Under the compromise tax agreement, 99.7% of American families will not pay 1 nickel in an estate tax.
While the debate over the compromise tax agreement proposed by President Barack Obama has focused mostly on Bush's income tax cuts and whether they ought to be extended to wealthy Americans, the issue of estate taxes has also become a sticking point for some legislators.Under the plan, the estate tax rate would be set at 35 percent, with an effective exemption of $5 million.Many Republicans had hoped to do away with the estate tax altogether, and Democrats last year had proposed a higher rate: 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million.The compromise has ruffled feathers on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., for example, said he would not support the plan because he considered the estate tax compromise a tax increase. We ruled that claimBarely True.Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and a self-described democratic socialist, sent out amessage via Twitteron Dec. 13, 2010, saying that under the estate tax plan, 99.7% of American families will not pay 1 nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.According to ananalysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Sanders is correct.The Tax Policy Center estimated that about 99.7 percent of estates were exempt from the estate tax in 2009 when the first $3.5 million of an estate was exempt. Even fewer people would be subject to the tax if the threshold is increased to $5 million, as proposed in the compromise tax plan.Under the compromise plan, less than 2/10 of 1 percent of estates would be subject to the estate tax next year, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. That means more than 99.8 percent would be completely exempt.The Tax Policy Center estimates that about 3,600 estates would be subject to the tax under the $5 million threshold. Those 3,600 estates would have to pay an estimated $11.4 billion in estate taxes under the compromise tax plan.Estate tax rates have fluctuated through modern history. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed a plan to gradually reduce the estate tax from 55 percent to 45 percent, while at the same time increasing the exemption value from $1 million in 2002 to $3.5 million in 2009. The estate tax disappeared altogether in 2010.But the Bush plan only had a 10-year window because Republicans didn't have the votes at the time to permanently abolish the estate tax. It passed the Senate under budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes but which also limited it to a 10-year shelf life. Barring a new tax agreement, the rate was set to revert next year to a 55 percent rate with an effective exemption of $1 million.Last year, Democrats proposed a plan to permanently set the estate tax rate at 2009 levels -- 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million. But the plan never reached a vote in the Senate. Had that plan gone through, the Tax Policy Center estimates it would have subjected 6,460 estates to a tax (bring in an estimated $18.2 billion). If no tax plan passes, and the rate goes back to 55 percent on the value of estates over $1 million, an 43,540 estates would have to pay (bringing in an estimated $34.4 billion next year).Sanders was correct that in 2009, when the effective exemption was $3.5 million, about 99.7 percent of all estates were exempt and didn't pay anything. The compromise plan -- which would set effective exemption at $5 million -- would push the number of exempted estates even higher, so that more than 99.8 percent of estates would not pay anything. We rate Sanders' comment True.
In November 2019, several readers began inquiring about the existence of a keto pill that had allegedly been funded through the popular NBC TV show "Shark Tank"  a program in which affluent judges decide for or against investing their personal funds in various entrepreneurial ventures pitched to them in front of the camera. Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank." form of dieting In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019. marketed finding Shark Tank" claim Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping  a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales.  dropshipping One such method is to lie about who has endorsed the product, as evidenced in claims that PureFit Keto had been funded on "Shark Tank." Similar products have also been advertised as if famous celebrities use them. For example, marketers of a product named Keto Fit claimed the supplement was endorsed by model Chrissy Teigen, providing made-up quotes from her to sell the product. Teigen publicly repudiated the practice when it was brought to her attention in January 2019:  Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties  the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product. Demi Lovato reviews on blogs Though these various keto products often change names  the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time  the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all  if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents  made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB). rebranded   BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank." a ketone Masood, Wajeed and Kalyan R. Uppaluri.  Ketogenic Diet.
  StatPearls.  As updated on 21 March 2019. BBB.com.  PureFit KETO.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Amazon.com.  Purefit Keto Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women - Ketogenic Diet Supplement - Burn Fat for Energy - BHB Formula (1 Month).
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Shopify.  The Ultimate Guide to Dropshipping.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Brar, Faith.  BHB: The Miracle Molecule of the Keto Diet?
