Did Jared Kushner remove tweets after reports emerged about Trump's taxes?
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020.
This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. In April 2020, a rumor started to circulate that CNN deleted from Google Play an old episode of "Larry King Live" that featured the mother of Tara Reade, the woman who accused presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault. accused The conspiratorial website Infowars, for instance, published an article titled "CNN Removes 'Larry King' Episode with Biden Accuser's Mother From Google Play Archive" and accused CNN of "running cover" for the Biden campaign.  Infowars CNN did not remove this episode from the Google Play streaming service. This false rumor is entirely based on incorrect assumptions made from looking at a single screenshot posted by Twitter user J.L. Hamilton. The image of the Google Play store (see below) showed a "Larry King Live" episode for Aug. 10 and Aug. 12, 1993, but not Aug. 11. In a tweet that was later deleted, Hamilton accused CNN of "actively colluding with the Biden Campaign to cover up evidence of Biden's sexual assault." screenshot   The above-displayed screenshot is genuine. If you go to the Google Play store, you will not find an episode of "Larry King Live" listed for Aug. 11, 1993. However, the claim that CNN removed the episode quickly falls apart when we take a look at the available information. Google Play Some of the confusion may stem from the fact that Google Play lists shows and episodes on its website that aren't actually available for viewing there. While Google Play lists hundreds of "Larry King Live" episodes, for instance, these episodes are not available to view on the service, but users can add them to their "watch list." A Google spokesperson told us that Google does this to gauge viewer interest. As of this writing, if you click on any episode of "Larry King Live" you will be greeted with the text: "This show is currently unavailable." This, of course, raises the question: Why would CNN remove an episode from a service where it was already unavailable for viewing?  Furthermore, although Google Play provides a list of episodes, they do not provide a description for each individual episode. The store instead provides a brief biography of Larry King and a short summary of the "Larry King Live" show. In other words, even if this episode had been listed, it would have made no mention of Tara Reade, which, again, would give CNN little incentive (if, that is, the unfounded notion that CNN was "running cover" for Biden was accurate) to remove the episode.  Shortly after this rumor went viral, Matt Dornic, head of CNN Communications, took to Twitter to state that "CNN did not remove anything," that the network did not have a distribution deal for "Larry King Live" with Google Play, and that Google did not source its listing through CNN:   The rumor that CNN was "running cover" for the Biden campaign is undercut by the fact that CNN drew attention to this episode during an April 25, 2020 segment. In the accompanying article, CNN wrote: CNN (CNN)Newly surfaced video from 1993 appears to feature the mother of Tara Reade, a woman who accused presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault, calling into a cable TV show to seek advice around the time of the alleged assault. In a "Larry King Live" segment that aired on August 11, 1993, on CNN, an unnamed woman calls in to the show with her location identified on the screen as San Luis Obispo, California. The show was about the cutthroat nature of Washington, DC, politics and media. "Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington?" she asks. "My daughter has just left there after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him." It isn't clear exactly how Google populates its list of "Larry King Live" episodes, but the list is not comprehensive. For instance, the first episode of "Larry King Live" aired on CNN back in 1985. The earliest episode listed on Google Play, however, is from 1987 (and features Donald Trump).  1987 We have yet to see any evidence that an Aug. 11, 1993, episode of "Larry King Live" was ever listed on Google Play. Since Google Play's "Larry King Live" catalog is missing several episodes, it's possible that no episode for this date was ever listed on (and therefore never removed from) Google's streaming service.  Lee, MJ.  "Biden's Accuser Says Mother Called Into 'Larry King Live' in 1993 for Advice After Alleged Sexual Assault."
  CNN.  25 April 2020. White, Jamie.  "CNN Removes Larry King' Episode With Biden Accuser's Mother From Google Play Archive."
  Infowars.  26 April 2020. Wulfsohn, Joseph.  "CNN 'Larry King' Episode Featuring Biden Accuser's Mother Disappears From Google Play Catalog."
