The U.S.tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent, while the business tax rate in Canada is 15 percent.
Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens  On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians  they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States  with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True.
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. Marjorie Taylor Greene courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires."   Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation, and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as "Mixture." Sometimes, Snopes readers stumble on old stories that require us to revisit key moments of history. One such story was of the courageous actions of Neerja Bhanot, an Indian flight attendant on Pan Am flight 73, which was hijacked in 1986 by Palestinian militants on its way to the United States while on a stopover in Karachi, Pakistan. Neerja Bhano Many of our readers shared social media posts, and queries, asking us to detail some of the main events of the hijacking, including Bhanots death from a gunshot wound. posts   One reader asked us to confirm the following: When radical Islamic terrorists hijacked her A/C in Karachi, Pakistan she informed the pilots (who used their escape hatch to runaway) and kept both the passengers/remaining crew calm. When the terrorists demanded to know who the Americans were on the flight so they could execute them she gathered all the passports and hid the ones belonging to Americans under seat cushions. The terrorists confused and unable to determine the national origins of the passengers didn't execute anyone. When Pakistani police raided the plane she was able to nearly singlehandedly evacuate all the passengers as the firefight ensued. She being one of the last people on board did a last check and found three children still hiding. As she led the children to safety the surviving terrorists spotted the children and opened fire on them. Neerja jumped in the way of the bullets and was mortally wounded. She was able to evac the children to safety before dying from her wounds. Neerja was awarded the Ashok Chakra Award by India, the highest peacetime gallantry award possible. She was the youngest and first civilian to ever be awarded this honor. Through testimonies from the flight crew and passengers during the sentencing of one of the hijackers, and interviews done by the BBC, we were able to gather key facts from that fateful day. In 2004, Zayad al Safarini, a Jordanian hijacker who was part of the attack, was sentenced by a U.S. district judge to 160 years in prison. At the hearing for his sentencing, a number of passengers, flight attendants, and Bhanots brother, came forward to recount the events of the hijacking. The full transcript of their testimonies can be read here. testimonies BBC sentenced here The Palestinian militants who hijacked the aircraft were affiliated with the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), which was opposed to U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East, and was described as a secular international terrorist organization. When the hijackers boarded the plane, they began trying to identify any Americans on board. A 2016 BBC report included interviews with the surviving flight attendants, described the scene: described BBC report Sunshine, Madhvi Bahuguna and another flight attendant began collecting passports, quietly avoiding collecting any that were American. They then went through the bags of passports they had collected, secretly sifting out any remaining American ones and tucking them under their seats or concealing them in their clothing. Mike Thexton, a passenger on the plane, describes the act in his book What Happened to The Hippy Man? as "extremely brave, selfless and clever". "I may be biased but I feel that day proved that the flight attendants on board were some of the best in the industry." Descriptions from passengers and family members from the sentencing of Safarini detailed the moment that flight attendants were told to gather passports, and the ways in which they tried to protect the Americans among them. Aneesh Bhanot, Neerjas brother, who was not on the plane as these events took place, described this effort as one carried out by all the flight attendants together: Descriptions Neerja was an Indian citizen. All the other flight attendants were also Indian citizens. Mr. Safarini and his gang were targeting Americans, as was very obvious from the passenger calls which you heard later on. Neerja and all the other attendants knew this. That is why when they asked them to get the passports of all the passengers, they hid the American passports on the airplane. He also cited the testimony of another passenger that was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer in September 1986. A clipping of that paper is available below (in which Bhanot is referred to as Neerja Mishra):   Michael John Thexton, a British passenger, recounted the following: recounted Then came the call for passports, and I should have ignored it. But I felt that I had to obey orders. So I took out my passport and I handed it in, still thinking that the Americans would be in front of us, not reckoning the ingenuity and the extraordinary bravery of the stewardess who was making the collection in discarding American passports that had a white face. I suppose the British were [the] third choice for the terrorists. And after the Americans and the Israelis, mine was the only one of a small handful of British passports with a white face in that pile. I think maybe six or seven, something of that sort. So the call came over the public address for passenger Michael John to come forward, then Michael John Thexton, and I knew that they wanted to shoot me. Darrell Pieper, an American passenger, credited flight attendant Sunshine Vesuwala for protecting his identity. In his testimony, he said, Sunshine hid my passport when she realized the hijackers are looking for Americans. I'm grateful to her for her quick thinking and action, which again saved my life. credited Gregg Maisel, the attorney representing the U.S. government, said, the flight attendants, risking their own lives, deliberately refused to accept United States passports from some passengers and hid several United States passports under seat cushions. said Given that Bhanot played a big role in protecting the American passengers by hiding their passports, but was not the only flight attendant doing this, we rate this part of the claim as true. In this instance, even as Bhanot showed remarkable bravery in getting passengers to safety, she was not alone in this effort. According to Maisel, passengers escaped after Bhanot and others were able to open up some exits: escaped As the bullets and grenades flew, Neerja Bhanot, as well as other flight attendants and passengers, heroically managed to force open two exits in the economy section. The opening of the rear exit triggered inflation of the emergency slide, but the opening of the exit over the wing did not trigger the inflation of a second emergency slide. People clamored to reach both exits fearful that the hijackers would resume the assault.[...]This diagram illustrates the efforts of surviving hostages to escape the aircraft using the emergency slide and climbing onto the wing of the plane. While the slide was a safer escape route, the sheer number of people attempting to leave the plane through this exit at night resulted in additional injuries to some who were unable to exit quickly enough to avoid being crushed by others behind them.