighting some of Trump's business relationships with the Saudis: tweeted Trump & Saudi Business:1991: Sold yacht to Saudi Prince2001: Sold 45th floor of Trump World Tower to SaudisJun 2015: I love the Saudis...many in Trump TowerAug 2015: "They buy apartments from me...Spend $40M-$50M"2017: Saudi lobbyists spent $270K at Trump DC hotel  Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  Shortly afterward, Trump's tweet and the Fox News tweet were combined into a meme and unleashed on Facebook:   The meme presented the Fox News tweet as a refutation of Trump's, but although each of the former's statements can be confirmed via reliable sources, they don't necessarily disprove President Trump's claim that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. The sticking point (and the reason we're rating the claim a mixture of true and false) is that the term "financial interests" usually denotes the ownership of property or investments in a given place, company, or industry. We have found no evidence that either Trump or Trump Organization (the umbrella company operated by Trump's sons, Donald Jr. and Eric), currently owns property or investments in Saudi Arabia. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, the Trump Organization was pursuing plans to open businesses in Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016, but the Associated Press reported in October 2018 that the companies had been shut down by the time Trump took office: reported Shortly after he announced his run for president, Trump began laying the groundwork for possible new business in the kingdom. He registered eight companies with names tied to the country, such as "THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor LLC" and "DT Jeddah Technical Services," according to a 2016 financial disclosure report to the federal government. Jeddah is a major city in the country. "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," Trump told a crowd at an Alabama rally on Aug. 21, 2015, the same day he created four of the entities. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." The president's company, the Trump Organization, said shortly after his 2016 election that it had shut down those Saudi companies. The president later pledged to pursue no new foreign deals while in office. In a statement this week, the company said it has explored business opportunities in many countries but that it does "not have any plans for expansion into Saudi Arabia." There is no question that Trump has profited from business dealings with the Saudis, however. Let's take the items in the Fox News Research list one by one: Fortune reported in 2017 that Trump, facing financial difficulties in 1991, sold a yacht he purchased from the Sultan of Brunei in the 1980s to Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. reported The Associated Press reported that the Kingdom of Saudi purchased the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower in New York City in 2001, "the biggest purchase in that building to that point." reported During a 16 June 2015 speech at Trump Tower announcing his presidential candidacy, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, they make $1 billion a day. $1 billion a day. I love the Saudis. Many are in this building." At a campaign rally one month later, he said: "I like the Saudis; they are very nice. I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff -- all kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions." speech said At a campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama in August 2015, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." said The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2017 that Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., received payments amounting to roughly $270,000 for services provided to lobbyists working for the Saudi government. Although Trump had announced earlier in the year that any Trump Organization profits from foreign governments would be donated to the U.S. Treasury, the company did not respond to the Journal's questions about what would be done with the Saudi payments, which were made through a third party. reported Despite his not owning businesses, properties, or investments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Trump has clearly, and by his own admission, profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from business dealings with the Saudis, and over a long period of time. We reached out to the Trump Organization for comment but received no reply. Beavers, Olivia.  "Saudis Spent $270K at Trump Hotel Amid Lobbying Efforts: Report."
  The Hill.  5 August 2017. Condon, Bernard et al.  "'I Love the Saudis': Trump Business Ties to Kingdom Run Deep."
  Associated Press.  16 October 2018. Fahrenthold, David A. and Jonathan O'Connell.  "'I Like Them Very Much:' Trump Has Longstanding Business Ties with Saudis, Who Have Boosted His Hotels Since He Took Office."
 The Washington Post.  11 October 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D.  "Trump's Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions About His Allegiances."
  The New York Times.  17 June 2017. Klaas, Brian.  "Jamal Khashoggi's Fate Casts a Harsh Light on Trump's Friendship with Saudi Arabia."
 The Washington Post.  10 October 2018. Mangan, Dan.  "Trump Claims He Has 'No Financial Interests in Saudi Arabia' --- But He Makes Lots of Money from It."
  CNBC.  16 October 2018. Myre, Greg.  "The Big Overlap Between Trump's Global Holdings and U.S. Foreign Policy."
  NPR.  22 November 2016. Orden, Erica.  "Saudi Disappearance Puts Spotlight on Trump's Business Ties."
  CNN.  12 October 2018. Smith, Geoffrey.  "This Is the 420-Foot Yacht Donald Trump Wanted -- Before He Filed for Bankruptcy."