  Fox News.  26 April 2020. During theJuly 31, 2011, edition of NBCsMeet the Press, Jennifer Granholm -- a Democrat who served as governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 -- was asked to bring her own experience to bear on the debate over the federal debt ceiling.Clearly the entitlement question has to be addressed, Granholm said, referring to the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is a major contributor to the growing federal debt.However, Granholm told host David Gregory that she was skeptical about whether such cuts would be a boon for the economy at large.I can tell you, David, I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, Granholm said. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth. What results in growth is making sure you've got a good business climate for businesses to grow and prosper. And so we've got to cut where we can in order to invest where we must in order to grow the economy. And it's that investment side that I worry that those who are affiliated with the tea party or who are on the far right don't realize that other countries are co-investing with businesses in order to create jobs in their countries.If we do nothing more than just cut, she continued, that will continue to accelerate the lack of growth in (gross domestic product). So we've got to realize that the strategy here must be very specific. Yes, you've got to reform entitlements, but you've got reform entitlements and invest in order to grow because the quickest way to take down your deficit is through growth.We wondered about three elements of Granholms comments: whether she cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, how poor Michigans economic growth has been over the same period and whether spending cuts to state government hampered economic growth. (Separately, were looking at a comment from the same show by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in which he accused Granholm of supporting the highest tax increases in the history of Michigan, which helped push unemployment from 6.8 percent to 15.3 percent. )Well take up the three claims in order.Did Michigan cut more from its government than any state in the country?To answer this question, we turned toThe Fiscal Survey of States, a twice-annual publication of the National Association of State Budget Officers that offers fiscal data for the 50 states going back to 1979.We determined that the most appropriate data to use were figures for annual expenditures from the 50 states general funds. Well acknowledge up front that this is not the only measure that could be used to compare how much state governments have been cut. In fact, Michigans state revenues flow into two accounts, the general fund and the school-aid fund, and the numbers we looked at only take into account the general fund. However, fiscal experts told us that the general fund offers a reasonable yardstick for state spending, and it also turned out to be the same measurement Granholm used, according to a spokeswoman. (Then theres the eternal statisticians lament: When comparing all 50 states across a period of nearly a decade, you take the statistics you can get. )We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholms tenure.And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didnt? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If theyd been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe.Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said.Well address the causes of these declines in a moment, but for now, we can say that by this measure, Granholm is right that spending on government declined faster in Michigan than in any other state between 2003 and 2010.How poor was Michigans economic growth during Granholms tenure?To answer this question, we looked at gross domestic product data for Michigan as published by the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Just as the bureau calculates the national gross domestic product, it does the same for individual states.) Once again, we compared Michigans GDP for 2003 and 2010.By this measure too, Michigan performed worst in the nation. Its gross domestic product rose by 6 percent over that period (again, not adjusted for inflation). That may sound okay, but its not. Its only about one-third the rate of the next worst-performing state -- Ohio, at 17 percent growth. And its less than one-fifth of the increase of the nation as a whole, which was 31 percent.So where economic growth is concerned, Granholm is right again: Michigans performance during her tenure was uniquely poor among the 50 states.Did spending cuts to state government hamper Michigans economic growth?The cuts to government almost certainly hampered Michigans economy. But experts say that they werent the primary cause of the states poor economic performance.Long-term troubles in the automotive industry, the national recession and raising taxes on businesses and individuals were all partially to blame, said Patrick L. Anderson, an economic analyst in East Lansing, Mich., who wrote a report released by Granholm's successor elected in 2010, Republican Rick Snyder.Charles Ballard, an economist at Michigan State University and author ofMichigan's Economic Future: A New Look, added that even before the national economic crisis of 2008, the auto industry limped along for much of the decade, with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler losing market share steadily. In Michigan, we dont have Honda plants -- we have GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. Two of those companies went into bankruptcy. For better or for worse, we are home to the portions of the industry that did the worst.Meanwhile, Ballard added that Michigans tax structure -- which doesnt tax most services or Internet sales and mail-order -- exacerbated the fiscal impact of these economic problems.If the sectors that arent taxed are growing faster than those that are, the sales tax applies to an ever-shrinking portion of the economy, Ballard said. So if you put the tax law on autopilot, the portion of your economy going to tax revenues shrinks every year.In fact, Michigans revenues peaked in 2000 and are not projected to return to peak until 2020, said Arturo Perez, a state budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. No other state has had a similar revenue situation.Given this backdrop, a more appropriate way of thinking about it is that a poor economy in Michigan caused a drop in state tax revenue, which in turn forced Granholm to cut government services -- not the other way around. Declining tax revenue is a much more urgent factor for state governments than for the federal government, since most states are constrained from using deficit spending. (Michigan is one, though unavoidable deficits may be resolved in the next fiscal year.) This means that tax revenues play a more direct role in determining spending levels than they do at the federal level.The plain fact is that state economic growth rates are in the short run linked to the demand for products that are produced in the state -- products like autos in Michigan, oil in Texas, sunny vacations in Florida and gambling holidays in Nevada, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. Demand for these products can have booms and busts that are completely unrelated to a states typical tax rate or spending level. In the short run, when demand for a states products plummets, its state tax revenues fall, forcing the state to trim state spending or increase state tax rates. Our ruling Theres strong evidence supporting two of Granholms statistical claims -- that government spending has fallen faster in Michigan than in any other state, and that the states economic performance has been especially poor compared to other states.However, in theMeet the Pressinterview, Granholm was trying to use her experience as a governor to make a larger point about how cutting government did not result in economic growth. She's probably correct that government cuts hampered her state's recovery, at least in the short term, but Michigans experience over the last decade suggests that the reverse is an even bigger factor -- that is, poor economic growth hurts tax revenues and, in turn, forces government cuts. This doesnt mean that Granholms point is inaccurate, but in trying to apply a state lesson to a federal problem, shes ignored a key factor in how state fiscal policy works. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True. Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013. Claim:  Part of the proceeds from bags of pink and white M&Ms goes to fund breast cancer research.   . Examples:   [Collected on the Internet, 2004] M & M's With A Purpose Send this to everyone you know and get the word out there. There are many women out there who have Breast Cancer. Let's do all we can to support the fight to end this disease.  The makers of M&M's candies have teamed up with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to raise funds through the sale of their new pink & white M&M's candies. Special bags of M&M's will be on sale in September, October and November, 2004. (The bags are clearly marked). For each 8-ounce bag of the special candies sold, the makers of M&M's (Masterfoods) will donate 50 cents to the foundation.  If you pass this e-mail around you will get no money, just the satisfaction of trying to save a life.  Please, pass this to every female (and every male) you know! The next time you want a treat, please pick up a bag now sold in stores nationwide.  You will be donating to a great cause and satisfying your sweet tooth. Please pass on to all your family and friends for who knows  the life you save one day may be your own, or that of a family member or friend. Check it out:  https://www.m-ms.com/us/news/promotions/komen/index.jsp  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] The makers of M&M candies has teamed up with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to raise funds through the sale of their new "pink & white" M&M candies. For each 8-ounce bag of the special candies sold, the makers of M&M (Masterfoods) will donate 50 cents to the foundation. The next time you want a treat, please pick up a bag (now sold in stores nationwide)  you will be donating to a great cause and satisfying your sweet tooth. Please pass on to all your family and friends.  Thank you. Origins:  Recent years have brought an awareness of how widespread is breast cancer, a disease which the American Cancer Society estimates will be diagnosed in 211,300 new cases and cause 40,000   deaths in 2003 alone, making this an illness that is everyone's business. We're happy to report this is one of the rare e-mail exhortations that is truthful. Since 2003, Masterfoods (the parent company of Mars, Inc., the producer of M&M's brand candies) has donated 50 cents for every bag of Pink and White M&M's sold to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, a charitable organization that funds cancer research, education, and screening.  