Cindy Williams Criticizes Military Pay Raises
Claim:  Actress Cindy Williams penned an editorial denouncing a proposed pay raise for the military. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2001] This is how we treat our public servants. One story among many! Salute to our Service Men & Women On 12 Jan, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year-citing that the stated 13% wage  gap was bogus. A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this!  Ms. Williams:  I just had the pleasure of reading your column of 12 Jan 00, "Our GIs earn enough," and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account.  Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), see that I make $1,117.80, before taxes. After taxes, I take home $ 874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 25,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for Saudi  I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone  obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them. Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece. But, tomorrow from Sarajevo, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish! A1C Michael BraggHill AFB AFNCC  IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN  FIGHTING MEN & WOMEN. THANK YOU. THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO'S EVER SERVED OR HAD A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES! THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL !!! Variations:  An August 2009 version changed the responding airman from one posted to Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, to one posted to Afghanistan, replying from Kabul. Origins:  The editorial critical of military pay raises alluded to above and the irate response to it penned by an airman at Hill Air Force Base are genuine, but the author of the original editorial has been mistaken for her (more famous) namesake. Actress Cindy Williams, who starred in the hit 1973 film American Graffiti and portrayed sweet, lovable Shirley Feeney on the popular 1970s sitcom Laverne & Shirley hasn't been writing newspaper articles denouncing our "overpaid" servicemen.  Back in January 2000,a different Cindy Williams, one who was then working as a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who had once served as assistant director for national security in the Congressional  Cindy Williams Budget Office, contributed an op-ed piece to the Washington Post (not the WashingtonTimes) in which she criticized a proposed 25% pay increase for military personnel (on top of a 4.85% raise that had just been enacted).  In her article, Ms. Williams maintained that claims that servicemen in the military suffered a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector were inaccurate, and that military personnel were already well paid compared to the average American.    The full text of the editorial ("Our GIs Earn Enough") by the non-actress Cindy Williams can be found here.  The response to that editorial which is reproduced in the example block above was indeed drafted by the airman named, although it was not itself published in Washington Post.    here The misidentification of the original article's author has caused considerable grief for Cindy Williams the actress: "I've done everything to try to squelch it, but nothing seems to work," says Miss Williams of "Laverne and Shirley" fame. "I have people writing and calling me, even my friends, asking: 'Are you against a pay raise for the military?' And I reply, 'You know me, I'd fight [in the military] if I could, because I am such a patriot.'" Ironically enough, much of the angry correspondence (even "hate mail") the actress has received has come from the military ranks. "It's been really worrisome," says the actress. "It's terrible to malign people like that. I don't know where to go to say I didn't do this." Versions of this article circulated since 2009 have stated that Cindy Williams (the one who actually did write the editorial) is the Obama administration'sAssistant Director for National Security in the Congressional Budget Office.  This is not correct  Ms. Williams  held that position from 1994 to 1997, during the Clinton administration.   Last updated:  8 October 2015    Williams, Cindy.  "Our GIs Earn Enough."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2000  (p. A19).