[...]At the direction of several flight attendants, other passengers reentered the plane climbing over the wounded and the dead and used the rear exit where the slide was inflated to the safer escape route. Aneesh Bhanot also recounted an article written by a Pakistani passenger: recounted There's another passenger from Pakistan, a gentleman called Hussein, who had written an article in a newspaper called the Star of Pakistan. And he wrote again that says as the lights went out at 10:00 p.m. we was herded with the passengers and the shooting started. From nowhere, his savior, Neerja, and I'm sure other flight attendants also did the same thing, had the presence and the nerve to steer through the pandemonium to lead the passengers where to go. Neerja, by sheer zest, it seems, single-handedly opened the chute. Her favorite words to him and other passengers were, get out, run. In this instance, since Bhanot appeared to have taken the lead in helping passengers escape and was also aided by other crew and passengers, we rate this part of the claim as a mixture, given that she did not do this alone. Bhanots death was described through different accounts, based on information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. Some reports said she was protecting three children, while flight attendants described her being shot during the escape. Jennifer Levy, another attorney representing the U.S. government, described Bhanots final moments: described When the lights went out just before the final assault, Ms. Bhanot ran for the emergency door and activated the inflatable chute. Instead of escaping as one of the first off the aircraft, she remained on board to help others out of the plane. She was shot in the final assault. Although she was taken off the plane alive by her fellow flight attendants, she died shortly afterwards of massive bleeding. Viraf Daroga, Pan Ams director in Pakistan, described how Bhanot was brought down from the aircraft through the emergency chute: described Those who were injured were picked up as they came down the chute, put in ambulances that came rushing to the aircraft, and were driven off to various hospitals. Neerja, the senior purser, was brought down by her colleagues and was taken to the hospital. She died in the hospital in the arms of one of my staff. Aneesh Bhanots testimony described how Bhanot was indeed protecting three children when she was shot and killed: described Neerja could have been the first one to escape from the aircraft as she opened the emergency door, yet she chose not to do that. Instead, she got the passengers out and gave her own life, as we are told, while shielding three small children from gunfire. Her actions probably saved hundreds of lives. The Pan Am Historical Foundation also described her death by saying As the hijackers opened fire on passengers and crew, Neerja Bhanot lost her life shielding three children from bullets. described Since reports differ on what happened during Bhanots final moments, and some details remain uncertain, we rate the overall truth of this claim as "Mixture." But there is no doubting that her actions, as well as the actions of other flight attendants and crew, saved many lives. She was posthumously awarded the Ashok Chakra award, which is India's highest civilian decoration for bravery.  Ashok Chakra award In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities. May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an expos of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart. A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a "pay-for-play" scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation  The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction insofar as it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security  uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves (a fraction re-estimated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at closer to one-tenth of the United States' uranium production capacity in 2017)  thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits. one-tenth During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million, Schweizer claimed in Clinton Cash. Among those who followed Schweizer in citing the transaction as an instance of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City: speech Hillary Clintons State Department approved the transfer of 20% of Americas uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Trump's campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton "gave American uranium rights to the Russians": press release ad  An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, "So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?"   The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton's to Veto or ApproveAmong the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can.  nine law All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton "never intervened" in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn't personally involved. said said There Is No Evidence That Uranium Went to Russia That a change of company ownership occurred doesn't mean that 10 to 20 percent of America's uranium literally went to Russia. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ (Rosatom's mining subsidiary) is licensed to export uranium from the U.S. to other countries. Some exports did occur, however. A 2015 letter from NRC official Mark Satorius to a member of Congress revealed that an unspecified amount of yellowcake (semi-processed) uranium was shipped from a Uranium One facility in Wyoming to Canada between 2012 and 2014 for conversion (additional processing to prepare it for enrichment). A portion of that uranium was subsequently shipped to enrichment plants in Europe. letter The transfers to Canada were legal despite Uranium One's not holding an export license because the NRC granted such a license to the company that transported it. The transfers to Europe were legal because they were approved by another agency, the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Satorius stressed that the transfers were subject to NRC oversight and all applicable safety and national security regulations: Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services  or any other export license or license amendment  the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements. Additionally, a small amount of that exported uranium was, in fact, sold to other countries. According to a 2 November 2017 article in The Hill, Uranium One officials acknowledged that approximately 25 percent of the yellowcake exported for conversion was subsequently sold via "book transfer" to customers in Western Europe and Asia (yellowcake being a fungible commodity, that doesn't necessarily translate to a physical transfer of the product, however). article To date, there is no evidence that any of this uranium made its way to Russia. An NRC spokesman cited by FactCheck.org in October 2017 reaffirmed Satorius's assurances that "the U.S. government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia." NRC officials also say they're unaware of any Uranium One exports from the U.S. to foreign countries since 2014. cited The Timing of Most of the Clinton Foundation Donations Does Not MatchOf the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share  $131.3 million  came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.  came sold off Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times  Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company's chairman: according His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra's charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. "Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years," he said.  In addition to the Clinton Foundation donations, the New York Times also cited a $500,000 speaking fee paid to former president Bill Clinton by a Russian investment bank in June 2010, before the Uranium One deal was approved: The $500,000 fee  among Mr. Clinton's highest  was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences. Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One's stock, assigning it a "buy" rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was "the best play" in the uranium markets. The timing of Telfers Clinton Foundation donations and Bill Clinton's Renaissance Capital speaking fee might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary  that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all. Moreover, neither Clinton nor her department possessed sole power of approval over said transaction. Foundation Admits to Disclosure MistakesOne fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation's practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed  specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells: pledged discussion It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors. Such awkward collisions between Bills fundraising activities and Hillarys public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a former U.S. secretary of state and presidential candidate, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more. At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it's crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it  however little that may be. Update On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval  information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony "indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clintons charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal. reported On 24 October 2017, the U.S. House intelligence and oversight committees announced the launch of a joint investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Russian purchase of Uranium One. announced Becker, Jo and McIntire, Mike."Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal."