  StatPearls.  28 September 2017. On Oct. 7, 2022, a Twitter user named Nathalie Jacoby tweeted, "Will you join me in boycotting Home Depot for donating $1.75 MILLION to Herschel Walkers campaign?" Walker is a Republican U.S. Senate candidate for the state of Georgia. The tweet led several of our readers to email us about the matter. tweeted  In the 2022 U.S. election, Walker was challenging U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat. Should Walker win the seat, it would potentially give Republicans a coveted Senate majority. The race brought with it a lot of rumors and news stories. One of the biggest rumors appeared to be about Walker purportedly encouraging a woman to have two abortions. However, for this fact check, we will only be looking into the claim about Home Depot. Walker encouraging a woman to have two abortions Home Depot responded to Jacoby's tweet by saying that the contribution in question came from the company's co-founder Bernie Marcus. responded  We also reached out to the company to inquire about the matter. By email, a company spokesperson told us the following: "Thanks for reaching out. This isnt true. Home Depots PAC hasnt donated to Walkers or Warnocks campaigns. Our co-founder Bernie Marcus left Home Depot more than 20 years ago, and his views do not represent the company." It's true that Marcus retired from the company in 2002. However, despite what some readers may have read in other articles that appeared at the top of Google search results, that wasn't the full story. retired On the morning of Oct. 10, Judd Legum of the Popular Information blog reported that Home Depot PAC, a political action committee associated with the company, had donated funds to a Republican organization that funded ad spending for Walker's campaign. reported associated funded ad spending After reviewing Legum's reporting, we located expenditure records for Home Depot PAC that had been published on OpenSecrets.org. The website calls itself "the nation's premier research and government transparency group tracking money in politics and its effect on elections and policy." published The information on Open Secrets indicated the following: While there is no record of Home Depot directly donating to Walker's efforts to win the Senate seat, Home Depot PAC did provide funds to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). According to reporting from Politico that was published on Oct. 4, the NRSC was "splitting a new $8.5 million ad buy with the Walker campaign." National Republican Senatorial Committee reporting We contacted Legum by Twitter DM, who told us that the Federal Election Commission website, FEC.gov, also showed four key records related to Home Depot and NRSC. These records indicated that Home Depot PAC, shown on the website as The Home Depot Inc. Political Action Committee, had donated a combined $90,000 to the NRSC in late 2021 and early 2022. four key records  Other large expenditures made by the Home Depot PAC in 2021 and 2022 also went to organizations that were associated with the Republican Party, according to the FEC website. Examples included $45,000 to the California Republican Party and $25,000 to the Georgians First Leadership Committee. Other large expenditures At the same time, Home Depot PAC also gave money in 2021 and 2022 to organizations that appeared to be led by Democrats. Examples included $60,000 to the California Legislative Black Caucus Policy Institute, $50,000 to the Los Angeles Delegation Foundation, $30,000 to the Women in Power PAC, and $25,000 to the Asian Pacific Islander Leadership PAC. Home Depot Note: Jacoby, the Twitter user, also previously tweeted in support of boycotting CNN, Chick-fil-A, Kanye West, and Hobby Lobby and MyPillow. CNN Chick-fil-A Kanye West Hobby Lobby and MyPillow Allison, Natalie, and Marianne Levine. Republicans Rally around Walkers Imperiled Candidacy. POLITICO, 4 Oct. 2022, https://www.politico.com/. Federal Election Commission. https://www.fec.gov/. Grace Meng Elected as New Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Leadership PAC. Capacleadership.Org, 13 Apr. 2016, https://www.capacleadership.org/. Home Depot. Twitter, https://twitter.com/homedepot/. Jacoby, Nathalie. Twitter, https://twitter.com/nathaliejacoby1/. Kamisar, Ben. Big Georgia Senate Ad Spending Shift Highlights a Novel Strategy. NBC News, 23 Sept. 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/big-georgia-senate-ad-spending-shift-highlights-novel-strategy-rcna49125. Kempner, Matt. Home Depot Founders Reunite: $40M for Vets, 1st Responders Health. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 16 Feb. 2021. AJC.com, https://www.ajc.com/ajcjobs/home-depot-founders-reunite-40m-for-vets-1st-responders-health/WRWBASV6GREQTKUU56LWLXGGY4/. Koseff, Alexei. Women Target Seats Held by California Lawmakers Accused of Sexual Harassment. The Sacramento Bee, 15 Feb. 2018, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article200150799.html. Legum, Judd. Who Is Really Financing Herschel Walkers Campaign? Popular Information, 10 Oct. 2022, https://popular.info/p/who-is-really-financing-herschel. Members. CLBCPI Foundation, https://cablackcaucus.org/members/. National Republican Senatorial Committee. https://www.nrsc.org/. NBCSL | California Legislative Black Caucus Elects New Leadership. 25 Aug. 2022, https://nbcsl.org/media-center/news/item/2376-california-legislative-black-caucus-elects-new-leadership.html. OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/. Report: Walker Encouraged Woman to Have Second Abortion. The Associated Press, 8 Oct. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-herschel-walker-congress-government-and-politics-9d7d9c68a802169994b9db719d8256c0. Rosenhall, Laurel. The New Thing for California Politicians? Sweet Charity. CalMatters, 18 Feb. 2020, https://calmatters.org/projects/california-lawmaker-nonprofits-politics-charity-campaign-finance-foundation-dark-money/. Scribner, Herb. Home Depot Denies Donating over $1 Million to Herschel Walkers Campaign. Axios, 8 Oct. 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/10/08/home-depot-herschel-walker-georgia-donation. Werschkul, Ben. Home Depot Now the Biggest Corporate Donor to 2020 Election Objectors, Analysis Finds. Yahoo Finance, 25 Mar. 2022, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-depot-biggest-corporate-contributor-to-2020-election-objectors-analysis-finds-185705617.html. After this story was published, on Oct. 10, we added an email statement sent to us by Home Depot. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020  as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk  who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump  said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers:   To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income"  and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet  aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post  we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund  profits of which go to these unemployed people  or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income  a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for  a guaranteed income for  people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks  not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks.  May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks.  In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs)  not social security numbers  to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there.  Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic  a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants  she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons  as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers  we rate this claim as "false."   Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
 The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
 MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
 YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
 CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
 Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
 Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
 Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
 Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
 Accessed 11 May 2020. In the opening skirmish of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton cast her rival as a man who put his own business interests ahead of the welfare of average Americans. Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis, Clinton said. He said back in 2006, Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money. What does the record show? We found many examples from 2006 to 2009 when Donald Trump spoke of the great opportunity that came with falling real estate prices. One of the earliest instances was in a Trump audiobook from 2006. The man interviewing Trump for the audiobook says, There's a lot of talk, which you've no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What's your take on that pessimism? Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you're in a good cash position  which I'm in a good cash position today  then people like me would go in and buy like crazy, he says in a portion of the audiobookposted by CNN. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can make a lot of money. Now that was before the collapse that led to the Great Recession, and arguably, Trump was simply offering sound business guidance. Trump touted the same view acoupleof times in2007. But at that point, the country still was not looking at an economic catastrophe. The situation was quite different by early 2009. The investment house Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy, the largest in U.S. history. The Dow had suffered its worst weekly loss ever. Washington had bailed out General Motors and Chrysler. Foreclosures were rising weekly. Trump was on CNNFeb. 17, 2009, talking about the economy with host Wolf Blitzer and said the moment was a great opportunity. Blitzer asked Trump why. If you get something really prime, really good, eventually it's going to be worth a lot more than you paid, Trump explained. I used to tell people two years ago, don't buy real estate and I used to preach it hard. And now I'm saying, I think that this is a good time. Whether you hit the exact market or not, I can't tell you. But I think this is a great time to buy. If you have cash, this is the great time to buy. To be clear, Trump was speaking as an investor. He was not necessarily rooting for the housing crisis. But it was under way as he spoke. We reached out to the Trump campaign and did not receive any information to add to this picture. Our ruling Clinton said Trump was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. While Trump did not welcome the tragedy of foreclosures for millions of Americans, he did speak optimistically about the opportunities the overall situation created for an investor such as himself. Clintons statement leaves out that nuance, but in large measure, it matches Trumps words. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/22c6df0a-1ffe-421d-b06a-b6c208a27038 In mid-April 2021, the fast-food empire McDonalds announced a meal collaboration with Korean pop boy band BTS. The announcement rocked Twitter, inciting Tweets from the millions-strong musical groups fanbase. McDonalds  The collaboration was announced on TikTok and Twitter by the fast-food company and BIGHIT MUSIC, the record label of BTS. In an email to Snopes, McDonalds said that the signature meal is set to include a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets, medium World Famous Fries, medium Coke and, for the first time ever in the U.S., sweet chili and cajun dipping sauces inspired by popular recipes from McDonalds South Korea. BIGHIT MUSIC said  Image courtesy of McDonald's  BTS truly lights up the world stage, uniting people across the globe through their music, said Morgan Flatley, Chief Marketing Officer, McDonalds USA. Were excited to bring customers even closer to their beloved band in a way only McDonalds can  through our delicious food  when we introduce the BTS signature order on our menu next month." McDonalds said that the BTS collaboration builds on McDonalds partnerships with rapper Travis Scott and reggaeton musician J Balvin last year under the celebrity signature orders program launched in U.S. restaurants in 2020. But this time around, BTS will be the first member of the program to eventually launch in 50 countries across six continents. Travis Scott J Balvin celebrity signature orders The band has great memories with McDonalds. Were excited about this collaboration and cant wait to share the BTS Meal with the world, said BIGHIT MUSIC. Also known as the Bangtan Boys, the seven-member boy band was formed in 2010 and debuted in 2013. BTS fans are so die-hard that theyve given themselves the nickname The Army  which stands for Adorable Representative M.C. for Youth. McDonalds told Snopes that customers will have the option of ordering BTS meals in participating restaurants or through contactless mobile orders, the app, drive-through or via McDelivery. The BTS meal will be available at select U.S. restaurants beginning May 26 and will be rolled out to others across the globe through June 25. And on May 26, the bands signature order was made available at participating U.S. restaurants nationwide.  Seeing the passion and anticipation from our fans worldwide since we announced the BTS Meal has been incredible, said Morgan Flatley, McDonald's chief marketing and digital customer experience officer, of the launch. And the best part is, we are just getting started. We are preparing to give customers even more ways to experience this collaboration in the coming weeks  through a merch drop and exclusive digital content that will provide a behind-the-scenes look at BTS. said  Image courtesy of McDonald's  UPDATE [May 26, 2021]: This article was updated to announce the launch and include newly released images. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 On 24 May 2016, a Facebook user published the above-reproduced image of a partially blinded beagle, along with the claim that it represented the harmful effects of cosmetics testing on animals: published claim When cosmetics companies like L'Oreal want to test their products, they often use beagles. They take the potentially toxic ingredients in their products and stick them in the puppy's eye in large doses to test how much of a product is needed to cause harm. When they finish, they remove the Beagle's eye and start again on the other eye. When the beagle runs out of eyes, they kill him. This is why we never support animal testing companies. The photograph caused alarm and concern among animal lovers worried about whether the beagle's injuries were truly inflicted by L'Oreal (or any other cosmetics brand). A reverse image search revealed that the photograph had appeared years earlier on Portuguese-language web sites, with many English-language sites later using the same image to blame Mary Kay, Avon, or Procter & Gamble for the beagle's injuries: earlier blame    This doleful image was earlier published on a Brazilian web site, where it was identified as having been taken in the city of So Roque in relation to a controversy involving animal testing at the Instituto Royal laboratory, and it was also posted to Instagram in connection with rumors linked to that laboratory and location: published Instagram  An article published in the Brazilian version of the Epoch Times reported that the lab in question had been closed after protests by animal rights supporters and stated that the institute tested "cosmetics and cleaning products" of unspecified origin: article The Royal Institute announced it is ending the activities of the laboratory in So Roque, in the state of So Paulo. The decision comes after the release of 178 beagle dogs, used in laboratory tests for cosmetics and cleaning products, by protesters. The case was widely reported and generated discussions on ethics related to the use of animals in testing. The institute has been investigated by prosecutors since 2012 for their mistreatment of animals.  