After the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost a historic 1,175 points in a single day in February 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats was keen to point out a trend. In a 6 February meme, the page listed what it called the "Biggest One-Day Drops in Dow Jones History," along with the name of the U.S. president in office at the time of each point drop. meme According to the meme, each of the largest drops occurred during the presidencies of Donald Trump and George W. Bush -- both Republicans. The meme concluded: "Share this for your friends who STILL think Republicans are GOOD for the economy!"    The meme correctly lists the seven biggest one-day points drops in Dow Jones history, which all took place during the tenure of two Republican presidents, though it leaves out the eighth, ninth and 10th, which occurred with Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the White House. The main problem with the meme, however, is that its conclusion (that the numbers show which president is good for the economy) overstates the influence of a president -- as opposed to macro-economic and geopolitical forces -- on stock market trends. In fact, one-day losses and gains can sometimes happen despite the policies and efforts of the person in the Oval Office. For example, many commentators attributed the 29 September 2008 points drop -- the second-biggest ever -- to the U.S. House of Representatives' failure to pass a $700 billion bank bailout bill, which President George W. Bush had pushed for.  many commentators attributed Even if one simply wanted to examine during which presidencies the Dow suffered largest single-day losses, looking at the largest point drops wouldn't be the way to do it. As the stock market has grown in value over the last century, large point drops have become more common, even if their impact on the overall market value isn't particularly great. To get a clearer picture of the impact of these drops, one would have to measure the drop in percentage terms, rather than points.  Biggest one-day percentage losses (Sources: Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data Five of these 10 events took place during the era of the Great Depression, and all but one occurred during the tenure of Republican presidents.  However, if one were to insist on linking the occupant of the White House to the performance of the stock market, a better way to do it would be to track the average performance of the Dow Jones over the entire course of a presidency, rather than looking at one-day outliers in isolation.  To illustrate this, we looked at the average performance of the Dow over the course of the last nine presidential terms. We used Yahoo! Finance data for this, which only goes back as far as 29 January 1985, so we're missing figures for the first week or so of Ronald Reagan's second administration.  Average one-day percentage change in Dow Jones Average Industrial Index, Last Nine Terms   So while Donald Trump's presidency did see the largest one-day points drop in Dow Jones history, it has also seen the biggest average one-day percentage growth since 1985. However, this is based on only 12 months of data, and the next three years could see that 0.09 percent growth rate drop.  The biggest average daily percentage growth over the course of a four-year presidency was 0.08 percent, during Bill Clinton's first administration between 1993 and 1997. Market Data Center. "U.S. Stocks -- Historical Index Data."
 Wall Street Journal. 30 December 2011. Yahoo! Finance. "Dow Jones Industrial Average -- Historical Data."
 Yahoo! Finance. 6 February 2018. CBS News/Associated Press. "Stocks Take Record Tumble, Down 777 Points."
 CBS News/Associated Press. 29 September 2008. Twin, Alexandra. "Stocks Crushed."
 CNN Money. 29 September 2008. Bajaj, Vikas; Grynbaum, Michael M. "For Stocks, Worst Single-Day Drop in Two Decades."
 New York Times. 29 September 2008. Romans, Christine. "Remembering the Worst Day in Wall Street History."
 CNN Money. 19 October 2017. In the summer of 2020, amid a new wave of nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality, readers inquired about the accuracy of online articles and social media posts that claimed a convicted terrorist sat on the board of directors of a left-leaning organization that provides fundraising and administration services for the Black Lives Matter movement. On July 8, 2020, Twitter user @asdomke posted a widely-shared tweet that read:  "This is convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, she sits on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of Black Lives Matter. She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoc."   In June, the website of right-leaning talk radio host Wayne Dupree posted an article with the headline "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." Similar articles were published by the Daily Caller (an article that was republished by the Western Journal) and on the website of former Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly.  article Daily Caller Western Journal Bill O'Reilly On July 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg's past and her connection to Thousand Currents and the Black Lives Matter movement on his Fox News show.  segment Those posts and articles were largely based on a June 24, 2020, report published by the right-leaning Capital Research Center, which carried the headline "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." The report went on to state that: report Some conservatives have begun speculating the unrest in American cities -- even as late as Monday night in Washington, DC as protestors unsuccessfully worked to tear down a statue of Andrew Jackson and set up an autonomous zone across the street from the White House -- may in part be an attempt to affect the upcoming presidential election, with the chaos and violence