What alterations have occurred in the net worths of presidents?
An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017.
Claim:  McDonald's will stop serving overweight customers beginning 1 January 2015.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Is this article true? "McDonald's Will Stop Serving Overweight Customers Beginning 1/1/15"   Origins:  On 4 December 2014, Daily Buzz Live published an article claiming the McDonald's fast food chain would stop selling food to overweight customers as of 1 January 2015: article Obesity in America has more than doubled over the last 2 decades and has become the leading public health issue in the U.S. With more than two-thirds of the adult population overweight, McDonald's has decided to become part of the solution  not the problem. According to reports, beginning January 1, 2015, McDonald's will no longer serve customers with a weight capacity over 170 lbs for women and 245 lbs for men. Children's weight restrictions will vary depending on age and height. McDonald's is currently running campaigns to shake its "junk food" image, insisting they sell nothing but good quality food. They are are branding themselves from "A dining experience of fast food" to "Good food served fast." McDonald's has taken a few steps to make its menu healthier, but the restaurant chain has not announced any plans to stop serving customers based on their weight. In addition to the logistical menu  impossibilities of weighing drive-thru customers, the potential lawsuits for discriminating against obese people, and the likelihood of McDonald's losing millions of dollars in profits, the article can be debunked simply by considering its source:  According to the Daily Buzz Live disclaimer page, all articles published on the site are meant for "entertainment purposes only." Some articles are inspired by "real news events," but the content of these articles is "complete fiction." disclaimer Last updated:  5 December 2014 In May 2019, Delta Air Lines came under scrutiny after a photograph emerged on social media that appeared to show a poster encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on video game consoles rather than union dues. Eoin Higgins, an editor and writer at the left-leaning web site Common Dreams, tweeted the photograph on 9 May. The poster contained the following text: "Union dues cost around $700 a year. A new video game system with the latest hits sounds like fun. Put your money towards that instead of paying dues to the union." The poster featured the Delta logo and the URL of the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com: lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG  Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019   The union in question, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), posted photographs of similar fliers encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on watching baseball and football instead of becoming union members: Oh wow. Theres another one. And its just as bad. Really, @Delta? #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019  Safe to say @Delta didnt hit a home run with this one either. Three strikes and youre out. Let em have it, Twitter. #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 10, 2019 May 10, 2019  These photographs prompted multiple inquiries from Snopes readers about whether the fliers were authentic and whether Delta was itself responsible for producing them. A spokesperson for Delta confirmed to Snopes that the airline had indeed created all of the flyers mentioned above, including the "video game" one, and that Delta was also behind the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com, which discourages employees  at times in provocative terms  from becoming IAM members: Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com   In a statement, the Delta spokesperson wrote: "The direct relationship we have with our employees is at the very core of our strong culture and it has enabled continuous investments in Delta people. Our employees have the best total compensation in the industry, including the most lucrative profit sharing program in the world. They want and deserve the facts and we respect our employees right to decide if a union is right for them. Delta has shared many communications, which on the whole make clear that deciding whether or not to unionize should not be taken lightly." In a press release on 9 May, the IAM criticized what it called Delta's "union-busting propaganda," writing: press release "Delta Air Lines all-out assault on their employees legally-protected right to unionize with the Machinists Union is confirmation that our campaign to bring the benefits of IAM-representation to more than 40,000 Delta ground workers and flight attendants is succeeding ... Delta has resorted to defaming and spewing lies and misrepresentations about the IAM. They also continually display anti-IAM propaganda in the workplace. These are all hallmark signs of how well the IAM campaigns are doing and how scared Delta is of their employees having a voice in their careers." International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.  "Press Release -- IAM Campaigns Strike a Nerve With Delta Bosses."