The New York Times.23 April 2015. Becker, Jo and Van Natta Jr., Don."After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton."
The New York Times.31 January 2008. Diamond, Jeremy and Collinson, Stephen."Trump: Clinton Is a 'World-Class Liar.'"
CNN.22 June 2016. Giustra, Frank."Statement of Frank Giustra."
Geo.ca.25 April 2015. Grimaldi, James V., Ballhaus, Rebecca, and Nicholas, Peter."Gifts to Hillary Clintons Family Charity Are Scrutinized in Wake of Book."
The Wall Street Journal.22 April 2015. Herb, Jeremy.  "House Republicans Investigating Obama-Era Uranium Deal."
 CNN.  24 October 2017. Hirsh, Michael."Bill and Hillary's Excellent Adventure."
Politico.25 April 2015. Kessler, Glenn.  "The Repeated, Incorrect Claim that Russia Obtained '20 Percent' of Our Uranium."
 The Washington Post.  31 October 2017. Kiely, Eugene. "The Facts on Uranium One."
FactCheck.org. 1 November 2017. McElveen, Josh.  "CloseUP Rewind: Hillary Clinton's First 1-on-1 Interview Since Declaring."
 WMUR.  27 July 2016. Pilkington, Ed."Clinton Cash: Errors Dog Bill and Hillary Expos  but Is There any 'There' There?"
The Guardian.5 May 2015. Qiu, Linda.  "Donald Trump Inaccurately Suggests Clinton Got Paid to Approve Russia Uranium Deal."
PolitiFact.30 June 2016. Robertson, Lori."Fact Check: Trump's False 'Corruption' Claim."
NBC News.25 October 2015. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison.  "FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Administration Approved Controversial Nuclear Deal with Moscow."
 The Hill.  17 October 2017. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison. "Uranium One Deal Led to Some Exports to Europe, Memos Show."
The Hill. 2 November 2017. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "NRC Approves Transfer of Control of Uranium Recovery Licenses to Russian Firm."
 24 November 2010. U.S. Dept. of Treasury."The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)."
20 December 2012. Updated [17 October 2017]: Added synopsis of new reportage by The Hill. Updated [1 November 2017]: Added clarifications, more sources, and the announcement of a congressional investigation. Correction [16 November 2017]: Previous versions of this article incorrectly stated that no Uranium One-produced uranium had been exported to foreign countries. In December 2020, TikTok user @philupmecup posted a short clip, viewed more than 1 million times, that included the text "An 18 year old can legally adopt a 17 year old," along with the caption "Let that sink in": posted   Among the tens of thousands of comments posted in response to the video were some that appeared to come from teenagers excited or amused by the prospect of high school friends adopting one another once one of them turns 18.  teenagers In reality, the restrictions and protocols implemented by adoption agencies make it unlikely that one teenager could adopt another one, except in rare and tragic circumstances. However, on a purely legal, hypothetical basis, most U.S. states do not prohibit such an arrangement. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Mixture." Adoption regulations vary from country to country, but the TikTok user who posted the claim lives in the United States, so our assessment will focus on the legal status quo there, which also varies between states. According to a January 2020 report published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Colorado, Delaware, Oklahoma, and American Samoa explicitly prohibit adoption by anyone under 21 years old; and Georgia and Idaho set the minimum age at 25. report In seven states (California, Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Utah) as well as the Northern Mariana Islands, the adopting parent must be at least 10 years older than the adoptive child, while in Puerto Rico that minimum age gap is 14 years, and in Idaho, it is 15 years.  In California, an exception exists to the age-gap requirement, namely where a court rules the adoption is in everyone's best interests and is done by a "stepparent, or by a sister, brother, aunt, uncle, or first cousin and, if that person is married, by that person and that person's spouse."  exception Similarly, Colorado law allows for an exception to the minimum age of 21, subject to court approval, and in South Dakota, the 10-year age gap can be waived where "the court finds the adoption of the child by the adult person in the best interest of the child." exception waived This means that only 10 out of the 50 states, whose combined population represents 79 million (or around 24% of the country's total population) legally prohibit an 18-year-old from adopting a 17-year-old  and in three of those states, loopholes exist which could, in principle, allow such an arrangement.  That's not to say that any 18-year-old could adopt any 17-year-old. Almost all states have some other legal prerequisites for adoption  in-state residency requirements, consent requirements, and the termination of the biological parents' parental rights. But  all other things being equal  only 10 states have age-specific limitations that would (in almost all cases) prohibit the arrangement in question. In practice, adoption agencies typically impose restrictions, or give preference to certain would-be adoptive parents, based on considerations such as financial stability. This alone would likely rule out the vast majority of 18-year-olds, who are only very rarely independently wealthy or have reliable, sustainable employment which they can balance with a college education and so on.  