A 2013 news article also reported on the beagle controversy but made no specific mention of cosmetics testing at the lab in question: article A group of animal rights activists have been camped in front of the Royal Institute in So Roque (SP) since they stormed the headquarters of the laboratory, which conducts research for the pharmaceutical and veterinary industries, among others. The protesters, including members of the Black Bloc SP, accused the company of the ill-treatment of beagle dogs used in research. Protests against the Royal Institute began just last year. Activists claim that the company practices irregularities and criminal acts against animals ... The Royal Institute defends their research on their web site and says they respect all national and international standards in dealing with dogs in the laboratory. The company is an Oscip (Civil Society Organization of Public Interest) and receives public money thanks to the support of funding agencies for scientific research. Animal advocates say the company does not have licenses and permits for the activities it performs. Contemporaneous articles mentioned "cosmetic and pharmaceutical testing," and a blog post claimed the contraceptive Norplant was among the products tested on the since-liberated beagles. Scientists who worked for the lab lamented the loss of a decade of research in the clashes with animal rights activists: articles pharmaceutical research For the scientific director of the Royal Institute, Joo Antnio Pegas Henry, the damage is incalculable. John Anthony said that the biggest problem was not the liberation of animals, but rather the destruction of the building, material, and especially of their research. "[The activists] destroyed the laboratory, including computers holding research data. We can fix the material damage, but the damage to science is incalculable. There was material that was in its final stages after a ten-year study. Everything was lost," says John Anthony. According to the coordinator of the National Council of Animal Experimentation Control (Concea), Marcelo Marcos Morales, the institute in So Roque is the most important laboratory of the country in relation to such experimentation. While the precise origin of the beagle photograph purportedly linked to L'Oreal research is unknown, the image was originally circulated as one linked to a 2012 controversy involving the since-closed Instituto Royal of So Roque. Testing carried out at the lab while it was operational was not restricted to cosmetics, and most reports named pharmaceutical and household products as the primary substances researched at the Institute. The photograph has long since been repurposed to claim a number of popular cosmetics brands such as MAC, Avon, Mary Kay, and Head & Shoulders were responsible for the beagle's injuries. On L'Oreal's web site, the brand discloses their policy on animal testing, a position a representative for L'Oreal reiterated to us on 27 May 2016: discloses LOral no longer tests on animals any of its products or any of its ingredients, anywhere in the world. Nor does LOral delegate this task to others. The rare exception allowed is if regulatory authorities demand it for safety or regulatory purposes. This image was not the first spurious animal testing rumor attached L'Oreal on social media. Previously, a photograph of a sick rabbit unrelated to animal testing was circulated alongside claims that the animal was also a victim of cruel experiments carried out by L'Oreal. L'Oreal  Lungarzo, Carlos Alberto.  "O Que  O Instituto Royal?"
  RevistaForum.  31 October 2013. Menezes, Bruno.  "Instituto Royal Fecha Laboratrio Em So Roque."
 The Epoch Times.  7 November 2013. Globo.  "Aps Denncia De Maus-Tratos, Grupo Invade Laboratrio E leva Ces Beagle."
  18 October 2013. Globo.  "Alm De 178 Beagles, Sete Coelhos Tambm Foram Levados de Empresa."
  18 October 2013. Globo.  "Invaso Ao Prdio Do Instituto Royal Em So Roque Completa Um Ano."
  18 October 2014. Veja.  "Laboratrio No Interior De So Paulo  Invadido Por Ativistas."
  18 October 2013. In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks 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. As California dealt with the deadliest wildfire in the state's history in November 2018, a number of social media users encountered an image that supposedly showed a "fawn and bobcat cub found under a desk in office build after California forest fire rolled through": showed   Although this photograph was often presented as if it were taken during the deadly Camp Fire in November 2018, it was actually several years old by that time. Furthermore, the claim that the fawn and bobcat were "found" under a desk during a fire isn't exactly accurate. This photograph was taken in May 2009 at a facility run by the non-profit Animal Rescue Team during the Jesusita wildfire near Santa Barbara, California. Julia Di Sieno, the co-founder and Director of Animal Rescue Team, said that the bobcat and the fawn were rescued at different times and locations. In other words, they were not "found" huddled together under a desk during the fire. Discovery.com reported that while animals of different species are typically kept in separate areas, rescue workers were swamped in the aftermath of the fire and didn't have many options for housing these animals: reported Di Sieno helped rescue the bobcat kitten in the photo a week before, near Arnold Schwarzeneggers Ranch, where it was dehydrated and near death. Di Sieno nurtured it back to health. They rescued the fawn during last week's wildfire. Although wild animals, especially of separate species, are never placed together due to regulations, in this emergency situation, they had no choice. During the mayhem of the fire, they were forced to put animals anywhere they could, since they had run out of crates large enough for the fawn. The kitten ran to the fawn, and it was instant bonding. Most wildlife knows instinctively to flee fires - to fly away, burrow, or run - but some dont make it out in time. Rescue workers walk near the fire line with nets, searching for any injured animals or young separated from their parents. Burn victims go to the local care hospital, says Di Sieno. We rescued bunnies, squirrels, two fawns. Weve rescued I dont know how many geese, chickens ducks, cats, birds, turkeys, and a baby owl and a baby raptor. Discovery.com.  "Jesusita Wildfire Animal Rescue."
  18 May 2009.