  Fortune.  13 February 2017. Tau, Byron and Rebecca Ballhaus.  "Trump Hotel Received $270,000 from Lobbying Campaign Tied to Saudis."
  The Wall Street Journal.  6 June 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "What's at Stake in the Trump Administration's Ties to the Saudis."
  CBS News.  12 October 2018. Wong, Edward et al.  "Trump Calls Relations with Saudi Arabia 'Excellent,' While Congress Is Incensed."
  The New York Times.  11 October 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Events in the Khashoggi Case."
  25 October 2018. CBS News.  "Transcript: Donald Trump Announces His Presidential Candidacy."
  16 June 2015. On October 12, 2017 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a Nissan SUV carrying four adults and four children was making a left turn onto Florline Boulevard at a green light when a Corvette driven by a speeding off-duty police officer traveling at an estimated 94 MPH in a 50 MPH zone smashed into its passenger side, killing a 1-year-old girl who was ejected from the SUV. As noted in a meme circulated on social media in the aftermath of the accident, the officer behind the wheel of the Corvette, Christopher Manuel, was not penalized (even though he was driving nearly double the speed limit), while the dead girl's mother (who was a passenger in and not the driver of the SUV), 21-year-old Brittany Stephens, was charged with negligent homicide for not properly securing the child in a car seat:  As is often the case, while the meme provided factual information, it also ignored the many complexities of this case and instead focused on a single, outrage-inducing aspect of it. The primary context omitted here is that both Manuel and Stephens were initially arrested on suspicion of negligent homicide, but prosecutors -- who deliberated for two years -- ultimately felt they could not determine who was more at fault for the child's death, nor could they meet the burden of proof needed to successfully bring criminal charges against Manuel. In the end, they took no action against either party. The crash occurred when the driver of the SUV turned left onto Florline Boulevard while Manuel was traveling northbound on Airline Highway. According to Manuel's arrest report, investigators estimated his vehicle's speed at the time of the accident at 94 MPH based on calculations from data recorded by his car's airbag control module. Both cars had green lights, so the primary issue was determining whether the SUV's driver failed to yield, or whether the Corvette's excessive speed would have made it extremely difficult or impossible for the driver to safely judge the turn. Investigators came down on the side of the latter, and Manuel filed a civil suit alleging that the driver of the SUV was at fault for turning "suddenly and without warning" into his lane. Additional complicating factors were that the driver of the SUV was unlicensed, the vehicle was carrying too many occupants, and no one in the SUV was wearing a seatbelt. Police also stated that Stephens did not properly secure her daughter's car seat, instead placing it on the SUV's center console between the two front seats, which is considered an act of "gross negligence" that was a "contributing factor in the death" of the child. gross negligence As the Baton Rouge Advocate reported, the district attorney felt his office could not fairly determine whom, if anyone, to prosecute: reported East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III said his office decided not to bring charges against either Manuel or Stephens, reasoning that both had contributed to the tragic outcome even though "one suffered a bigger loss." "It becomes a conundrum of 'Who's at fault?'" Moore said. "Do you really want to charge the mom with her child's death? Of course not. Which act truly caused the death, speeding or lack of proper restraint? Is one more culpable than the other? We couldn't really determine that based on the facts of the case and what the law requires." This is a trying decision, Moore said. It weighed on me as a parent with children. One aspect of the controversy surrounding the crash was Manuel's status as a member of the Baton Rouge Police Department, which some critics maintained may have influenced the DA's decision not to prosecute a criminal case against him. Another was that no one involved in the accident was even cited: [Marcus Allen, an attorney] volunteered to represent Stephens for free after news of her case went viral within some circles online. He said Moore's "unilateral decision" not to prosecute "has the look of impropriety" because the case involves a law enforcement officer and argued prosecutors could have avoided that by going forward with the case and allowing the criminal justice system to decide the officer's fate. Police recommended citations for several other people in the SUV with Stephens after finding various safety issues, including that there were too many occupants, none were wearing seatbelts and the driver was unlicensed. Prosecutors had two years to issue those citations but instead let the tickets expire without doing so. They did the same for a misdemeanor speeding count against Manuel, which also expired. Moore said prosecuting Manuel for speeding would have meant essentially forfeiting the option to charge him with negligent homicide because of double jeopardy laws at the time. But once prosecutors ruled out the more serious charge, they could have chosen to issue the speeding ticket then with no major impacts on the case. [Allen] said that's the least Moore's office could have done. "How can you overlook the glaring fact that he was going almost 100 mph?" Allen said. "You just cannot operate a vehicle that fast. For him to walk away from this with no criminal charges ... it almost appears he's above the law." Although prosecutors decided to take no action in the case, some online reports nonetheless mistakenly reported that Brittany Stephens had been convicted and sentenced to prison. reported Skene, Lea.  "Baton Rouge Police: Car Seat Placed on Center Console During Crash Involving Off-Duty Cop That Killed Baby."