Another highly relevant consideration here is the time it can take to complete the rigorous procedures required for adopting a child. The California Department of Social Services, for example, advises that adoption agencies often taken between six months and one year to complete their assessment of would-be adoptive parents, and they typically take an additional "one to several months" to actually place the adoptive children with their new parents. Given these time frames, very few scenarios would warrant an 18-year-old's adopting a 17-year-old, when the 17-year-old will become a legal adult anyway, in at most 12 months.  advises As the economic collapse began to threaten homeowners, presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed to come to their aid.We must help the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure, he said on the campaign trail in June 2008. His plan called for changes in bankruptcy laws, a crackdown on predatory and fraudulent lenders and a $10 billion fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.With Obama seeking re-election in 2012, his record on the foreclosure crisis is under attack. The Republican group Crossroads GPS said in a recent television ad that Obama broke his promise to help struggling homeowners.The adshows Obama saying he would help them and then stamps BROKEN on the screen.PolitiFact examined the Crossroads claim and found that, indeed, Obama has had limited success with his plans to ease the mortgage crisis.I don't think there's much doubt, even within the administration, that the (foreclosure assistance) programs overpromised and underperformed -- embarrassingly so, said Ken Harney, who writes a weekly syndicated real estate column. 'They wimped out'During the 2008 campaign and his first few months in office, Obama promised a lot:  $10 billion foreclosure prevention fund to help struggling homeowners Change in bankruptcy law to allow judges to modify mortgage loan terms Tax credits for struggling homeowners A crackdown on predatory and fraudulent lenders Better disclosure about mortgages to home-buyers A moratorium on foreclosuresThe results, experts say, have been mixed at best. Obama himself says the housing crisis is the most stubborn issue he has faced.If we were not a capitalist economy, it would be very easy, said Ken Thomas, an independent bank analyst and economist in Miami. Were a market-regulated economy, were not a government-regulated economy. That makes it very hard for the government to do anything.The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, which Obama signed in 2009, makes it a federal crime to make a materially false statement on a mortgage application or to willfully overvalue a property to influence any action by a mortgage lending business. PolitiFact's Obameter gave that aPromise Kept. And new standards for helping people understand their mortgage were included in the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul passed in 2010,another Promise Kept.But he's had limited success with the promises that would have provided the biggest help to homeowners, according to five experts we interviewed. A temporary foreclosure moratorium happened in early 2009 as banks halted their filings while they waited for the new administration to get its plan in place to address the crisis. Its not clear, though, that it ultimately kept many people out of foreclosure.Analysts say the change in bankruptcy law to allow judges to modify individual loans could have made a significant difference, butit died in Congress.That sort of took the wind out of the program, in a way. If it had passed, it would have put much more fire under the feet of the mortgage servicers, said Alex Schwartz, a professor of urban policy at the New School and author of the bookHousing Policy in the United States. Instead, he said, you were left with voluntary participation of servicers.The foreclosure prevention fund was the heart of his promise. He originally pledged $10 billion but ended up setting aside $75 billion, using TARP funds. He predicted the money would assist 9 million homeowners.But after three years, only about 2 million people have won permanent mortgage help, according to theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development.The two main programs were dubbed HAMP and HARP. Under the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, lenders were encouraged to restructure loans for borrowers who were struggling to pay. The banks received small payments from the government as incentive. The Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, aimed to help people refinance their loans at lower interest rates.Everything has fallen short of original expectations, said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moodys.Other experts agree.Obamas program was overly complicated, it was voluntary, it was at a retail level, requiring people to call in and work with individual servicers. It was a mess, Schwartz said. (On our Obameter, we've rated the foreclosure fund aPromise Brokenbecause it fell far short of Obama's goal of helping 9 million homeowners. )Another shortcoming of the programs: The Obama administration did not require banks to include principal reduction in modifications. The programs allowed loan servicers to reduce loan