Does AARP Support the Democratic Party?
In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party.   It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim,  Hahn, Steve.  "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan."
  AARP.  26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?"
  Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org.  "IRS Definition."
  3 March 2011. AARP. org.  "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity."
  Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA."
  1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young.
On Aug. 23, 2020, bystanders' cellphone videos captured a white police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shooting a Black man, Jacob Blake, multiple times as he opened the door to his vehicle. The footage went viral on social media and sparked deadly protests in the lakeside city over racism in American policing. Jacob Blake deadly protests One video, which a neighbor recorded from a second-story apartment nearby, showed Blake, 29, trying to get into his SUV from the driver-side door as a police officer pointed a gun at him, grabbed him by his shirt and then fired several times  shooting Blake in the back. Another clip documented the scene from the ground level, as children and other witnesses watched from a yard. The officer who fired his weapon was identified as Rusten Sheskey, according to Wisconsin's attorney general. video clip identified The day after the shooting, which left Blake paralyzed from the waist down as of this writing, advocates for police reform argued that if those witnesses had not taken out their phones, the public would not have known about the officers' use of potentially-lethal force. It was unclear whether dashboard cameras on squad cars captured the incident, and Kenosha officers do not wear body cameras  leading tools for holding officers accountable for their actions. paralyzed Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Blake's family, as well as other high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans, including the relatives of George Floyd, tweeted: representing George Floyd,  We considered his underlying claim to be this: Kenosha city leaders approved an "ordinance" in 2017 that "required" all of Kenosha's roughly 200 police officers to wear body cameras, but, despite that active policy, the city had not purchased the technology as of August 2020. Additionally, the lawyer alleged the city was planning to buy the devices in 2022. First, to find any evidence of a 2017 policy that would make body cameras mandatory for all officers, Snopes combed through meeting agendas and minutes for the Kenosha Common Council  the city's 17-member group with the authority to write legislation for the city of roughly 100,000 people between Milwaukee and Chicago. We found an archived video of a council committee meeting on Feb. 27, 2017, where former Alderperson Kevin Mathewson asked the group to approve a formal request for the mayor to set aside city funding in the following year's budget to outfit officers with body cameras. "The city, unfortunately, has been a little slow to implement much technology," he said in his testimony. "If we can help document incidents better, and give the [district attorney] tools to make quicker convictions with less resources, we can save cops from violence ... I think it's a great thing." Roughly one month later, on March 20, 2017, the council unanimously approved the below-displayed resolution  not an ordinance and not Mathewson's budget proposal  that formalized city leaders' support for the devices. But that move was largely a statement to urge state legislators and then-Gov. Scott Walker to establish guidelines for how local police departments store and release the cameras' data, not an enforceable policy to make the devices mandatory for Kenosha officers. approved    Notably, the resolution stated: [I]mplementation of Body Worn Cameras for officers of the Kenosha Police Department is dependent on resolution of policy concerns associated with matters such as usage, storage, requirements, Public Record limitation, and privacy issues involving Body Worn Cameras.  In other words, it was true to state Kenosha city leaders expressed support for equipping police officers with body cameras in 2017, but they did not mandate the technology. Rather, its adoption hinged on if or when the state passed an all-encompassing law governing the devices, per the resolution. (In February 2020, Gov. Tony Evers passed a law outlining body camera regulations for police agencies.) passed A note on semantics here: According to the city of Kenosha's Code of General Ordinances, the council adopts both ordinances and resolutions with its legislative authority, though the latter are temporary in nature and often used for establishing fees and permits, while the former are municipal laws. Calling the March 2017 measure about body cameras an ordinance, like the claim alleged, was incorrect; it did not create an enforceable policy. Code of General Ordinances Next, we searched for