The foundation is very good at what is does and has raised $450 million in the past 21 years, $139 million in 2002 alone. Susan G. Komen  Every year the Masterfoods corporation has promised a minimum donation of $250,000 to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation from the Pink and White M&M's promotion no matter how sales turn out.  The 2003 and 2004 promotions were each capped at a maximum donation of $650,000, so it wasn't strictly true that every time someone bought a bag of the pink and white confections, 50 cents went to the Foundation  those campaigns were effectively over once 1.3 million bags of the pink and white candies were vended, even if some of those bags remained on store shelves afterwards.  The 2005 campaign made no mention of a maximum donation cap, and the Foundation has reported that Masterfoods' 2005 donation totaled an impressive $970,895.   2005 The 2006 Pink and White M&Ms campaign is scheduled to run from August 15 through October 31, 2006, with Masterfoods promising to donate 35 cents for each 14-ounce package and 50 cents for each 21.3-ounce package of the candy sold during that period.  Again, no mention has been  2006 made of a maximum donation cap for this year. This sort of promotion is known as cause-related marketing:  the manufacturer chooses a worthy cause, then ties a particular product to a donation scheme dependent upon sales. Through this promotion, the manufacturer gains far greater publicity for its act of generosity than if it had merely cut a check and handed it over to a charity, the product picks up positive associations in the minds of consumers that last well beyond the campaign, shoppers are moved to select the designated product over that of a competitor's or to purchase more than they otherwise would have, and consumer guilt over "sinful" products (like candy) is counterbalanced by the impression such purchases contribute to the greater good. Cause-related marketing is experiencing a sharp upswing, so expect to see more tie-ins between products and charities on your next few shopping expeditions. Barbara "cause and market effect" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 September 2006    Sources:   Coomes, Mark.  "Tickled Pink to Help."   The [Albany] Times Union.  18 October 2003  (p. D1).     Hoffman, Barbara.  "M&Ms Sweet Charity."   The New York Post.  16 September 2003  (p. 57). Claim:  "Poison pill" amendment inserted into Health Care Bill by Senator Reid makes proposed bill unamendable if passed. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! [Rest of article here.] here   Origins:  The gist of this piece, a reproduction of a Washington Examiner editorial, is that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada furtively slipped language into a health care reform bill which would absolutely prevent Congress from ever modifying or repealing the section of the bill to which it applied.  Although the language cited does appear in the bill, it has been quoted out of context and its applicability has been exaggerated. editorial It is true that beginning on page 1,001 of the referenced measure, Section 3403 reads in part:  '... it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.'"  However, that sentence fragment is a misleading, selective excerpt which doesn't provide the full context.  The passage reads, in full: measure (A) IN GENERAL   It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).  (B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2). (C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. What that means, in effect, is that Congress may not make modifications to the referenced section if such modifications do not meet criteria specified elsewhere  ["subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)"] in the measure.  Those criteria are: (A) REQUIREMENTS.  Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the following requirements:(i) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination under paragraph (7)(A) in the determination year, the proposal shall include recommendations so that the proposal as a whole (after taking into account recommendations under clause (v)) will result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending in the implementation year that is at least equal to the applicable savings target established under paragraph (7)(B) for such implementation year. In determining whether a proposal meets the requirement of the preceding sentence, reductions in Medicare program spending during the 3-month period immediately preceding the implementation year shall be counted to the extent that such reductions are a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in the proposal for a change in the payment rate for an item or service that was effective during such period pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A). (C) NO INCREASE IN TOTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM SPENDING.  Each proposal submitted under this section shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation. In other words,  these prolix passages do not absolutely bar any changes to the measure; they're simply protections that prohibit Congress from enacting modifications to the referenced section that would create an increase in net Medicare program spending or cause it to go over budget.  