balances, but it shocked no one when most banks opted not to.Making that a requirement would have gone a long way toward keeping people in their homes.Theres a real risk that when people are so severely underwater, they could walk away from their mortgages, Schwartz said. So you can make a strong case for principal reduction.Harney, the real estate columnist, also blamed the president for not flexing more political muscle with the banks.At a time when the administration could have pushed the big TARP-recipient banks much harder on modifications, short sales and principal reductions, they wimped out, Harney said. Whether the close connections between Wall Street and the new White House/Treasury staff got in the way of stronger designs, I don't know. The numbers speak for themselves.The landscape nowNumbers about the foreclosure crisis show things have improved only slightly.According toRealtyTrac, a website that collects and tracks foreclosure data, about 150,000 new foreclosure suits were filed nationwide in January 2009, the month Obama took office. They peaked at 203,948 in April 2009 and didnt dip below 100,000 in a single month until April 2011. And last month, another 97,000 new foreclosures were filed.Crossroads cites the high rate of underwater mortgages as evidence that Obamas programs failed. In early 2008, the number of underwater homes was estimated at 9 million. RealtyTrac says the current total is 12 million, or 28 percent of all mortgages.But that statistic, sobering as it is, offers a poor gauge of Obamas policies. Borrowers ended up in this situation because they took out high-priced mortgages and then their property values plummeted -- a market occurrence largely outside any presidents control.It mostly reflects bad policy leading up to the crash, said Schwartz. Policies that encouraged reckless mortgage underwriting, which inflated prices.Still, there are some signs of progress.Early this year, changes to HARP relaxed eligibility standards and extended the length of the program to the end of 2013. HAMP also was extended through next year. Schwartz said the programs were originally geared to subprime, high-risk mortgages. So as the recession worsened and people with more conventional mortgages lost jobs and income, the programs didnt accommodate them. The new standards attempt to reach a bigger pool of homeowners, including people deeper underwater and those still in good standing on their loans.The Treasury Department recently announced that the number of active permanent mortgage loan modifications agreed to by banks rose 12,139 to 794,748 during March, the most recent timeframe available. The Obama campaign cited HUD data showing that HAMP has trimmed a median of $535 off monthly payments of mortgages that have been modified as evidence of progress.I still think its meaningful and its helpful, Zandi said. Its just not as helpful as they had hoped for.Its also worth noting that there were forces working against Obama amid these efforts. The Republican-controlled House, for one.The Obama administration has been completely hamstrung by Congress, refusing to spend any money on stimulus, Schwartz said.The economy, for another.They (the foreclosure programs) havent been as effective as hoped and the reason is because a lot of the foreclosures were triggered by the 8 million-plus loss in jobs, said Norm Miller, an economist, financial analyst and professor at the University of San Diego.Our rulingThe Crossroads GPS ad said Obama has broken his promise to help millions of people facing foreclosure. Help is a vague notion, and theres certainly no doubt that the president has tried several avenues to stem the tide of home loan defaults. But theres also no doubt that his efforts have fallen far short of expectations -- and even the benchmarks he set for himself.Two primary programs aimed at helping people keep their homes -- HAMP and HARP -- have reached more households in recent months, but they are unlikely to ever help the 9 million homeowners Obama said he would assist. And its reasonable that he could have leaned harder on lenders to produce better results in the aftermath of multi-billion-dollar bank bailouts.Although Obamas efforts havent been the utter failure Crossroads suggests, there are still millions of struggling homeowners who need help in the ongoing foreclosure crisis. We rate the ads claim Mostly True. Update:This item has been updated to correct that Republicans control the House of Representatives rather than the entire Congress. In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. In July 2020, social media users began circulating a meme about "black kid named Tyrone Woodfork" who "severely beat an elderly couple, a Mr. & Mrs. Strait, who had been married for 65 years", along with the claim that "no national media carried the story" of the crime:  Tulsa, Oklahoma... a black kid named Tyrone Woodfork severely beat an elderly couple, a Mr. & Mrs. Strait, who had been married for 65 years. Tyrone RAPED Mrs. Strait, and she died of injuries received at his hands. Mr. Strait served in the 101st Airborne during WWII. NO national media carried the story. Tyrone was arrested yesterday. I supposed that if Mr. Strait had shot Tyrone, the whole country would know about the story. As it is, only Mrs. Strait died, so it's not of interest to Brian Williams and the rest of the main stream media media. Think about it. After 65 years of marriage. After serving our country. After 90 years of life, Mr. Strait has lost his wife to a rapist/murderer. NO ONE in the national media gives a flip and neither does Fakebook. The meme was based on a real incident, but it included no information informing readers that the events it described had taken place eight years earlier and were not a recent occurrence. Bob and Nancy Strait (90 and 85 years old, respectively) were a North Tulsa, Oklahoma, couple whom family members described as follows to local television station KOTV: The couple had been married more than 65 years, had six children and 18 grandchildren. They were great, great, great grandparents. Bob Strait was a paratrooper in World War II. He was with the 101st airborne where he was part of the D-day invasion.  