any proof to confirm or deny another aspect of the claim: that the city had not purchased the devices as of August 2020. We learned that was true. A February 2020 story by Kenosha News said neither the city police department nor the Kenosha county Sheriff's Department used body-worn cameras. And the day after Blake's shooting, on Aug. 24, Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian confirmed to reporters that the city had not yet purchased the technology but had plans to do so. story confirmed Lastly, we looked for documentation of those efforts that would tell us if the city was indeed preparing to spend the money in 2022 and then deploy the cameras after that. For that step, Snopes reviewed the city's 2020 operating budget, which included a four-year plan for spending on police department projects. That 445-page document included the below-displayed table and confirmed that the city was indeed preparing to spend $200,000 on police body cameras in 2022. 445-page document  Rocco LaMacchia, chairman of the councils public safety committee, told The Associated Press the city initially planned to buy the devices in 2020, but funding shortfalls and technological concerns prompted the city to delay the purchase for two years. We have moved it back so many times, he said in the Aug. 25, 2020, story. I got a feeling this is going to move up on the ladder really fast because of whats going on around the United States right now." The Associated Press In sum, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehood. It was accurate to claim Kenosha leaders unanimously endorsed the use of body cameras in 2017, though it was false to say they created an enforceable policy, or an ordinance, to require all police officers to wear the devices. Additionally, it was true to assert the city had not bought the devices as of August 2020 and was planning to make the purchase in 2022. Mathewson, Kevin.  "Urge The Mayor To Include Funding For Police Body Worn Cameras (BWC) In The 2018 CIP."
  City of Kenosha.  Accessed 26 August 2020. Wisconsin State Legislature.  "Senate Bill 50."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Police Department.  "2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Zampanti, Jeffrey.  "Body Cameras Gaining Popularity Despite Challenges."
  Kenosha News.  29 February 2020. Foley, Ryan.  "Kenosha Delayed Body Cameras For Years Before Black Shooting."
 The Associated Press.  25 August 2020. Kenosha News.  "In Photos: County Board Committees Consider Body Cams For Sheriff's Department."
  17 July 2020. Kenosha News. "Body Camera Funds Shouldn't Go By The Wayside."
  27 March 2020. Jones, Meg and Joe Taschler. "Less Than 3 Minutes Passed Between When Kenosha Police Arrived And When Jacob Blake Was Shot, According To Dispatch Audio."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 25 August 2020. Bosman, Julie, and Sarah Mervosh.  "Wisconsin Reels After Police Shooting And Second Night of Protests."
 The New York Times.  24 August 2020. On 5 May 2015, a photograph purportedly showing a fisherman holding a furry trout was posted to the web site of a local Wisconsin news station: photograph  Wanted to share a rather remarkable catch I had this afternoon. I was fishing the Menomonee River where some trout were packed into a bottleneck. I caught a few and nothing was out of the ordinary until I reeled this one in. I have never seen anything like it. I contacted a local wildlife official and they referred to it as a rare fur-bearing trout. They went on to explain that this was an extreme case of Saprolegnia, or cotton mold. Apparently old Great Lakes legends spoke of these as a uniquely evolved trout species that existed only in the deepest, coldest parts of the lakes and needed the fur to stay warm. I doubt it will make Cabella's non-traditional mount wall but I'm still excited to reel in a genuine Wisconsin legend! You have my permission to share and use this photo in any form you'd like. You can credit George Weber. Im a 41 year old carpenter and live in Wauwatosa. The image was picked up by several web sites such as Unexplained Mysteries and Cult of Weird and soon prompted an Internet debate about the existence of furry trout.  Unexplained Mysteries Cult of Weird Although there is no species of fish called "furry trout," a genus of freshwater mold (also called cotton mold) known as Saprolegnia does grow on diseased fish and lends them a somewhat furred appearance. But unlike the picture of the fish seen in the above-displayed photograph, this mold typically grows in patches and doesn't resemble fluffy white fur: resemble   So if this fish isn't suffering from Saprolegnia, then is this a real furry trout?   