intended to make it as difficult as possible for Donald Trump to win a second term. Lending credence to this idea is the fact that at least one board member of the group fiscally sponsoring the most organized part of the Black Lives Matter movement, who have been involved in most of the activity surrounding the current unrest -- tried the same thing almost 40 years ago during Ronald Reagans reelection campaign. And it landed her in federal prison for 16 years. If there were any question whether Black Lives Matter has ideological ties to the Communist terrorists of the 1960s, the story of Susan Rosenberg should put that issue to bed... Rosenberg, who started out as a member of the 1960s revolutionary group Weather Underground, graduated into even more violent, and arguably successful, forms of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s -- including bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island, the Navy Yard Officers Club in Washington, DC, and even the U.S. Capitol building, where she damaged a representation of the greatest of the Democrat defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun. She currently serves as human and prisoner rights advocate and a vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents. Thousand Currents is undoubtedly very closely linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the broader Black Lives Matter movement. The Thousand Currents website outlines the relationship between the two entities: outlines "In 2016, BLM Global Network approached Thousand Currents to create a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization, provides the legal and administrative framework to enable BLM to fulfill its mission. Fiscal sponsorship is a common structure utilized by nonprofit organizations. Oftentimes, nonprofit initiatives seek fiscal sponsorship to be able to have the fiscal sponsor handle administrative operations while the organization focuses on its programs and builds up its own organizational infrastructure. In this capacity, we provide administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance." Descriptions of Thousand Currents as an organization which "handles fundraising" for Black Lives Matter were therefore accurate. As recently as June 24, the date on which the Capital Research Center published their report, the Thousand Currents website listed Susan Rosenberg as vice chair of the organization's board of directors, describing her as a "human and prison rights advocate and writer." The entire "board of directors" page has since been removed from the site. describing According to tax documents obtained by Snopes, Rosenberg sat on the board of directors during the 2015 and 2016 financial years, and was elevated to the position of vice chair in 2017. We asked Thousand Currents for the dates of Rosenberg's tenure on the board, and as its vice chair, and invited the organization to comment on the ongoing controversy, and will update this story if we receive a response. 2015 2016 2017 Rosenberg's prominent position within Thousand Currents is clear, as are that organization's close links to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (and thereby the broader Black Lives Matter movement). However, the question of whether she should be described as a "terrorist" or "convicted terrorist" is much more complicated. Originally from New York City, Rosenberg was an active member of several revolutionary left-wing groups and movements during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In November 1984, she was arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey after police said she and an associate, Timothy Blunk, were found transferring 740 pounds of explosives, an Uzi submachine gun, an M-14 rifle, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a sawed-off shotgun, three 9-millimeter handguns and boxes of ammunition from a car into a storage locker. said Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." charges In May 1985, New Jersey U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Bernard Lacey gave Rosenberg and Blunk the maximum available sentence of 58 years each in prison. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted Rosenberg's sentence, and she was released from prison. sentence commuted According to several contemporaneous news reports, Rosenberg had previously been charged with multiple offenses as part of a major 1982 conspiracy case against several prominent left-wing revolutionaries. Along with the others, Rosenberg was charged with conspiracy and racketeering offenses in connection with the following incidents: incidents The most high-profile incident was the October 1981 Brink's robbery in Nyack, New York. Several members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army groups were accused of having orchestrated and carried out the violent robbery of a Brink's armored vehicle at the Nanuet Mall, stealing total of $1.6 million. In the course of a police chase and shootout, two police officers and a Brink's guard were killed. The money was recovered. Specifically, Rosenberg was accused of having driven one of the getaway cars. killed accused After Rosenberg's arrest in New Jersey in 1984, and her subsequent conviction and imprisonment on the weapons and explosives possession charges, prosecutors dropped the conspiracy and racketeering charges against her, and she was never tried or convicted in relation to the 1981 Brink's robbery, the 1979 Shakur prison escape, or other armed robberies. The prosecutor who oversaw the decision not to proceed with that case, in the 1980s, was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. After Rosenberg's release in 2001, Giuliani, by then Mayor of New York City, told the New York Times the charges were dropped because her existing 58-year prison sentence made a further prosecution unnecessary. told In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI's office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign. The claim, made in @asdomke's tweet, that Rosenberg was "convicted of" several 1983 bombings, was therefore false. The claim in the headline of an article on Wayne Dupree's website that Rosenberg "carried out" the bombings stands in contrast to the fact that she was never tried or convicted in relation to those incidents. dropped During her 16-year incarceration, Rosenberg renounced the use of political violence, though her political beliefs appear not to have changed significantly. In a radio interview shortly after her release in January 2001, she said she "rejects" the "potential for violence in my past actions," saying her view of violence as a strategic tool had undergone an "enormous change," but that she retained "a political view that is certainly progressive and radical in a certain sense." interview In her 2011 memoir, she recounted what she said during an unsuccessful 1997 parole application: recounted "I outlined my criminal acts and what I felt about them then and now. I talked about the political ethos of the 1960s and how it had led me and my associates into thinking our activities were acceptable. I detailed how sorry I felt now, how I accepted responsibility for my past actions, and how I would never commit any crimes again. I tried to put my life within the context of the historical period when many Americans thought they could change the world and end war and racism and poverty. I tried to distinguish between my core values and my embrace of the use of political violence. I stated that I now rejected the use of violence. I meant all that I said." There is no single, universally-accepted definition of terrorism, so any use of that label requires a degree of explanation or justification. One basis upon which one might reasonably describe a person as a terrorist is if they have been convicted of terrorist offenses. That is not true of Rosenberg, who was convicted only of weapons and explosives possession and fraudulent document possession, after her arrest in New Jersey 1984. She pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the 1980s bombing campaign, and those charges against her were dropped, and she has denied any involvement in the 1979 Shakur prison break and 1981 Brink's robbery, with those charges also having been dropped. not guilty denied The United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" (as distinct from "international terrorism") as follows: defines "... Activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ..." However, that definition was only added in 1992, years after Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosives possession and charged for her alleged role in the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, and her alleged role in a series of armed robberies by left-wing revolutionaries. added In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg's activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such does not exist In the 1988 indictment relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, prosecutors accused Rosenberg and others of trying "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means." That language is remarkably similar to that found in the present U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism as seeking to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ..." accused Examining the 1980s bombings retrospectively, one might very well be justified as describing them as a campaign of domestic terrorism, even if prosecutors were not in a position to hang that label on them at the time. However, the charges against Rosenberg were dropped anyway, and she was never convicted in relation to the bombing campaign. In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that "there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives" with which she and Blunk were caught. However, it's clear they were transporting and transferring them for a purpose that was at the very least broadly associated with the group's wider mission of opposing various U.S. government policies and carrying out a socialist uprising. "We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon," she added. wrote Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings: "We thought that by taking armed actions against government property (including bombing unoccupied government buildings), we would show that despite the power of the state, it was possible to oppose it." indicated One could reasonably argue that Rosenberg's actions in the explosives possession case served her and her comrades' overarching mission of militant opposition to U.S. government policy and broader power structures and were in keeping with the group's (if not Rosenberg's) proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism. Crane, Missy. "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC."
 WayneDupree.com. 28 June 2020. Kerr, Andrew. "A Convicted Terrorist Sits on Board of Charity Handling Black Lives Matter Fundraising."
 The Daily Caller. 27 June 2020. O'Reilly, Bill. "Does Karl Marx Matter?"
 BillOReilly.com. 5 July 2020. Walter, Scott. "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group."
 Capital Research Center. 24 June 2020. Raab, Selwyn. "Radical Fugitive in Brink's Robbery Arrested."
 The New York Times. 1 December 1984. The Associated Press/The Philadelphia Daily News. "2 Revolutionaries Get 58 Years Each in N.J."
 20 May 1985. Barbanel, Josh. "4 Indicted by U.S. in Escape of Joanne Chesimard in '79."
 The New York Times. 19 November 1982. Barbanel, Josh. "3 Killed in Armored Car Holdup."
 The New York Times. 21 October 1981. Gross, Jane. "Brink's Suspect Held Without Bail After She Refuses to Enter a Plea."
 The New York Times. 14 May 1985. Lipton, Eric. "Officials Criticize Clinton's Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist."