  9 May 2019. Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907. "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907 Theodore Roosevelt was about to finish his first two-year term as governor of the state of New York when the Republican Party chose him as its candidate for vice president in the 1900 national election. The Republicans were victorious at the ballot box that year, but Roosevelt held the vice-presidency for less than a year before he was elevated to the White House upon the assassination of President William McKinley on 14 September 1901, thereby becoming the youngest person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Roosevelt was elected to a full term as president in 1904, and among his many notable achievements was his selection as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for his part in the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Treaty of Portsmouth Although Roosevelt did not hold public office again after leaving the presidency in 1909 (his efforts to regain the White House as a third party candidate in 1912 proving unsuccessful), he remained active in the public political sphere. In the waning years of his life, as World War I raged in Europe and America entered the conflict on the side of the Allies, he frequently spoke of his belief that immigrants taking up residence in the U.S. should assimilate into American society as quickly as possible, learn the English language, eschew hyphenated national identities (e.g., "Italian-American") and declare their primary national allegiance to the United States of America. On 1 February 1916, for example, Roosevelt advocated measures for strengthening and ensuring the "loyalty" of American immigrants: Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at a luncheon given yesterday by Mrs. Vincent Astor for the National Americanization Committee in the Astor Court Building, declared that one of the reasons why many German-Americans have shown greater love for their native land that for their adopted country is that the German system demands greater loyalty than is demanded in this country, and a greater contribution to the common welfare. "And all of you know I am free from a taint of neutrality," he added, "so I can say this without suspicion." The encouragement of better housing conditions and a compulsion to learn the English language, Colonel Roosevelt said, would help the process of Americanization. "We cannot make the Americanization movement a success," Colonel Roosevelt said, "unless we approach it from the economic standpoint. It is true that governmentally Germany is an autocracy. But there has been a great deal more industrial freedom there than many of our old industrial communities. The German Government says we expect you to work out good results, to get together with the laborer, and yourselves decide what you are going to pay to the doctors who are to pass upon the health of the employes, and the amount of damages any employe merits. The Government insists upon a great amount of self-government by the people themselves. "I feel that by insistence upon proper housing conditions we shall indirectly approach this. I want to see the immigrant know that he has got to spend a certain amount of his money in decent housing; that he will not be allowed to live on $2.50 per month board basis. "Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset. "We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship. "If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren. They will not be so if he lives in a boarding house at $2.50 per month with ten other boarders and contracts tuberculosis and contributes to the next generation a body of citizens inferior not only morally and spiritually but also physically."1 A few months later, Roosevelt expanded on this theme in a series of Memorial Day speeches he delivered in St. Louis: Moral treason to the United States was charged by Mr. Roosevelt, in an address delivered before the City Club, against German-Americans who seek to make their governmental representatives act in the interests of Germany rather than this country. He characterized the German-American Alliance as "an anti-American alliance," but added that he believed that its members "not only do not represent but scandalously misrepresent" the great majority of real Americans of German origin. Using the motto "America for Americans" for all Americans, whether they were born here or abroad, the former President declared that "the salvation of our people lies in having a nationalized and unified America, ready for the tremendous tasks of both war and peace." "I appeal to all our citizens," the colonel said, "no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischiefmakers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin." Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism  to speak of and condemn the use of the hyphen "whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came." He was equally against the native American of the wrong kind and for the immigrant of the right kind, the former President declared, but the immigrant who did not become in good faith an American "is out of place" in the United States. He said each nation should be judged by its conduct and that the United States should oppose encroachment on its own rights, whether Germany, England, France or Russia be guilty of misconduct. "The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself," the colonel continued, "by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries amd jealousies and hatreds."2 In a Fourth of July speech in 1917, Roosevelt urged the adoption of linguistic uniformity, including a requirement that all foreign-language newspapers published in the U.S. should also include English translations: Touching on the matter of language, Col. Roosevelt declared that "We must have in this country but one flag, and for the speech of the people but one language, the English language. During the present war all newspapers published in German, or in the speech of any of our foes, should be required to publish, side by side with the foreign text, columns in English containing the exact translation of everything said in the foreign language. Ultimately this should be done with all newspapers published in foreign languages in this country."3 Likewise, on 27 May 1918, Roosevelt urged in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, that English be the sole language of instruction used in American schools: English as the sole language for schools, newspapers and other usage in this country was urged by Theodore Roosevelt in an address here tonight under the direction of the National Security League ... In voicing his approval of the recent proclamation by Gov. Harding, ordering that English be the only medium of instruction in public or private schools in Iowa, Col. Roosevelt said: "This is a nation  not a polyglot boarding house. There is not room in the country for any 50-50 American, nor can there be but one loyalty  to the Stars and Stripes."4  The comments quoted at this head of the page are more in the same vein; excerpts not from (as claimed in the accompanying text) a statement made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 (while he was still President), but from a letter written shortly before his death in January 1919, just a few months after the armistice that ended the fighting in World War I: NEW YORK, Jan. 6.  What was the last public statement by Col. Roosevelt was read last night at an "All-American concert" here under the auspices of the American Defense society, of which he was honorary president. "I cannot be with you and so all I can do is to wish you Godspeed," it read. "There may be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over. "There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple. "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the mans becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. "If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. "We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."5 A copy of this letter, obtained from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, can be viewed here. here 3.  Boston Daily Globe.  "'Moral Treason' to Attack Allies."