Moreover, page 1002 specifically states that such protections may be waived by a three-fifths vote of the Senate: (D) WAIVER.  This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (E) APPEALS.  An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph. Last updated:  22 March 2010 Top California Democrats like State Senate leader Kevin de Len often claim that the states economy is humming right along  and not weighed down by theirambitiousnew clean energy requirements. Critics, particularly the oil industry, consider the states clean energy push detrimental to Californias economy and job outlook. So, its not a surprise that De Len, author of the states most recentclean energy law, touted Californias strong job growth during a recent speech abroad about climate change. De Len, D-Los Angeles, spoke about Californias role as a leader in the fight against climate change to members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. He told them California has robust job growth that outpaces the rest of the nation,all while reducing carbon emissions and cleaning up the air we breathe, according to a Novemberpress releasefrom the senators office. Californias employment picture has certainly improved from the Great Recession, when it lostmore than a million jobsfrom 2007 to 2009. Economists credit a rebound in housing and construction jobs plus strong tech sector growth for the states healthier employment figures. But, we wondered, is the state seeing job growth that truly outpaces the rest of the nation, as the senator claimed? Or did his statement exaggerate the states good job news? We set out on a fact check limited to this question. We did not evaluate the additional question of how the states clean energy rules have affected Californias job growth. Photo by Andrew Nixon/Capital Public Radio Our research Economists we spoke with said De Lens statement, on its face, is correct. They said they took his statement to mean Californias job growth rate was higher than the countrys overall job growth rate. And it is. In 2014, California added jobs at a 3 percent clip compared with the previous year. That was more than a percentage point higher than the countrys overall rate of 1.9 percent during the same period, according to data from Chapman UniversitysCenter for Economic Research. Overall, the statement is accurate, said Professor Esmael Adibi, the centers director. We are outperforming the U.S. And thats not a new trend, said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University. The state has actually outperformed the country as a whole for 44 consecutive months, which amounts to almost four years, Reaser said. Still, theres more to the nations job picture. Fourteen other states in 2014 had a higher job growth rate than the country overall, according to data provided by the economists. Californias accomplishment was hardly unique. Another interpretation of De Lens claim is that Californias job growth rate outpaced all other individual states in the rest of the nation. Asked to clarify the senators statement, De Lens office pointed to recentnews articlesthat describe California adding more total jobs than any other state, and adding jobs at a faster pace than the nation overall. Still, the phrase rest of the nation is open to different readings, Abibi said. Is he talking about the U.S. as a whole or is he talking about Texas or North Dakota or Michigan? the professor asked. Thats significant because five other states had a faster job growth rate than Californias 3 percent last year. They were North Dakota at 3.8 percent; Nevada at 3.5 percent; Colorado at 3.3 percent; Florida at 3.2 percent and Texas with 3.1 percent, according to state and federal data. Senator Kevin De Len addresses members of the U.K. Parliament in London. Photo courtesy De Len's office. Our ruling State Senator Kevin de Len said earlier this month that California has robust job growth that outpaces the rest of the nation, all while reducing carbon emissions and cleaning up the air we breathe. We limited our fact check to whether California has grown jobs faster than the rest of the nation. We did not evaluate the impact the states clean energy policies have had on job growth, a question raised by the second part of De Lens statement. Economists we spoke with agree that Californias job growth rate has been higher than the nations overall average  for several years. Last year, the states job growth rate was more than a percentage point higher than the countrys. But a clarification is needed: California is far from the only state thats added jobs at a faster pace than the national average. Fourteen others accomplished the same feat. And there is another way to read the senators statement. One could assume the senator meant Californias job growth rate outpaced all other individual states. Yet, five other states had higher job growth rates in 2014. Those states are part of the rest of the nation, and would likely balk at the idea of California outpacing their job growth success. In the end, we rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUEThe statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Stephen Colbert has intervieweda slew ofpresidential candidates in the first weeks of his new job hosting CBSThe Late Show, including Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His time with Cruz