 The New York Times. 22 January 2001. The Associated Press/The New York Times. "3 Radicals Agree to Please Guilty in Bombing Case."
 6 September 1990. Rosenberg, Susan. "An American Radical..."
 Citadel Press. 2011. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 -- Definitions."
 Accessed 14 July 2020. McCord, Mary B. "It's Time for Congress to Make Domestic Terrorism a Federal Crime."
 Lawfare. 5 December 2018. Shenon, Philip. "U.S. Charges 7 in the Bombing at U.S. Capitol."
 The New York Times. 12 May 1988. In the spring of 2020, as protests against racial injustice and police brutality swept across the U.S. following the death of a Black man in police custody, online trolls started to spread racist propaganda in an attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. Generally speaking, these posts made inflammatory and violent claims, then falsely attributed them to BLM. For example, one such hoax held that BLM protesters were going to "assassinate white families."  hoax In June 2020, Snopes came across yet another flyer falsely attributed to Black Lives Matter that labeled white men, women, and children as "the enemy":   But this is not a genuine flyer issued or endorsed by Black Lives Matter. This is a piece of racist propaganda that was created in an apparent attempt to smear BLM and heighten racial tensions.  It isn't clear who created this fake poster. The earliest posting that we could find was from June 11, 2020, from a Twitter account devoted to QAnon, a wide-ranging and far-right conspiracy theory based almost entirely on anonymous social media posts that claim a deep state plot exists against President Donald Trump. From there, it was shared to the Russian site Aftershock.news; an All Lives Matter account; and an account adorned with British flags, where it received thousands of retweets. QAnon Aftershock.news All Lives Matter  account While we've found several accounts sharing this flyer along with messages denigrating Black Lives Matter, we've yet to see any accounts connected to the Black Lives Matter movement sharing this flyer in earnest.  In addition to the fact that this flyer originated with posters critical of BLM  and not with BLM accounts spreading this message in earnest  the statements on this flyer are also contrary to the positions of the Black Lives Matter movement. Nowhere on the Black Lives Matter website are white people identified as "enemies," and the website is void of any calls to violence against white people.  BLM has also not called for "re-education camps," for "Black power" to run the government, or for white people to stop dating outside their race. The official Black Lives Matter website has put out a list of "demands," but that list has practically nothing in common with the viral hoax shown above. The official list from Black Lives Matter calls for an end to systematic racism and for the national defunding of police: Black Lives Matter We call for an end to the systemic racism that allows this culture of corruption to go unchecked and our lives to be taken. We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive. If youre with us, add your name to the petition right now and help us spread the word. The "demands" on the hoax flyer did not originate with BLM. The items on this list are examples of what someone who is unfamiliar with the Black Lives Matter movement may fear are central tenets of this group. When a similar fake flyer was found in England, a local BLM activist told Scotland's Evening Telegraph: Evening Telegraph Joy Gansh, a local BLM activist, believes the display was created by people trying to discredit the movement. She said: Things like that, after what happened with the George Floyd mural being defaced, I think thats something that a white supremacist would put up to discredit us. Nobody that Ive seen advocating for the BLM movement would think that that is appropriate. My personal opinion is that this is people being framed. This is a way to make us seem in the wrong. The art student, who plans to organise a BLM march in Dundee soon, believes that white supremacists are using false posters to encourage violence. People that hold those kinds of beliefs arent part of this movement, she added. "This seems like a way to stop us in our tracks and make us seem violent so they can come back with violence. We arent here for violence, were just here for justice and equality in all aspects of life. This fake flyer, as well as similar items, have been pushed on internet forums such as 4chan in an explicit attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. In one post, for example, a 4chan poster states that "people are falling for this [hoax flyer], let's kick it into overdrive." In another thread, users exchange various fake BLM posters and encourage each other to share them. In another thread, a user gives instructions on how to make and spread this racist propaganda: 4chan smear thread thread The only thing maintaining the completely bizarre state of affairs the USA and the world is in right now is the fact that some white people still think they can be on the "right side of history" by kneeling for the Noseberg-controlled BLM movement. We can destroy their whole plan. Make propaganda posters and spread them around. If enough whites realize that blacks will never ever feel that anything is "enough", they'll abandon the movement. It'll crash and burn.  Asarch, Steven.  "Is The 'Go Bald For Black Lives Matter' Movement Real?"