  5 July 1917  (p. 10). 5.  The Chicago Daily Tribune.  "Abolish Hyphen Roosevelt's Last Words to Public."
  7 January 1919  (p. 4). 1.  The New York Times.  "A Roosevelt Idea Made in Germany."
  2 February 1916  (p. 5). 2.  The Washington Post.  "T.R. Assails Wilson."
  1 June 1916  (p. 1). 4.  The Washington Post.  "Use Only English, Roosevelt Urges."
  28 May 1918  (p. 2). On Feb. 3, 2024, a photograph circulated on social media allegedly showing a view of Russia from Alaska. "Russia is 2 miles away from Alaska," one post on Reddit captioned the image, while another post on X (formerly Twitter) claimed that "Russia is 55 miles away from Alaska." post post Russia is 2 miles away from Alaskabyu/NicoleN_Pillow1899 inBeAmazed Russia is 2 miles away from Alaska u/NicoleN_Pillow1899 BeAmazed  "Is it real?" one Reddit user asked. We found that the image was also shared on Instagram and featured in a BuzzFeed article. asked Instagram article In short, the photograph is authentic, but it does not show Russian territory visible from Alaska. The photo was featured in a 2018 BBC article with the title "American lone sailor held in far east Russia near Alaska" and an article by TASS, a Russian press agency, with the credit of " ," which translates to "Yuri Smityuk." We found the photograph was captured by Russian photographer Yuri Smityuk. The caption to the image shared by IMAGO, a German photo agency, read (emphasis ours): article article read CHUKOTKA, RUSSIA  JUNE 24, 2018: Mechigmen Spit near the Lorino whaling settlement. There are 1200 people living in the village which is the centre of Russia s subsistence whaling and walrus hunting. Lorino maritime hunters have an annual catch limit of 60 gray whales and 1 bowhead whale. Therefore, the photograph was not captured in Alaska, contrary to what some social media users claimed. However, it is true that Russia's Big Diomede Island and Alaska's Little Diomede Island are about 2.5 miles apart. (The Russian and Alaskan mainlands are approximately 55 miles apart at their closest points.) 2.5 miles mainlands   (Google Maps) Given that the so-called Yesterday and Tomorrow Islands are so close to each other, it is possible to see Russian territory from Alaska, as can be seen in the Getty Images photograph below: photograph   (Getty Images) For reference, here's what the Diomede Islands look like from from above:   (Getty Images) In January 2011, we investigated whether vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house," during the 2008 presidential campaign. investigated Anchorage, Mailing Address: 605 West 4th Avenue Suite 105, and AK 99501 Phone: 907 644-3661 Contact Us. How Close Is Alaska to Russia? - Alaska Public Lands (U.S. National Park Service). https://www.nps.gov/anch/learn/historyculture/how-close-is-alaska-to-russia.htm. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024.
Diomede Islands | Bering Strait, Russia, & Alaska | Britannica. 18 Dec. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/place/Diomede-Islands.
Mikkelson, David. "Did Sarah Palin Say: 'I Can See Russia from My House'?" Snopes, 29 Jan. 2011, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sarah-palin-russia-house/.
Yesterday and Tomorrow Islands. 27 Jan. 2018, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/91638/yesterday-and-tomorrow-islands. The introduction of new EMV (Europay, MasterCard, and Visa) technology has enhanced the security of debit and credit card transactions by replacing standard cards with ones embedded with small computer chips  thats extremely hard to counterfeit.  The addition of the chips makes the cards much harder to counterfeit and provides for additional authentication and security during point-of-sale transactions. The manner in which EMV cards are physically handled during a sales transaction is somewhat different than with older cards, however.  Rather than being swiped through a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, EMV cards are inserted (or "dipped") into the terminal and left in place for the entire transaction so that the reader and card can talk back and forth. EMV cards can be either swiped or dipped (since not all merchants are yet set up with EMV-compliant card readers), and that duality has led to some confusion among consumers about whether liability for fraudulent transactions shifts depending upon how an EMV card is processed.  Specifically, some consumers have heard rumors that swiping an EMV card rather than dipping it leaves them (rather than the merchant or card issuer) liable for any ensuing fraudulent use of the card. The issue of fraud liability has evolved with the introduction of EMV cards, but that liability has not been passed back onto cardholders.  