  The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  1 March 2018. The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  "Off-Duty Baton Rouge Officer Driving Corvette Involved in Airline Highway Crash, Police Say."
  13 October 2017. Skene, Lea.  "Baton Rouge Police Officer Faces No Charges After 2017 Speeding Crash That Caused Baby's Death."
  The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  13 November 2019. Skene, Lea.  "Mother of Baby Killed in Baton Rouge Crash Involving Off-Duty Cop Arrested for Failing to Secure Child Seat."
  The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  27 February 2018. Knowles, Hannah.  "A Baby Died After an Officer Crashed His Corvette at 94 MPH, Investigators Say. He Wont Face Charges."
  The Washington Post.  15 November 2019. In January 2022, an online advertisement showed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway next to the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." online advertisement  The ad was misleading clickbait.  The ad led to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All." article It wasn't until the last page of the long story that Elway was featured. However, it said nothing of him running out of money and going "broke." last page Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison. fell victim to a Ponzi scheme reported The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016 that reported Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by the year 2015, potentially a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation." an ABC News article As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager. the team's general manager There was no evidence that Elway was broke, nor did the lengthy MoneyWise.com article mention any such thing. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. Claim:  Legislation currently under proposal would result in substantial cuts to federal funding of the NEA and other public arts programs. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 1995] SAVE SESAME STREET! This is a petition to save Sesame Street. ALL YOU DO IS ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM, then forward it to everyone you know. The only time you send it to the included address is if you are the 50th, 100th, etc. Send it on to everyone you know.   PBS, NPR (National Public Radio), and the arts are facing major cutbacks in funding. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, the government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as "unworthwhile." Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment for the Arts equals $.64 a year in total. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding.   Each year, the Senate and House Appropriations commitees each have 13 subcommitees with jurisdiction over many programs and agencies. Each subcommitee passes its own appropriation bill. The goal each year is to have each bill signed by the beginning of the fiscal year, which is October 1. In  the instance of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, the bill determines the funding for the next three years.   When this issue comes up in 1996, the funding will be determined for fiscal years 1996-1998.  The only way that our representatives can be aware of the base of support or PBS and funding for these types of programs is by making our voices heard.   Please add your name to this list if you believe in what we stand for. This list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives and Congress.   If you happen to be the 50th, 100th, 150th, etc. signer of this petition, please forward to:  <kubi7975@blue.univnorthco.edu>. This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know, and help us to keep these programs alive.   Thank you. Variations: In 1998 versions of the above appeared which claimed "Nina Tottenberg" had appeared on NPR's Morning Edition.  Some versions circulated in 2001 rendered "Nina Tottenberg" as "Nina Rottener." Origins:  Some e-mail items never die off completely  they periodically go through fallow periods during which they cease to circulate widely, but eventually   something occurs that prompts people to begin forwarding them anew.  This petition to help save the NEAfrom funding cutbacks was created a decade ago, and even though it long outlived the situation it was originally intended to address, it has been circulating for so long that the circumstances it describes may finally have come to pass. In 1995 a student at the University of Northern Colorado was writing a paper for a class about the downfall of culture in our society. During the course of her research she discovered proposed congressional budget cuts for PBS funding and, being young and  idealistic, she decided to do something about it. She enlisted the help of another student, and the two of them drafted the petition that has been haunting the Internet for years since. The original contained no reference to Sesame Street  that part was added shortly after the petition began to circulate, likely by a well-meaning supporter who thought suggesting that Sesame Street was in danger would garner additional sympathy for the cause. And it did. Couched in terms of "Save Sesame Street!," this petition decrying proposed government cuts to the 1996 public television budget began circulating on the Internet in the spring of 1995.  (The ways of the Internet being what they are, it continues to circulate even though the "crisis" has long passed.  