Stories about fur-bearing trout have been circulating for years, but that mythical creature still exists only in the imaginary realm. One common form of the myth is that the species came about as the result of a hair tonic spill in the Arkansas river, while another theory holds that this furry fish evolved to grow a thick coat in order to survive in the cold waters of Alaska: theory Some of those tall tales of the West are partly true, no matter how ridiculous they sound. As noted in the first installment of Roaming Wyoming, jackalope may be fake, but science does support the existence of rabbits that may look like they have horns. Is there a factual basis behind the story of the fur-bearing trout? So far, not one has been found. Just plenty of good-natured humor. The fur-bearing trout, also called the furry fish, beaver trout, or (probably jokingly) the sabled salmon, is said to live wherever water becomes cold enough to warrant a warm winter coat. This includes all of Canada, and most of the far northern states of the United States (including Wyoming). The most publicized encounter with the fur-bearing trout appeared in a 1929 issue of Montana Wildlife magazine, the official publication of the Montana State Fish and Game Department. Mr. J.H. Hicken of Whitefish, Montana, told his story in colorful detail. Mr. Hicken snagged a furry fish at a lake in Glacier National Park where the water was so cold it was below the freezing point. But, "Nature has taken care of her own by providing the fish with a thick coat of fur," Mr. Hicken remarked. He did add that since the fish are so cold, "the change of temperature from this water to atmosphere is so great that the fish explodes upon being taken from the water, and fur and skin come off in one perfect piece, making it available for commercial purposes, and leaving the body of the fish for refrigerator purposes or eating, as desired." Real furry trout do not exist, but these fictional creatures can sometimes be spotted mounted on the walls of hunting lodges and museums. According to The Beasts That Hide from Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals, one of the most famous examples of the furry trout was hanging in the Royal Museum of Scotland until it was revealed to be a hoax. A local taxidermist admitted that he had covered the fish with white rabbit fur: famous  While we can't definitively say if this Wisconsin fisherman covered his fish in rabbit fur, it's clear that this catch has more in common with a widely spread hoax than it does with freshwater mold. Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2). ]In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $200 Home Depot coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message contained a link that redirected bargain hunters to a web site adorned with Home Depot's logo that has nothing to do with the real Home Depot:   The $200 Home Depot coupon scam is very similar to other schemes that targeted Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. While each scam has slight variations, they all feature three main components. First, they require people to like or share the message on Facebook in an attempt to spread the scam around the Internet. Second, they direct people to complete a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers. Lastly, these scams never end with a "free" rewards, because users must first agree to sign up for several costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print to claim their coupons. Costco Amazon Kroger In April 2017, another Facebook coupon scam targeted Home Depot. In that iteration the chain was purportedly doling out $50 coupons "to celebrate Mother's Day, and links directed users to www.homedepot.com-grabitnow.us (a URL clearly unaffiliated with the legitimate Home Depot website): Home Depot   Home Depot didn't address the 2017 Facebook coupon scam on their social media channels as of 24 April 2017, but it was nevertheless clearly not a legitimate promotion affiliated with the chain. The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A Once in a Lifetime Photo of a forest fire in Bitterroot Forest/Montana This awsome picture was taken in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana on August 6, 2000 by a fire behavior analyst from Fairbanks, Alaska by the name of John McColgan with a Digital camera. Since he was working while he took the picture, he cannot sell or profit from it so he should at least be recognized as the photographer of this once in a lifetime shot.  The year 2000 brought one of the worst fire seasons in half a century to the United States. By the month of August, more than 4 million acres (an area greater in size than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined) had been burned by wildfires, and dozens of blazes raged out of control in eleven western states, with nearly half of the conflagrations occurring in Idaho and Montana. On 6 August 2000, as several fires converged in the Bitterroot National Forest near the town of Sula in western Montana, John McColgan, a fire behavior analyst in the employ of the USDA Forest Service, snapped the spectacular photograph shown above with a digital camera and described the experience to a writer for the western Montana newspaper The Missoulian: Bitterroot Forest Service "That's a once-in-a-lifetime look there. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I've been doing this for 20 years and it ranks in the top three days of fire behavior I've seen." The day was Aug. 6, the Sunday when several forest fires converged near Sula into a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more than 800 degrees. Nevertheless, McColgan said, the wildlife appeared to be taking the crisis in stride, gathering near the East Fork of the Bitterroot River where it crosses under U.S. Highway 93. "They know where to go, where their safe zones are," McColgan said. "A lot of wildlife did get driven down there to the river. There were some bighorn sheep there. A small deer was standing right underneath me, under the bridge." McColgan snapped the photo with a Kodak DC280 digital camera. Since he was working as a Forest Service firefighter, the shot is public property and cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes. After McColgan downloaded his amazing image to an office computer, a friend found it, e-mailed a copy to another friend, and by mid-September 2000 the picture was blazing its way across the Internet. Because many forwarded copies of the image lacked any attribution or explanation, e-mail recipients began to circulate rumors about its origins and authenticity  some claimed that the photo was snapped by a tourist, that it was taken during the extensive Yellowstone National Park fire of 1988, or that it was yet another digital fake. fire As John McColgan said afterwards, "I couldn't have profited from [the photograph], so I guess I'm glad so many people are enjoying it." We're happy to help him at least receive proper credit for his work. This picture has also been circulated with text identifying it as a photograph of August 2003 forest fires in British Columbia, of October 2007 California wildfires, of the June 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the November 2016 forest fires in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Chaney, Rob.  "Mystery Solved: Forest Service Firefighter Captured Tragedy with Digital Camera."
  The Missoulian.  15 September 2000. CNN.com.  "Montana Homes Threatened by Wildfires."
  7 August 2000. Following the arrest of Cesar Sayoc on charges that he sent mail bombs to prominent Democrats and anti-Trump media figures, the pro-Trump conspiracy contingent attempted to paint the suspect as a Democrat who posed as a Republican  innuendo suggesting that Sayocs true goals were to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump and his agenda. Representative of this claim was a 26 October 2018 Facebook meme that labeled Sayoc as a Democrat posing as a Republican and asserted he had recently put his infamous pro-Trump stickers on his van, describing those (false) claims as suspicious: meme   No evidence documents that Sayoc was a "lifelong Democrat"  all signs point to his being relatively apolitical until 2015, although it appeared he attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012. And Sayocs van had sported pro-Trump stickers since at least 2017, and it had contained pro-Trump material since at least 2015. appeared Although news reports have stated that Sayocs relatives are Democrats, Cesar Sayoc has never been registered as a Democrat. His only known voter registration listed his political affiliation as the Florida Republican Party, and it was filed two weeks before Trump won that states GOP primary. Additionally a public records request yielded documents indicating that Sayoc had attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012 but failed to complete his application in both cases: reports documents Records from the Miami-Dade County Elections Department show that on two occasions in October 2012  Oct. 9 and Oct. 26  Sayoc initiated, but didnt complete, new voter registration applications. Both times, he checked the box next to "Republican Party" as his party affiliation. On Oct. 9, 2012, he checked the box that said his was a "new registration," but it appears he left blank the answer to a question about whether hed ever been "adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting." On Oct. 26, 2012, he didnt check any of the boxes indicating the reason behind his registration application (i.e. new registration, address change, name change, party change, etc.) Near the top of that form, someone scribbled, "INCOMP," indicating it was incomplete. According to news reports, most people who interacted with Sayoc prior to 2015 stated he did not appear to be overtly political. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the New York Times that Sayoc seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case. told Daniel Lurvey represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014, and he told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc's ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayocs chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling. told The pattern appeared to have changed by 2015. Sayoc showed up at a Brevard College alumni event for his soccer team that year, where former team members stated that he quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories. Since that time, Sayoc had been an outspoken and fanatical supporter of Donald Trump and an equally outspoken opponent of Democrats online: stated On Twitter and Facebook, he railed against former President Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey with misspelled racial epithets, threatened former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and praised President Trump and conservative causes. His social-media feeds were an electronic version of the white van carted away by law-enforcement officials on Friday morning, which was covered in stickers praising Mr. Trump, condemning liberals and putting cross hairs over an image of Hillary Clinton. In 2015, as part of a likely effort to make a false insurance claim, Sayoc reported to police that $45,000 worth of suits and costumes he needed for his business were stolen from his van. According to the New York Times, the police report noted that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the presidents clothing brand. police report It is unclear exactly when the outside of Sayoc's van was first festooned with pro-Trump political stickers, but the van had been a common sighting in the South Florida region since at least New Year's Eve of 2017, as reported by the Sun Sentinel: reported I saw this van dozens of times. It always struck me, always unsettled me. It appeared that somebody at times was in the van, though it was hard to tell because of the windows, said David Cypkin, a documentary film producer who co-produced 2006s Cocaine Cowboys" ... Cypkin encountered the van regularly when he lived near the Shoppes at the Waterways in Aventura, where it was regularly parked. Cypkin believed someone could be living in the van, and finally, on the morning of New Years Eve 2017, he snapped a few quick pictures so he could get a better look at some of the stickers later. I had seen it there at least a year, Cypkin said. Assertions that Cesar Sayoc had lifelong Democratic political leanings or that his van was covered in stickers only immediately before his mail-bombing attempts do not hold up to any level of scrutiny. ORourke, Ciara.  "Pipe Bomb Suspect's Florida Voting Records Show Only Republican Affiliation." 
  PolitiFact.  5 November 2018. Healy, Jack et al.  "Cesar Sayoc, Mail Bombing Suspect, Found an Identity in Political Rage and Resentment." 
  The New York Times.  27 October 2018. Nelson, Steven.  "Mail Bomb Suspect Cesar Sayoc Was a 'Big Muscle Head' Stripper, Says Former Boss." 
  Washington Examiner.  26 October 2018. Sweeney, Dan.  "'I Thought He Looked Like a Shooter': Why People Took Pictures of Cesar Sayoc's Van." 
  Sun Sentinel.  26 October 2018. Amid an outpouring of criticism against YouTube personality Logan Paulwho broadcast video of a man who had committed suicidea fake news Twitter account leapt to his defense with made-up statements of support purporting to be made by pop music star Taylor Swift. On 5 January 2018 the user @enewsatnightwhich falsely presents itself as E! News, the news compoment of the E! entertainment networkposted: posted: Taylor Swift on Logan Paul: There are some points he has made; hes hilarious; We should FORGIVE   Swift's social media accounts have never mentioned Paul, though he tried (unsuccessfully) to generate interest in December 2017 for a request that they work together. social media tried While the quotes were fabricated, the link attached to the tweet goes to an actual E! story about Paul's puerile excursion to Japan, during which he not only filmed the body of someone who took his own life but attempted to "catch" bystanders in the manner of a Pokemon game and throwing raw fish at others. story Though that tweet had been shared around 700 times as of 8 January 2018, a separate user's post spreading it with the dismissive caption, "Bitch we hate you too lmaoo" received more than 68,000 retweets, thus giving it even more exposure: 68,000   The footage of Paul's Tokyo visit has brought about criticism against not only him but YouTube itself for continuing to allow Paul to make money off of his off-kilter and often ill-mannered content. Paul has taken a hiatus from broadcasting after releasing written and video apologies for his actions. YouTube E! News (which is actually @enews on Twitter) did not comment on the fabricated story. We also contacted police in the Yamanashi Prefecture of Japan concerning reports that they are seeking to question Paul. @enews reports The fake E! account also posted a tweet made up of fake statements attributed to another singer, Mariah Carey: tweet Mariah Carey on Woody Allen: 'He's made mistakes, sure... But so have we all, it's time for forgiveness.'   However, that tweet also redirects readers to the network's 5 January 2018 story about Paul. Heller, Corinne. "Logan Paul's Whole Trip to Japan Was Pretty Disrespectful." E! News. 5 January 2018. Matsakis, Louise. "The Logan Paul Video Should be a Reckoning for YouTube." Wired. 3 January 2018. Akbar, Jay. "YouTube Star Logan Paul Wanted by Cops Over Japan 'Suicide Forest' Video Where he Filmed a Hanging Body." The Sun. 3 January 2018. Entertainment Tonight. "Watch Logan Paul's Hilarious Plea to Collaborate with -- and Marry -- Taylor Swift!" 