According to CreditCards.com, that evolution solely concerns determining whether the merchant or the card issuer is the party bears liability for fraud in any given case  cardholders themselves remain protected from liability, regardless of whether their EMV cards are swiped or dipped: CreditCards.com Cardholders may be adjusting to "dipping" their chip cards instead of swiping them, but they won't have to adjust to fraud liability changes. If an authorized transaction occurs against a consumer's credit account, they will continue to be reimbursed by their card issuer for the charges per the major networks' (Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover) zero-liability policies. If the issuer finds that the fraud occurred at a non-EMV compliant merchant, it can request a refund for the chargeback transaction, but the consumer is not involved. Consumers will not be responsible for fraud charges that result from a merchant not being prepared to properly accept EMV cards or because their card issuer has not yet sent them a chip-embedded card. What the new rules govern is whether merchants or card issuers (i.e., banks and credit unions) are liable in cases of credit card fraud, with responsibility now falling upon whichever party was least EMV-compliant: Today, if an in-store transaction is conducted using a counterfeit, stolen or otherwise compromised card, consumer losses from that transaction fall back on the payment processor or issuing bank, depending on the card's terms and conditions. Following an Oct. 1, 2015 deadline created by major U.S. credit card issuers MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express, the liability for card-present fraud shifted to whichever party is the least EMV-compliant in a fraudulent transaction. Consider the example of a financial institution that issues a chip card used at a merchant that has not changed its system to accept chip technology. This allows a counterfeit card to be successfully used. "The cost of the fraud will fall back on the merchant," [chip card service company president Martin] Ferenczi says. The change is intended to help bring the entire payment industry on board with EMV by encouraging compliance to avoid liability costs. A separate article on that web site illustrated the liability shifts with a chart: illustrated  Many consumers have noticed that although some merchants have seemingly upgraded to EMV-compliant POS terminals, the card slots on those terminals are puzzlingly non-operational (and thus require that customers swipe their chipped cards).  As the New York Times noted  in March 2016, that situation is the result of merchants' having to wait for certification of their terminals: noted  Avi Kaner, a co-owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain in New York, has spent about $700,000 to update the payment terminals at his stores. Trouble is, he cannot turn them on. The new terminals can accept credit and debit cards with embedded digital chips, a security feature intended to reduce the number of fraudulent purchases. But before the payment systems can work, they must be certified, a process that Mr. Kaner and many retailers around the country are waiting to happen. In the case of Morton Williams, the holdup has lasted several months. The cost of waiting, retailers say, is piling up. Until recently, banks covered much of the cost of fraudulent purchases. Since Oct. 1, though, merchants that cannot accept chip cards have had to shoulder the cost of fraud, and banks have not been shy about passing along the bill. For years, retailers have argued that the technology, commonly referred to as E.M.V., which stands for Europay, MasterCard and Visa, the technologys early advocates, mainly protected banks. Mr. Peterson estimated that only 40 to 50 percent of retailers are capable of accepting chip cards. Kaner told the newspaper he believed consumers were taking advantage of the interim period to file suspicious chargebacks due to the shift in liability: Mr. Kaner worries that some customers may be using the Oct. 1 liability shift to get out of paying for legitimate purchases. The number of chargebacks, he said, has risen sharply. It started out as a trickle, and now its turning into a flood, he said. In the first couple months, it might have been a few hundred dollars a month. Now, its thousands a month. Terry Crowley, CEO of processor TranSend, told KrebsonSecurity that consumer dishonesty was a larger issue than consumer liability during the transition period: told Crowley predicts that plenty of smaller merchants could soon get hit with a wave of chargebacks from unscrupulous people abusing the liability shift at merchants that still dont offer the chip dip. Theres an invisible hand at work that is about to kick everyone in the pants and accelerate U.S. dipping into EMV slots, Crowley said. If you use a chip card at a point of sale that says swipe   and you later say that wasnt me  theres very little a merchant can do to dispute that charge. Its going to happen because what people arent thinking about is the friendly fraud. When people are made aware that if I swipe and I have a chip card, that lunch can be free if Im a bad consumer. It's possible cardholders have confused information intended for merchants as being directed at them.Processor Square published a short instructional guide for the EMV card liability shift that might have caused such confusion among consumers who didn't realize the pronoun "you" referred to merchants and not cardholders: instructional guide  But, in short, consumers don't have to adjust to fraud liability changes with EMV cards.  That's an issue for merchants and card issuers to sort out between them. Abrams, Rachel.  "Chip-Card Payment System Delays Frustrate Retailers."
  The New York Times.  22 March 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "7 Merchant Tips to Understanding EMV Fraud Liability Shift."
  CreditCards.com.  21 June 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "8 FAQs About EMV Credit Cards."
  CreditCards.com.  17 June 2016. KrebsonSecurity.  "The Great EMV Fake-Out: No Chip for You!"