He was awarded the Bronze Star. Nancy grew up in a log cabin in Kenwood, Oklahoma with no running water. She moved to Tulsa to work during the war. Nancy was a homemaker who made quilts and homemade jellies. Bob was a welder by trade and did woodworking for a hobby. The two did everything together; grocery shopping, doctor's visits, you name it. "Mama was the kind, if you came in, she would say 'go to the kitchen and help yourself with the groceries or let me get you something.' She fed everybody," daughter Andra said. "[Bob] is the kind of guy, your car breaks down on the highway, he could fix it. He'd stop and fix your car," said the Straits' son, Bob.  In April 2012, a message was widely circulated online claiming that the Straits had been "beaten to a pulp in [a] home invasion by colored offenders," and only press outside the U.S. covered the story: 90 Year Old White Couple Beaten To A Pulp In Home Invasion By Colored Offenders.... Hey Bobby Rush.. Going to wear anything for this white couple??? UPDATE: Once again it takes an overseas newspaper to report the truth because the American newspapers are too  afraid to post the truth... They might get boycotted against by the  Negroes! Couple met and married within a month and stayed together for 65 years... only to be parted after home invader beat wife to death. Nancy Strait, 85, was sexually assaulted and battered to death by burglar. Her husband Bob, 90, suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in attack.  Police have arrested 20-year-old Tyrone Dale David Woodfork On 14 March 2012, Nancy and Bob Strait were indeed robbed and beaten at their home.  Nancy Strait was sexually assaulted and died of her injuries the following day; Bob Strait was shot in the face with his own BB gun, suffered a broken jaw and cracked ribs, and died a few monts later, on 4 May 2012. Their assailants reportedly made off with the Straits' television, $200, a BB gun, and the couple's Dodge Neon. Tulsa police made an arrest the afternoon following the robbery after being tipped off to the location of the couple's stolen car: Tulsa police located the couple's stolen car in the 5700 block of East Easton Street. An alert driver on 4th and Yale called police when he saw the Plymouth Neon. He followed it to the neighborhood. That's when more than a dozen police cars stopped the driver. Investigators took 3 men and a woman in for questioning.  Police tell us there was a child inside the car with the woman. After interviewing the four, police arrested Tyrone Woodfork, 20.   Police said they had enough evidence to arrest Woodfork for this murder.  Woodfork was on a suspended sentence for burglary.  A police report says he sold the Strait's 42-inch flatscreen TV for $250 at a gas station shortly after the break-in, and was in possession of other items from the house.  He is being held without bond.  Tyrone Woodfork was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Nancy Strait as well as burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon and two counts of armed robbery.   The 22-year-old was convicted in May 2014 and sentenced to consecutive life sentences on separate counts of felony murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and two counts of first-degree rape in the March 2012 attack of Bob and Nancy Strait. Although the robbery and beating of the Straits was reported in the Daily Mail, U.S. coverage of the crime was primarily limited to local (i.e., Tulsa area) news media.  This is not evidence of some type of bias or cover-up on the part of the U.S. news media, however, because violent crimes are unfortunately an all too common occurrence in the United States, and nothing about this particular incident was comparatively unusual or shocking enough to propel it out of local coverage and into the national news. reported Calder, Jason.  "Woman Dies After Violent Break-In, Suspect Arrested."
  KOKI-TV [Tulsa].  15 March 2012.

 Fullbright, Lori.  "Family of Tulsa Couple Beaten in Home Invasion."
  KOTV-TV [Tulsa].  16 March 2012.

 Golgowski, Nina.  "Couple Met and Married within a Month and Stayed Together for 65 Years."
  The Daily Mail.  20 March 2012.

 Stoycoff, Zack.  "Elderly Woman Sexually Assaulted, Husband Shot with BB Gun."
  Tulsa World.  16 March 2012.

 Wofford, Jerry.  "Home Invasion, Killing Ended a 65-Year Romance for Tulsa Couple."
  Tulsa World.  26 March 2012.

 Wofford, Jerry.  "Man Charged with Murder in Deadly Home Invasion."
  Tulsa World.  26 March 2012. Braun, Bill and Dylan Goforth.  "Woodfork Formally Sentenced to 4 Consecutive Life Sentences in Murder of 84-Year-Old Woman."