  Newsweek.  5 June 2020. Breland, Ali.  "Alt-Right Trolls Are Trying to Sabotage Black Lives Matter Chatrooms."
  Mother Jones.  8 June 2020. Bell, Matteo.  "Outrage at Posters in Dundee Calling for Police, MPs and White People to be Killed."
  Evening Telegraph.  12 June 2020. CORRECTION [17 June 2020]: The original article misstated the date of publication of this image on the Russian site Aftershock.news. This image was posted to that site on June 12, not June 6, as originally stated. In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  Article contrasts observances of the passings of Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Ed McMahon died this week. He was a great entertainer, but prior to his stage accomplishments he was a distinguished Marine Corps fighter pilot in WWII earning six Air Medals and attaining the rank of Colonel. He was discharged in 1946 and was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the CA Air National Guard. Farrah Fawcett died this week after a long career in Hollywood as an actress. After she was diagnosed with cancer, she became an activist for cancer treatment and devoted her last remaining years encouraging people to seek treatment. She documented her plight on film and used it to encourage others to stay positive and upbeat despite their diagnosis and suffering. Michael Jackson died this week. He was perhaps one of the greatest singers of modern time. He will also be remembered for his eccentric lifestyle that included sleeping with a chimpanzee, living in a carnival-like atmosphere at Neverland, his fascination with Peter Pan, and his numerous masks and costumes. He also admitted to finding pleasure sleeping with young boys and paying out millions of dollars in settlements to the families of these boys despite being acquitted by a court on one allegation of sexual molestation. QUESTION - Which of the above did the House of Representatives declare a moment of silence for today? (Hint - It wasn't the first two.) QUESTION - Which of the above's family received a personal note of condolence from President Obama? (Hint - It wasn't the first two.) Need we say more? Variations:  A later version of this item included the following bit about actor Karl Malden (who died on 1 July 2009): Karl Malden died this week after a long career in Hollywood as an actor. He also served in the US Air Force during WWII and also served on the US Postal Service committee to review and recommend commemorative stamps.  In 2005, the US House of Representatives authorized the US Postal Service to rename a Los Angeles post office the Karl Malden Postal Station. Origins:  The entertainment world suffered a triple shock at the end of June 2009, when television personality Ed McMahon passed away on the 23rd of that month, a loss followed two days later by the deaths of both actress Farrah Fawcett and singer Michael Jackson.   It is true that Ed McMahon was a veteran, a decorated U.S. Marine Corps pilot who served his country during both World War II and the Korean War.  It is also true that after Farrah Fawcett was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, she became "an outspoken advocate for early detection and  treatment of cancer" and "worked tirelessly to raise the profile of this disease," bravely allowing herself to be filmed for the harrowing Farrah's Story, a documentary that chronicled her grim fight against cancer in order to "make viewers aware of the need for testing and research." Farrah's Story It is also true that neither of these celebrities was honored in their passing with the observance of a moment of silence in the U.S. Congress, and that (as far as we know) neither's family was the recipient of a personal note of condolence from the President.  In contrast, the day after Michael Jackson's death, the House of Representatives observed a moment of silence in the entertainer's honor, and a few days later senior presidential adviser David Axelrod stated that President Obama had written to the Jackson family and "shared his feelings" with them. observed stated However, many would take exception to the implication that Michael Jackson was merely an eccentric entertainer who, unlike Ed McMahon and Farrah Fawcett, did nothing (outside of his art) to benefit society and make him (as) worthy of the honors and recognition he received at his passing.  Michael Jackson left behind a substantial philanthropic legacy, having contributed for over twenty-five years to a long, long list of charities through donations of his time, money, and other forms of support.  