on Sept. 21 stood out for a fact-filled back and forth about a major Republican role model, President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz if he could agree with Reagans support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants and record of raising taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said of course not before pivoting to Reagans most conservative accomplishments, one being that he signed the largest tax cut in history and spurred economic growth. You know, when Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. Theres only one other four-year period where thats true. Thats true from 2008 to 2012, Cruz said. Colbert jumped in, saying But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So its a matter of compromising. PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role  and the first one in five years, period.) Did Reagan really shift course on tax cuts when the growth stopped? A CBS press contact did not return an email for comment. Reagans tax cut As Cruz said, the Gipper really did cut taxes  with the help of Congress  in his first year as president. The largest tax cut in history that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. This law included across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent to statutory income tax rates. As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic. These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Still, Baker said, the loopholes were big ones. Reagans tax increases 1982:The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP. The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.) This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagans tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues. Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars. Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 safe harbor leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration. 1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate. 1984:The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored, Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions). So where does that leave Reagans tax record on the whole? Its mixed. On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colberts show didnt prove to have lasting effects on the whole. A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back. Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases. Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases, Bartlett wrote. Our ruling Responding to Cruzs assertion that Reagan signed the largest tax cut in history, Colbert said he reversed it and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Legislation that Reagan signed over his time in office and raised taxes did not completely reverse the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. But the broader point Colbert makes is on point. Reagan agreed to raise taxes to deal with budget deficits, even if he wasnt enthusiastic about it. We rate the claim Mostly True. Wilsonville businessman John Ludlow is in a four-way race for Clackamas County Commission Chair in next week's election. He says that he is the only candidate in the race who will refuse to join the Public Employees Retirement System.Is he the only candidate in the race to make such a promise? Perhaps just as important a question: Are elected officials even able to decline joining the retirement system?The Public Employees Retirement System is a hot-button issue with critics who claim it eats way too much money, hurting taxpayers to benefit public employees. The retirement program is open to participating employers, from the state of Oregon to school districts and cities.We turned to Paul Cleary, the retirement system's executive director. He pointed toOregon Revised Statutes 238A.100 (2): A person who is elected or appointed to an office with a fixed term ...may elect not to become a member of the pension program by giving the Public Employees Retirement Board written notice not later than 30 days after taking office. The trick here, says Cleary, is that for a person to decline membership, that person cannot have been a PERS member, ever. Ludlow is a former Wilsonville city councilor and served as Wilsonvilles mayor from 1989 to 1991, but received no retirement benefits from his time in public office.Ludlow, 63, says he has never been a member of PERS, and the Public Employees Retirement System confirms he is not a member.The other Clackamas County commission chair candidates are members of the Public Employees Retirement System. They are county Chairwoman Charlotte Lehan, county Commissioner Paul Savas, and state Rep. Dave Hunt. They cannot opt out. Savas said he never knew he could decline to join.He is the only candidate who will refuse, and who can refuse, to join PERS. We expect Ludlow to keep his promise if he wins, and we rate his statement True. Claim:  Letter from jailed man results in his family's receiving help with the plowing from the police.  LEGEND Examples:  [Collected on Facebook, April 2012] An old gentleman lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard. His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:  Dear Vincent, I am feeling pretty sad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over. I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days. Love, Papa A few days later he received a letter from his son. Dear Papa, Don't dig up that garden. That's where the bodies are buried.  