5 December 2017. Update [8 January 2018]: Added accurate retweet totals for a user who spread the original post. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. A Georgia congressmans defense of the hotly debated health care law brought some skepticism from one PolitiFact reader. By reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs, Johnson, a Democrat from DeKalb County, wrote in a letter to Daniel Patterson. Patterson forwarded the letter toPolitiFact Georgia. We hadnt heard this claim before and decided to do some research. Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said the numbers came from a study done by the Milken Institute, a nonpartisan, economic think tank with offices in Southern California and Washington, D.C. In October 2007, the institute released a widely reported study called An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote about the study. The studys first sentence highlighted the trouble. More than half of Americans suffer from one or more chronic diseases, it read. The seven diseases the 240-page study focused on were cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, mental disorder, pulmonary conditions and strokes. In 2003, there were 162.2 million Americans who suffered from one or more of those conditions, the study found. The productivity losses associated with those seven diseases were about $1.1 trillion. In Georgia, the Milken Institute researchers wrote in their study that the economic impact was $32.8 billion, as Johnson said. The researchers found about 5 million cases of those conditions were reported by Georgians in 2003. Pulmonary conditions and hypertension were easily the highest number of diseases reported. The researchers created an index and determined Georgia had the 31st healthiest population in the country. The healthiest states were largely along or west of the Rocky Mountains. The least healthiest states were along the Eastern Seaboard and the South. Utah was the healthiest state, and West Virginia was the least healthy state. The researchers calculated the number of lost workdays by using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions National Health Interview Survey and matching all individuals who had a particular illness with the number of lost workdays in the last 12 months due to illness or injury. The next step they took was to multiply those days lost times wages per employee. Georgias total was 3 percent of the national cost. Georgia has about 3 percent of the nations population. We wondered since the study was based on 2003 figures how much the numbers have changed since then. Ross DeVol, the lead researcher, said no subsequent work had been done to determine what the total would be, but he guessed it would be greater today. I can say with great certainty that the number is much higher today, DeVol told PolitiFact Georgia via email. Another report released in May, though, found lost productivity from various health problems was much less than the Milken Institutes estimate. The report by Gallup-Healthways calculated the total at $84 billion a year. The conditions the Gallup-Healthways study described as chronic included asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity and various physical pains. The estimated cost for each worker per day was $341. The Gallup-Healthways report based its findings on interviews with 94,000 adults nationwide who worked more than 30 hours a week, asking them how many workdays they missed each month due to poor health. Phone interviews were conducted from January through September 2012. The majority responded they missed about one day every three months. Phelan, the congressmans spokesman, said he had not seen the Gallup-Healthways report beforehand. Phelan said he would reference the Milken report in future correspondence with constituents. While both studies looked at lost productivity due to illnesses and disease, the Gallup study looks at it from the perspective of 14 job types for the entire nation while the Milken study looked at it from the standpoint of the illnesses and diseases people suffer and specifically at each state, including Georgia, Phelan said via email. Theres little additional research on this topic. The CDC looked at the economic impact of some conditions. In 2009, the economic costs of cardiovascular diseases and stroke were estimated at $475.3 billion, including $313.8 billion in direct medical expenses and $161.5 billion in indirect costs ($39.1 billion in lost productivity due to sickness or disability and $122.4 billion in lost productivity due to premature death), the CDC found. The $122.4 billion in lost productivity is more than the Gallup-Healthways conclusion, and that estimate was for just strokes and cardiovascular diseases. A 2001 report from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found 2.5 billion workdays were lost a year due to chronic diseases ranging from cancer to arthritis to substance abuse. To sum up, Rep. Johnson said in a letter that by reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs. The congressmans claim was based on accurate numbers from a Milken Institute study that appeared well-researched. We did find other research that differs from the Milken study. Johnsons claim is based on accurate information, but there is a little context necessary to fully examine his statement. Under our rating system, Johnson gets a Mostly True. Concerns about the countrys food supply are weighing heavily on many Americans as baby formula is hard to find and international conflict threatens commodities like wheat in some parts of the world. A social media post invoking those fears harks back to U.S. history to suggest that the government is purposely creating food shortages. In 1873 the U.S. government killed 1.5 million buffalo to starve Native Americans so they would become more dependent on the government, read one such May 11post. Fast forward to today, and the government is creating food shortages to achieve exactly the SAME goal! It was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) The post has a point about why so many buffalo were killed in the late 1800s, but it makes an unfounded comparison: Theres no evidence the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages. In the mid-1800s, more than 30 million buffalo roamed the plains; by the end of the 19th century, only afew hundredremained. The rapid population decline was due to overhunting, which was welcomed by U.S. officials as a way toforceNative Americans in the Great Plains region tosettle on reservations. Andrew Isenberg, an American history professor at the University of Kansas and theauthorof The Destruction of the Bison, said white hunters in the late 1800s likely killed far more than the 1.5 million buffalo mentioned in the post  a fact federal authorities knew. The U.S. federal government did not actively destroy bison in order to starve Indigenous people in the Great Plains into submission, he said. But the federal government stood by and refused to prevent the wasteful destruction of bison by private white hunters and then welcomed the result of the near extinction of the species: Indigenous peoples surrender to the reservation system. Bison skulls await industrial processing in Michigan in 1892. (Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library and Wikimedia Commons) Gen. William Sherman, who commanded the U.S. Army in the region, negotiated treaties with groups of Indigenous peoples in the Great Plains in the late 1860s, Isenberg said. The U.S. agreed to allow Native Americans to occupy large parts of the Great Plains so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase. Not long after those treaties were negotiated, Isenberg said, Sherman wrote a letter saying, it will not be long before all of the buffalos are extinct near and between the railroads. By 1873, welcoming the extinction of buffalo to suppress Indigenous peoples had become de facto government policy, Isenberg said. In an 1872 report, Interior Secretary Columbus Delanowrotethat the buffalos disappearance must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas, and compel them to abandon their nomadic customs, and establish themselves in permanent homes. Although the decimation of the buffalo population was ultimately the work of private hunters, the idea that destroying bison was a way to force the surrender of Indigenous people in the Great Plains was quite overt, Isenberg said. While there is concern about global food shortages because of the war in Ukraine, experts told PolitiFact in April that the U.S. isless vulnerableto food shortages than poorer nations that rely largely on imports. The U.S. food system has a good level of self-sufficiency, so currently, it is hard to imagine empty shelves in grocery stores, said Ohio State University agricultural economist Seungki Lee. And though claims have surfaced suggesting the U.S. government isintentionallycreatingfood shortages, we have found there is no evidence to back that up. A number of factors havecontributed tothe U.S. baby formula shortage, including arecallby a major U.S. manufacturer, existing supply chainissuesassociated with the COVID-19 pandemic and thehighlyconcentratednature of the formula market. View of almost empty baby formula shelves at a Duane Reade in New York City on May 11, 2022. (AP) A post claimed that the U.S. governments inaction over buffalo killing that harmed Native American populations in the 1800s shows it is now is creating food shortages so that Americans are more dependent on the government. Millions of buffalo were killed by hunters in the late 1800s as part of a de facto government policy meant to force Native Americans in the Great Plains to abandon their customs and accept the reservation system. This racist history, however, does not prove that the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages to force government dependence. We found no evidence to support that claim. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: What can parents do if they cant find baby formula in stores?