As the Los Angeles Times Michael Jackson left a philanthropic legacy almost as large as his cultural one. In all the financial and personal turmoil that characterized his latter years, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that he was a pioneer not only in popular music but also in charitable fundraising within the entertainment industry. Jackson, like his close friend Elizabeth Taylor, was one of the first entertainers to enlist in the fight against AIDS/HIV, and he went on to contribute and raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help sick children, set up scholarship funds, and to find new ways for entertainers to raise money and awareness for causes. He also helped set the standard of generosity for other entertainers, particularly pop stars. His song "We Are the World," which he co-wrote with Lionel Richie in 1985 to help combat famine in Africa, was instrumental in changing the way rock stars generate funds for the causes to which they're devoted. Before the financial woes that haunted him in recent years, Jackson was one of the industry's most formidable philanthropists.  Jackson's estate is expected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars more over the years to come. If the will currently being treated by the courts as valid is sustained, it appears that at least 20% of the income on the trust that Jackson directed his executors establish will go to charity. A detailed list of Michael Jackson's many charitable efforts can be found here. here Last updated:  9 July 2009    Gerstein, Josh.  "Obama Sends Condolence Letter to Jackson Family."   Politico.  28 June 2009.    Koppelman, Alex.  "On House Floor, A Moment of Silence for Michael Jackson."   Salon.  26 June 2009.    O'Neil, Tom.  "Farrah Fawcett's TV Cancer Confession May Be Emmy-Worthy."   Los Angeles Times.  7 May 2009.    Ventre, Michael.  "'Farrah's Story' a Tale of Inner Strength."   msnbc.com.  22 May 2009. On Feb. 13, 2023, journalist Matt Bindertweeted, "Elon Musk deleted his Eagles tweet after they lost lol." The post included what appeared to be a screenshot of the alleged tweet reading "Go @Eagles!!!" with American flag emojis, and referenced the 38-35 loss by the Philadelphia Eagles to the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LVII.  We've seen countless fake tweets over the years; those are images that were created to look like famous people posted things that they didn't actually. However, in this case, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was real. It temporarily appeared on Musk's account the night of the Super Bowl, Feb. 12, and it was deleted hours later, after the Chiefs won. For that reason, we rated this claim  [Seealso:Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII?] Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII? According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was live for at least four hours, including for an unknown amount of time after the Kansas City Chiefs won the game around 10:15 p.m. (EST). The same page capture from the Wayback Machine showed that, about 3.5 hours later, Musk also tweeted "GG Kansas City @Chiefs !!" and described Rihanna's halftime show with two fire emojis. That post had also been deleted, as of this writing. It's unclear exactly when or why the tweets were deleted. same page capture Wayback Machine Rihanna's halftime show As of this writing,both links where the tweets once lived for public viewing read, "Hmm...this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else." both links [See also:Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online?] Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online Binder, Matt. Twitter, 13 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1625144529136324610. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. On Dec. 13, 2023, we researched online advertisements that were displayed on YouTube and other websites that claimed Disney was hiring remote workers to fill various data-entry job roles. The ads showed the Disney logo and two small castles. The text in the ads specified that there was "no experience necessary" and that the work-from-home (WFH) positions would pay up to $23 per hour.  Another similar ad showed the Disney logo with a picture of the Pixar Pal-A-Round ferris wheel at the Disney California Adventure theme park. The ad promised remote customer-service jobs with Disney and said that selected candidates would start at a pay rate of $18 per hour. In red lettering, the ad also promised free theme park tickets.  