Scarelore rarely comes with expiration dates.) The response it raised was breathtaking. The two college students who'd dreamed it up were almost immediately swamped with 2,000 incoming e-mails a day. Attempting to compile petition lists to forward to the government quickly became a Herculean task. Stopping what they'd set in motion proved every bit as impossible as keeping track of the incoming mail. After the congressional budget was announced (and arts funding wasn't slaughtered as badly as had been anticipated), they sent out a follow-up  e-mail telling people the danger was over, to quit circulating the petition, and to tell others who were still circulating it to stop. To no avail, though; that petition continues to make the rounds even to this day. Though it's true the 104th Congress did cut the 1996 public television budget to $260 million, Sesame Street was never in danger of being axed. The Sesame Street name was invoked solely to anger people enough to get them involved in the protest over public television cuts, not because the show itself was at risk. As such, the ranks of those fighting the cuts were seeded by those duped into believing a personally-cherished icon of childhood was going down. PBS was neither the force behind this misleading e-mail petition, nor did they support it.  The following is taken from the standard e-mail response sent out by PBS Viewer Services regarding this petition rumor: In the last several months, there has been a campaign on the Internet that incorrectly alleges that SESAME STREET is in jeopardy of being taken off the air. The "Save Sesame Street" campaign is unfounded and we at PBS and Children's Television Workshop (CTW), the producers of SESAME STREET, would like to tell you that Sesame Street is alive and well! In fact, SESAME STREET launched its 28th Season on November 18, 1996 with special guest ER's Noah Wyle. In addition to launching a new season, SESAME STREET is busy preparing for their 30th anniversary celebration which is just around the corner (fall 1998). We can assure you that there is no PBS sanctioned petition. Please disregard any you come across. Like all good bad pieces of misinformative netlore, this one kept going and going. In early 1997 all references to Sesame Street had been stripped out of this message, and it began causing consternation all over again as it made another round of the Internet.  Then yet another version sprang up in early 1999: This message is long but important. On Thursday January 6th's NPR Morning Edition, Nina Totenberg reported that if the Supreme Court supports Congress to cut the budget of the National Endowment of the Arts, it is in effect the end of NEA. This situation creates great concerns about Congressional funding for creative arts in America, since NEA provides major support for NPR (National Public Radio), PBS (Public Broadcasting System), and numerous other creative and performing arts. If NEA is lost or weakened, our lives will be similarly diminished. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, some government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as not worthwhile. Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment for the Arts equals $.64 a year. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding. Each year the Senate and House Appropriations committees each have 13 subcommittees with jurisdiction over many programs and agencies. Each subcommittee passes its own appropriation bill. The goal each year is to have each bill signed by the beginning of the fiscal year, which is October 1. The only way that our representatives can be aware of the base of support for PBS and funding for these types of programs is by our making our voices heard. Please add your name to this list and forward it to friends who believe in favor of what this stands for. The full list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House, whose office has in the past been the instigator of the action to cut funding to these worthwhile programs. This petition is being passed around the Internet. Please add your name to it so funding can be maintained for the NEA, NPR, and PBS. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO MAKE INTERNET TECHNOLOGY WORK AS A VOICE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. IT'S EASIER THAN EVER TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. Please keep the petition rolling. Do not reply to me. Add your name and locale to the list and forward it to others to sign. If you prefer not to sign, please send the list to the email address given below. This is being forwarded to numerous people at once. It won't matter if many people receive the same list as the names are being managed. This is for anyone who thinks NPR and PBS deserve $1.12/year of their taxes. If you sign, please forward the list to others. If not, please don't kill it. **** If you happen to be the 150th, 200th, 250th, tc., signer of this petition, please forward a copy to: <wein2688@blue.univnorthco.edu>. This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know and help keep these programs alive **** Thank you. (NOTE: It is preferable you SELECT the entirety of this letter and COPY it into a NEW outgoing message, rather than simply forwarding it.) In your new outgoing message add your name to the bottom of the list, then send it on. Or, if the option is available, do a SEND AGAIN. Why anyone would re-invent this petition in 1997 and again in 1999 to fight something that was a done deal by mid-1996 is puzzling.   Coincidentally, though, in June 2005 the non-existent situation which this petition had been decrying for several years finally hit the news for real when a House committee voted to sharply reduce (and eventually eliminate) federal financial support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  The proposed cuts were rescinded by a subsequent vote of the full House. voted  Barbara "knights of the undead" Mikkelson Last updated:  23 June 2005    Sources:   Farhi, Paul.  "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House."    The Washington Post.  10 June 2005  (P. A1).     Sierra, Bryan.  "Bert and Ernie Lobby for Funding."    United Press International.  1 March 1995.     Vittachi, Nury.  "It's Amazing What Brews . . ."    South China Morning Post.  18 July 1996  (p. 12).     Wolf, Richard.  "An Epic Battle of the Budget Begins Today."    USA Today.  16 March 1995  (p. A4).    