  Tulsa World.  8 July 2014. On Nov. 8, 2022, the day of much-anticipated midterm elections, The New York Times published a list of tips to help particularly stressed election watchers. A couple of those tips earned the Times a round of jeering from right-wing media and social media users. right-wing media users Yes, the tipscame from the Times. Some seem straight forward enough. Limit scrolling on your phone for updates, take a short walk, for example. A couple of them went viral for the wrong reasons, including "breathe like a baby" and face-plunge into ice water. the tips The list of tips is titled "5 ways to soothe election stress" with pointers that include, "Breathe like a baby. Focus on expanding your belly as you breathe, which can send more oxygen to the brain." Here's a screenshot of the list, as posted on the social media platform Twitter: posted  (Screenshot, @nytimes Twitter page) The phrase "breathe like a baby" may sound infantilizing, but the breathing practice described in the list above is a technique known as diaphragmatic breathing, sometimes called belly breathing, and it is known to ease anxiety and stress, whether it's from the watching election returns or anything else. known Licensed clinical psychologist Dianne Grande wrote in Psychology Today that the technique works because "it signals the brain and body to relax." That's because it stimulates the body's parasympathetic nervous system, known as the "rest and digest" aspect of the nervous system think of it as the opposite of the "fight or flight" response, per the University of California, Los Angeles' Health blog. stimulates We can't say we found much in the way of reputable medical sources to support the idea that going face first into a bowl of ice will help with anxiety, election-related or otherwise, though Psychology Today says research does support the idea that hot and cold baths can help with mood. says "Relaxation Therapies," Integrative Digestive Health & Wellness, UCLA Health. https://www.uclahealth.org/medical-services/gastro/wellness/wellness-approaches/relaxation-therapies#:~:text=Diaphragmatic%20breathing,rest%20and%20digest)%20nervous%20system. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022. Solan, Matthew. "Ease Anxiety and Stress: Take a (Belly) Breather." Harvard Health, 26 Apr. 2019, https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/ease-anxiety-and-stress-take-a-belly-breather-2019042616521. Grande, Dianne. "The Simplest Stress Management Skill." Psychology Today, 31 July 2021,https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-it-together/202107/the-simplest-stress-management-skill. We advise all readers, as well as their friends and family, to beware of Facebook ads that promise a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners in the amount of $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar dollar figure. The posts featured pictures of U.S. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and members of Congress, among others. Some ads also mentioned the term, "mortgage refinance stimulus."  Examples of some of the Facebook ads.  The ads gave the appearance that Biden and the U.S. government voted through a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar amount of money as a "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text perhaps looked and felt similar to the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. economic impact payments child tax credit payments However, there is no federal plan to distribute $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" checks to homeowners. Facebook users who clicked on the ads were led to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also asked for a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address. GovHomePrograms.com We filled out the forms and were then led to one or more lenders that could help future homeowners to buy a house or current homeowners to refinance a mortgage. There was no evidence that the Facebook ads led to a way for homeowners to obtain a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" payment from the government. According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation. terms of service privacy policy RateMarketplace.com One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com. EnhancedRefiNow.com As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. American Savings Tips Wise American Solution Clever American Choices New American Community US Relief StraightFix Homeowners of America Our Best American Life spent In other words, at least millions of Facebook users had been served the ads from these pages on Facebook or Instagram.  The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly showed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600.  The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Helpers Today Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations. advertising information advertising violations After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE." at the bottom We also found a list of "disclaimers" in small print spaced far below the end of most of the body of the page that was meant "for Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers." One of the lines attempted to clarify why words like "government" and "Biden" were used in the copy: 5. "Government" , "Biden" , "New Administration" , "Relief" - assume multiple citations below from the following article: "Biden's $10 billion in financial assistance is expected to be available in 2022." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html It's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund that's meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being given out by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to hint at. Homeowners Assistance Fund still being given out One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" read A seemingly endless number of Facebook users then submitted their ZIP codes in the comments under the ads instead of on the resulting website, perhaps believing this would lead to them being contacted to receive a $3,600 check.  Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress.  Aside from the ZIP code comments, the remarks with the most likes caught our eye. For example, a user named Jackie said: "This was featured in CNN yesterday so I guess I could try it since my neighbors already got theirs." Other ads mentioned C-SPAN. We found no record of CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN recently broadcasting news of a specific $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Also, no one's "neighbors already got" a $3,600 stimulus check payment, because they don't exist.  These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information.  Ben commented: "Wow! I've never seen anything like this before! Thank god that I saw it today so I can signup." Matt remarked: "Heard about this program form [sic] my neighbor. They got the check yesterday so I tried it and received a notification that my check will be here this week!" We also saw the same names making the same comments in multiple ads. It's unclear if these people worked for the websites or companies that were affiliated with the posts. We reached out to the Better Business Bureau and AARP for comment on these ads and websites. The BBB responded and told us that this is what they would refer to as a classic "government imposter scam." A BBB spokesperson told us: "Without further research, its hard to tell if this is just a way to get homeowners to apply for refinancing, or if the motive is fraud. Consumers are being asked to share personally identifiable information (PII), and thats a huge red flag because it is everything needed for identity theft. The fact that the domains are new is another red flag. BBB advises consumers never to share personal information with someone who has solicited them, whether through email, social media ad, text, etc., but to carefully vet any new company that needs PII." In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks. study government grant scams a scam alert about stimulus checks We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes youll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friends Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." AARP In sum, the Facebook ads that promised a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners simply appeared to be a way to route future homeowners to lenders or to show current homeowners where they could refinance their mortgages. With guidance from the BBB and AARP on identifying this as a "government imposter scam" or "government grant scam," we have rated this story accordingly with the "Scam" rating. The rating for this fact check was changed from "False" to "Scam" after we received guidance in a response from the Better Business Bureau and AARP. We also added several more Facebook pages and updated the advertising dollar figure to be around $200,000. Claim:  Account describes women manipulating the short sales of properties. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2013] Recently, our good friend Michael (a local realtor) shared his experience with Leisa and I about an "Obama supporter" he encountered while showing homes to a low income, working family in Pontiac, MI. We asked him to please write it down so we could share it with you. As a Realtor for the past 28 years I thought Id seen or heard it all. Until now. I was showing homes in Pontiac, MI. one afternoon recently and showed up at a home at the 4:00 pm time my appointment was scheduled for. After I woke up the homeowner, she let us in and then proceeded to tell my buyers and I that she has already entered into a contract to sell the home on a short-sale. (A short-sale is a sale where the banks accepts less money than is owed on the home). After some chit-chat, she proceeded to tell us that she and her sister (who also lived in the area) were buying each others homes via the short-sale process. I mentioned to her that I thought relatives could not be involved in those transactions. She smiled and said "We have two different last names so no one knows the difference". She went on to tell us that each of them owed over 100K on their homes and were in the process of buying each others homes for about 10-15K cash. To top it off, they were each receiving $3,000.00 in government provided relocation assistance at the closing. My buyers and I were amazed that she was outright admitting to fraud and yet, she continued. She began to tell us that the best part of her scheme was that because they currently were not working that they (both) are now receiving Section 8 Vouchers. I said I thought those were for renters and she said "Thats the best part; me and my sister are going to be renting each others homes so we dont even have to move, and Obama is going to give us each $800.00 a month to pay the rent!" She then picked up a picture she had framed of Obama and did a little happy dance around her living room and while she kissed the picture she was singing "Thank you Obama.... thank you Obama." So here is the bottom line Both of these scammers got at least $80,000.00 in debt forgiven, $3,000.00 in cash for relocation (when in fact they did not relocate) and to boot, you and I will now be paying (through our taxes) $1,600.00 in rent for each them each and every month .... perhaps forever! And I also would not be at all surprised if they are receiving food stamps and whatever other programs are available for anyone who is willing to lie to get assistance. These women went from working and paying about $900.00 each in mortgage payments to staying home and getting paid $800.00 each per month to live in the same home they had been living in and all they had to do was lie on a few papers. This craziness has to stop! Im sure this kind of fraud is going on each and every day all across the country and no one wants to touch the subject of entitlements because they might OFFEND someone or lose a vote or two. By the way ... she had an almost new SUV in the driveway, three flat screen TV's and a very nice computer set up in her living room which was furnished entirely with nice leather furniture. 'TIS THE NEW 'AMERICAN WAY' Origins:  The terms "under water" and "short sale" in reference to home mortgages have entered common parlance in recent years due to a severe downturn in the housing market.  The first refers to a mortgage that is greater than the property's current market value: If a home buyer owes $600,000 on a property that he originally bought for $900,000 but that is now valued at only $300,000, his property is described as being under water. The second refers to a process which has been used by some borrowers to keep afloat financially by shedding their under water properties. When a property owner holds an under water mortgage and can no longer make his mortgage payments, one remedy is for the lienholder to agree to a short sale: that is, to allow the owner to sell the property for less than the amount still owed on the loan.  A short sale leaves the lender taking a loss, but it is often preferable to the alternative of the lender's having to foreclose on the property and resell it  themselves (with no guarantee the resale would bring in any more money than the short sale did).     The unpaid balance still owed to a lienholder by the property owner after a short sale is known as a "deficiency."  If the owner with the aforementioned $600,000 mortgage short sells his home for $250,000, he has incurred a $350,000 deficiency.  A short sale may or may not relieve the borrower of the obligation to repay that deficiency: whether it does depends on the agreement made between the lienholder and the property owner prior to the short sale.  (The amount of a deficiency is considered by the IRS to be a benefit which is taxable as income, but the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 currently allows taxpayers to exclude income from a discharge of debt on their principal residence.) The January 2013 item reproduced above purportedly tells of two women who are supposedly gaming the system by agreeing to buy each other's homes at short sales (in contravention of the rules), then collect a monthly housing assistance stipend for being renters in the homes they formerly owned.  The item contains no verifiable details such as names, dates, or addresses (only the mention of a city or state which changes from version to version), but the scenario described would require a number of implausibilities to all be true:  A woman who was engaging in a scheme to defraud multiple lienholders and government programs would openly admit to that scheme and describe it in detail to a stranger.  The buyers and sellers involved in short sales are required to provide full financial disclosures and are subject to asset checks,making it highly unlikely that this cross-buying scheme could work.  A lienholder would almost certainly refuse to proceed with a short sale by an owner who had just bought another property, or to agree to a short sale home purchase by a buyer who herself currently had a property in short sale.  The $3,000 in relocation assistance provided to those who short sell their homes under the  Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives  (HAFA) program also requires financial disclosure and is not available to those who have purchased a house within the last 12 months, so neither sister would qualify. HAFA  Section 8 assistance offered under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (which provides payment of rental housing assistance to private landlords on behalf of low-income renters) is income- and asset-based.  Someone who not only owned her own residential property but was also functioning as a Section 8 landlord could not possibly qualify for Section 8 housing assistance.  Moreover, in many areas the waiting list for renters seeking to obtain Section 8 funds is years-long. Also, little of what is referenced here has any direct connection to President Obama. Although the HAFA program which provides $3,000 in relocation assistance was introduced by the Treasury Department under the Obama administration in 2009, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act (which exempts deficiencies in short sales from being considered taxable income) was passed in 2007 during the administration of George W. Bush, and Section 8 housing assistance was established under the Housing Act of 1937 passed during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Last updated:  7 February 2013