We found several additional iterations of these same sorts of ads. All of them mentioned Disney and lower-paying jobs that could be done from home. However, as we noted above with our fact-check rating, the ads were false. We found no evidence that Disney was hiring for remote positions for data entry or customer service, nor did we find other entry-level roles that would come with free theme park tickets. As of mid-December 2023, a search of Disney's careers website showed 920 total job listings. Only three of the 920 positions were specified as being remote and were listings for a designer, an animator and an engineer. website These sorts of misleading job ads have been displayed online throughout 2023. They have all led to several different websites. As of December 2023, the same advertiser displaying the Disney job ads was also paying to display ads that claimed Amazon was hiring delivery drivers with a "$3,000 sign-on bonus," according to the Google Ads Transparency Center website (archived). We were unable to find a way to contact the advertiser to ask about the ads. website archived Some ads from the same advertiser also said that Delta Air Lines was hiring for for remote job openings that would include "free flights for employees." Another one claimed that Netflix was hiring for remote customer-service jobs that would come with a free streaming subscription, free lunches and free insurance. None of these ads led to the jobs that had been described. A search for more information about the ads led us to several online complaints about their misleading nature, including posts on Reddit, X and Google's Gmail Help community. Some of the posts made claims that the ads involved phishing scams and malware. We were unable to confirm these claims. Reddit X Google's Gmail Help community While the purpose of the ads was not completely clear, we did notice that some of the purported job board websites that the ads eventually redirected to would ask users if they agreed to be contacted via phone calls, text messages and emails by over 170 of what were called "marketing partners." In other words, the goal of the clickbait ads about various nonexistent job roles may have been primarily about creating a way for one or more people (e.g., the advertiser on Google) to receive some sort of affiliate-marketing (or other kind of) commission based upon misleading online users from the get-go. This story will be updated if we receive more details. @KC6UFM. X, 11 Dec. 2023, https://twitter.com/KC6UFM/status/1734348051177976104. Transparency Center. Google Ads, https://adstransparency.google.com/. u/Chaomayhem. Its a Travesty That Google Clearly Doesnt Care about the Quality of Ads Run on YouTube. r/marketing via Reddit.com, 7 Sept. 2023, https://www.reddit.com/r/marketing/comments/16ck905/its_a_travesty_that_google_clearly_doesnt_care/. User 13516083175457701794. There Are Ads That Google Keeps Promoting and Showing to Me That Are PHISHING SCAMS. - Gmail Community. Gmail Help via Google Support, 30 Apr. 2023, https://support.google.com/mail/thread/213536488/there-are-ads-that-google-keeps-promoting-and-showing-to-me-that-are-phishing-scams. Working at Disney. Jobs and Careers at Disney, https://jobs.disneycareers.com/. As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True. In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Since at least August 2013 a message has been circulated via Facebook claiming the social networking site was removing posted photographs of military veterans who had lost limbs due to amputation or injury, reportedly because Facebook has deemed such images to be "offensive" and a violation of the company's community standards: Facebook is removing Veteran Amputees photos' and calling them offensive and against the Community Standards of Facebook. Please like and share.  However, there is absolutely no basis for asserting that Facebook has taken such an action or implemented such a policy. No published Facebook guidelines make reference (directly or indirectly) to this class of photograph being unacceptable, and many images featuring amputees and other persons with missing limbs (including both military personnel and civilians) have long been plainly viewable on that social networking site. (In fact, one of the more popular images commonly shared on Facebook in recent years is one that is identified, albeit incorrectly, as showing a group of female veteran amputees.)  amputees amputees Moreover, the content of the warning message itself belies its claim, as it has been posted and shared on Facebook countless times despite its inclusion of a supposedly-banned photograph of a military amputee. The image shown above is a picture of Casey Owens, a U.S. Marine whose legs were amputated after he was injured by shrapnel from an anti-tank mine while he was taking part in a rescue mission in Iraq in September 2004. This particular photograph was taken while Owens was attending the inauguration of President George W. Bush in January 2005: inauguration Casey Owens, a wounded Marine, salutes as his mother Janna Owens cries during the inaugural speech by President Bush. The president pledged to work to heal a country divided by the Iraq war. "We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes, and I will strive in good faith to heal them."  Sydiongco, David.  "Don't Bother Posting the 'Facebook Privacy Notice' That's Spreading Around."
  Slate.  5 June 2012.