Electronic Media.  "The Insider."     13  May 1996  (p. 10).       NetGuide.  "The Little Petition That Grew."    1 November 1996.     St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  "ABC Switches to Movies with Football Season Over."    26 December 1996  (p. F6). Claim:  A bill currently before Congress would require that all handgun owners list their guns on federal income tax returns.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may requirefingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, https://www.senate.gov/  You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. Variations:  An August 2009 version of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act e-mail combined it with the Blair Holt e-mail that truthfully claims a bill before Congress would prohibit ownership of handguns by those who have not obtained firearms licenses. ownership Origins:  The item quoted above about a pending Congressional bill requiring gun owners to list their guns on federal income tax is both outdated and contains a good deal of misinformation. The referenced bill, SB 2099 (the Handgun Safety and Registration Act) is not currently before Congress  it was introduced to the Senate back in February 2000 (not 2009), and it was referred to the Committee on Finance, where it languished without ever coming to a vote.  It also had no provisions for requiring handgun owners to list their guns on federal income tax returns. The issue back in 2000 was Senate Bill 2099, introduced in February of that year by Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island.  S. 2099 was titled the "Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000" and sought "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for other purposes."   Senate Bill 2099 Jack Reed The National Firearms Act of 1934 established (among other things) a tax on both the manufacture and the transfer of firearms, required that each person who transfers a firearm file an application  National Firearms Act (complete with photograph and fingerprints) with the internal revenue authorities, and authorized the creation of "a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States."  However, the definition of "firearm" used by the 1934 act did not include standard rifles, shotguns, or handguns. It applied only to specialized weapons such as short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers, and other "destructive devices" (e.g., grenades, bombs, rockets, missiles, mines). S. 2099 would have expanded the definition of "firearm" to include handguns, thus subjecting them to these requirements as well.  The upshot of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act, if passed, would have been the imposition of a $50 tax on the manufacture of all handguns, a requirement that all gun owners register their handguns within one year of the Act's passage (but not, as claimed, list them on their federal income tax returns), and the provision that registration information be made available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.  In practical terms, every handgun owner would have had to obtain a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms registration form and an FBI fingerprint form, then complete and submit both forms (along with a 2x2 of himself and a $5 payment) to the BATF.   That the intent of this bill was to effect nationwide registration of handguns is unmistakable.  As stated in apress release about Senator Reed's bill: press release The bill would require registration of all handguns, including those currently in private possession, and would make it a felony for any person to transfer a handgun to another individual without prior law enforcement approval. Background checks would be performed on all primary and secondary transfers of handguns, including retail sales, gun shows, Internet sales and all private sales. The claim that this bill could have been passed into law without Congress voting upon it was not true: The Handgun Safety and Registration Act, like any other Congressional bill, would have had to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or passed again over his veto) in order to become law. Furthermore, the $50 tax specified in the bill would have applied only to gun manufacturers, not gun owners.   As noted above, the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 languished in committee without ever being brought to a vote, and even Senator Reed himself said at the time he submitted the bill that he was not optimistic about its chances of success: I am under no illusion that this legislation will be approved by this Congress or next Congress ... But we must begin the process to create a law that Americans overwhelmingly believe is necessary. Additional information:       Misleading E-mail   (gunregistration.org)  Last updated:  13 August 2009 On 20 January 2017, a photograph purportedly showing a highway sign in Maryland urging drivers to "consider Canada" in avoiding Inauguration Day traffic was widely circulated on social media:  This image was just a prank, however, a digitally manipulated version of a more mundane image. The Maryland State Highway Administration published a genuine photograph of the sign on Interstate 270 showing that it actually read "Consider Metro": published  State Highway Administration spokesman Charlie Gischlar told the Baltimore Sunthat he sent some workers out to the site after viewing the viral image and confirmed that the words "Consider Canada" did actually appear on the traffic sign: "Whoever did it, though, Ihave to give them credit  it looks real." confirmed We also reached out to the Maryland State Highway Administration to confirm that the sign never read "consider Canada": @danieljevon No it did not @danieljevon  MD State Highway Adm (@MDSHA) January 20, 2017 January 20, 2017  Dance, Scott.  "Viral image of 'Consider Canada' highway sign a hoax, SHA says."
  Baltimore Sun.  20 January 2017.