Love, Vinnie  At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left. That same day the old man received another letter from his son. Dear Papa, Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That's the best I could do under the circumstances.  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] A true story told by L.A.P.D. An old mexican man lived alone in East Los Angeles. He wanted to spade his garden, but it was very hard work. His only son, Jose, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament. Dear Jose: I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my garden this year. I'm just too old to be digging up a garden. If you were here, all my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the garden for me. Tu Padre A few days later, he received a letter from his son. Dear Papa: Por Dios, Papa, don't dig up the garden. That's where I buried all my drugs and money. Tu hijo,Jose At 6 a.m. the next morning, the L.A. Sheriffs showed up and dug up the entire area without finding any drugs or money. They apologized to the old man and left. That same day, the old man received another letter from his son. Dear Papa: Go ahead and plant your garden now, papa. It's the best I could do under the circumstances. Love,Jose Origins:  As is common to urban legends, this tale has been told a number of ways over the years. In the examples above, an elderly man needs help in preparing his garden for planting; but in the version we are more accustomed to encountering, it's the 20-something  wife of a young man jailed for robbery who desperately needs assistance in plowing the fields of the family farm if she and the little ones are to make it through another year.  Sometimes the family teetering on the brink of starvation includes an aged and infirm grandfather too. Always the characters are presented as sympathetic, with the incarcerated fellow often described either as wrongly imprisoned or as having committed whatever illegal act that landed him in hoosegow only because his family was in dire straits and he knew no other way to get them the money they needed to get by. It should almost go without saying that claims of "A true story told by L.A.P.D." to the contrary, the account is fiction. We've seen that same telling (old man and his garden) reported of a fellow in Minnesota. (So can you, by comparing the example quoted above to this  tale, also found on the Web in 2003.) But, as mentioned earlier, the story also circulates in "distressed wife" forms, one of which you can read here. this here The short story "The Good Lord Will Provide" by Lawrence Treat and Charles M. Plotz is a decades-old expression of the legend. It appeared in the June 1973 edition of the Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine and has subsequently been reprinted in the 1981 mystery anthology 100 Malicious Little Mysteries.  Likewise, the tale appears in a 1959 humor book, wherein a jailed farmer gets police to spade his potato field by writing to his wife from jail that that's where he hid the money and the guns. However, the legend is indeed an old one. This following example (titled "The Barber's Clever Wife) appeared in print in 1884: [A poor barber, ordered by his wife to go begging to the King, was given a piece of waste land.] 'Was there ever such a dunderhead?' raged the clever wife. 'What good is ground unless we can till it? and where are we to get bullocks and ploughs?' But being, as we have said, an exceedingly clever person, she set her wits to work, and soon thought of a plan whereby to make the best of a bad bargain. She took her husband with her, and set off to the piece of waste land; then, bidding her husband imitate her, she began walking about the field, and peering anxiously into the ground. But when anybody came that way, she would sit down, and pretend to be doing nothing at all. Now it so happened that seven thieves were hiding in a thicket hard by, and they watched the barber and his wife all day, until they became convinced something mysterious was going on. So at sunset they sent one of their number to try and find out what it was. 'Well, the fact is,' said the barber's wife, after beating about the bush for some time, and with many injunctions to strict secrecy, 'this field belonged to my grandfather, who buried five pots full of gold in it, and we were just trying to discover the exact spot before beginning to dig. You won't tell any one, will you?' The thief promised he wouldn't, of course, but the moment the barber and his wife went home, he called his companions, and telling them of the hidden treasure, set them to work. All night long they dug and delved, till the field looked as if it had been ploughed seven times over, and they were as tired as tired could be; but never a gold piece, nor a silver piece, nor a farthing did they find, so when dawn came they went away disgusted. The barber's wife, when she found the field so beautifully ploughed, laughed heartily at the success of her stratagem, and going to the corn-dealer's shop, borrowed some rice to sow in the field. Yet it (or at least key parts of it) are older than even that. Consider Aesop's (620-560 BC) "A Father and His Children"  while it lacks the element of the trickster's manipulating enemies into performing the necessary task, the lure of buried treasure is used to con indolent offspring into digging up the arable land left to them, an action that directly leads to a rich reward come harvest time: A Father and his Children.  A countryman who had lived handsomely in the world upon his honest labour and industry, was desirous his sons should do so after him; and being now upon his death-bed, my dear children, says he, I reckon myself bound to tell you, before I depart, that there is a considerable treasure hid in my vineyard; wherefore, pray be sure to dig, and search narrowly for it when I am gone. The father died, and the sons fell immediately to work upon the vineyard. They turned it up over and over, and not one penny of money was to be found there, but the profit of the next vintage expounded the riddle; for the ground being so well stirred and loosened, it produced a plentiful crop: a treasure indeed! Like any good piece of contemporary lore, no matter how old the original story, it is reworked to present it in a modern light, as this 2005 example titled "Who Says Rednecks Aren't Bright?" shows: "Hello, is this the FBI?""Yes. What can I do for you?""I'm calling to report about my neighbor Virgil Smith.He's hiding marijuana inside his firewood!""Thank you very much for the call, sir."The next day, the FBI agents descend on Virgil's house.They search the shed where the firewood is kept.Using axes, they bust open every piece of wood, but find no marijuana.They sneer at Virgil and leave.The phone rings at Virgil's house."Hey, Virgil! This here is Floyd.Did the FBI come?""Yeah!""Did they chop your firewood?""Yep.""Happy Birthday, buddy!!!! The tale can also be bent to suit different ethnicities and histories: The phone rings at KGB headquarters, sometime in the 1960's"Hello?""Hello, is this KGB?""Da.""I'm calling to report my neighbor, Hershel Yankovitz is an enemy of the State. He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his firewood.""This will be noted."The next day, the KGB sends their hoodlums to Hershel's tiny house. Out back, in the shed, they violently break every piece of firewood in their search for contraband. They find nothing. Angry and cursing, they leave.Ten minutes later, the phone rings at Hershel's house."Hello, Hersh, did the KGB show up?""They just left.""Did they chop up your firewood?""They certainly did.""Good. Now it's your turn to call. My vegetable patch needs plowing." This urban legend's appeal lies not only in the delightful notion of the police or thieves being sent on a wild goose chase that left them sweaty, dirty, and exhausted, but in the belief this snipe hunt served a noble purpose  namely, their wasted efforts resulted in the completion of an important chore that would otherwise have had to remain undone. We marvel at the imagined cleverness of the proponent who found a way to accomplish a task necessary to his family's survival, even using his nemesis as the muscle. Barbara "mail ordered" Mikkelson Sightings:  In a 1991 episode of the TV sitcom Wings (titled "Try to Remember the Night He Dismembered," first broadcast on 5 December 1991), Roy Biggins (while supposedly hypnotized) reveals to the rest of the airport crew that he once stole $250,000, and the money was buried in his back yard while he waited for the statute of limitations on his crime to run out.  The others sneak into his yard at night and dig it up with the intent of finding the money and returning it to its proper owner, whereupon Roy arrives, informs them that the story about stolen money was fiction, and thanks them for digging a hole for his new outdoor hot tub. A number of our readers have mentioned this legend's having turned up in the British sitcom Porridge and one was able to pinpoint the precise episode: "Ways and Means," air date 3 October 1974: Fletcher: I was on remand once, in Brixton. I done this job  a jeweler's in Southwark. Only they got me, but they didn't get the stuff, see. I hadn't ... you know what I mean [indicating stashing it]. So I'm in Brixton. And I writes to my old lady, Isobel, and says how sorry I was that I got done. Then I says, "As you may well be a bit short this winter without me providing, why don't you plant your own vegetables? I suggest you dig over the back garden as soon as possible." Course next morning there's twelve police round there with shovels, the devious nurks. McLaren: Typical. Did they find the stuff? Fletcher: Course they didn't, it was in the bottom drawer of the wardrobe. Just my way of getting the garden turned over, see. Why let Isobel do it when you've got twelve great big nosey coppers with spades? McLaren: You crafty nurk. Fletcher: We had some beautiful broccoli with Christmas dinner. I wrote to her next and suggested she swept the chimney, but they wouldn't buy that one. Last updated:  5 March 2014   Cerf, Bennett.  The Laugh's on Me.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1959   (p. 252).    Steel, Flora Annie Webster.  Wide Awake Stories.   London, Trubner and Company, 1884.     Treat, Lawrence and Charles M. Plotz.  "The Good Lord Will Provide."   Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine.  June 1973.