  16 February 2016. The Iranian missile strikes launched against U.S. forces in Iraq inspired the spread of false and inaccurate claims on Facebook, with one post taking aim at former President Barack Obama. The missiles that were launched at American forces in Iraq from Iran, were funded by Barack Obama, with American tax dollars. Let that sink in, said a Jan. 8Facebook postfrom a page that calls itself Conservative Headquarters. A text image posted to Facebook on Jan. 8, 2020 contains a claim that we rate False. The post, with over 19,000 shares, was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) It cites a2016 articlefrom the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website. But the Free Beacon post  from nearly four years ago  doesn't allege what the Facebook image did. There is no evidence that the Iranian missiles were paid for by U.S. taxpayers. The Facebook post, likeotherpostsandclaimswevefact-checkedbefore, misrepresents terms of the Iran nuclear deal that Obama signed on behalf of the United States in 2015. The deal with Iran was promoted by Obama, but it was also signed by China, Russia, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, with assistance from the European Union. Thedealallowed Iran to regain access to some of its own assets, which had been frozen as an economic sanction levied in retaliation for the countrys pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The United States and other countries lifted the sanctions and freeze on funds after international inspectors verified in 2016 that Iran was doing enough to curb its nuclear program. So the money was Irans. It wasnt handed to Iran by the United States or Obama, nor was it funded by U.S. taxpayers. Its not clear what ultimately happened to the funds. InJanuary 2016, then-Secretary of State JohnKerry said he expected that some of the money would end up with organizations involved in terrorism. But theres no evidence that the money was behind the strike in Iraq. On Jan. 5, after a U.S. airstrike killed top Iranian military leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iransaidit would no longer comply with the limits the deal placed on its ability to enrich uranium. In addition to the unfreezing of assets, the United States did provide Iran $1.7 billion as part of a settlement ending a legal dispute. That money was part of a cash transfer that theCongressional Research Service reviewed. It resolved an arms contract between the United States and Iran that predated the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iran had paid for military equipment, but it was never delivered. As wevenotedbefore, there was $400 million in that account as of 1990, and negotiators agreed that accrued interest would add $1.3 billion to the amount. The United States sent the money to Iran in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. But this was a repayment, meaning the United States was giving Iran its money back with interest. And while the interest came from a governmentfundmaintained by taxpayer dollars, the money being reimbursed originated with Iran, not the U.S. taxpayer. And again, theres no evidence that this money ultimately went toward the recent missile strikes. A Facebook post said, The missiles that were launched at American forces in Iraq from Iran, were funded by Barack Obama, with American tax dollars. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed by multiple nations, and it did not involve the United States or Obama cutting a check to Iran. The funds Iran received were its own frozen assets. American tax dollars were never part of the deal. A separate payment that went to Iran under Obama was to settle a decades-old dispute over U.S. military equipment that Iran paid for but never received. We rate this statement False. Clarification and update, Jan. 10, 2020: The Washington Free Beacon story cited by the author of the viral image never alleged that taxpayer dollars were used to fund the missiles launched at American forces in Iraq. An original version of this story may have been unclear on this point. On 27 February 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article positing that a retired postman had fathered more than 1,300 illegitimate children: An 87-year-old former postman has been proven to have fathered over 1,300 illegitimate children after a private investigator hired by a Tennessee family discovered the shocking truth. Contraception wasnt very popular in those days, he told local reporters in his defense. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The 60s were the good old days and I did a great Johnny Cash impression which played out real good with the ladies, he explained. Some even thought I was Johnny Cash for real, he recalls laughingly. I dont know if they really believed it or if they were trying to convince themselves, but who was I to say no to a quickie? he acknowledged. There was no truth to thisstory, which originated with World News Daily Report (WNDR), a fake news site that does not publish factual stories (as noted in their disclaimer): WNDR assumes however all responsibility for thesatiricalnature of its articles and for the fictional nature oftheir content. All characters appearing in the articlesin this website  even those based on real people  areentirely fictionalandany resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purelya miracle. In addition to the disclaimer, thefake news story about a postman's fathering 1,300 illegitimate children was given away as fiction because it featured two unrelated images that were lifted (like all of WNDR's photographs) from other sites:   The first image, which purportedly depicts the prolific postman, actually shows a 97-year-old World War II veteran. The second image, which supposedly captures the reporter who uncovered the story, is actually picture of David Stockman, the budget director during the Reagan administration. shows picture The above-displayed image is a genuine photograph of President Obama conversing with some of his staff in the Oval Office with his feet up on his desk. However, most of the accompanying text that was reproduced with this image was contrived and subjective invective intended to stir up partisan outrage: It is true that in some parts of the world showing the bottom of one's shoes (even accidentally) is considered rude, but it isn't true of American culture, nor do the areas where it does hold true (primarily the Middle East, Korea, Thailand, some parts of Africa) comprise anything close to "over half of the cultures of the world." Thailand This posture is not the norm, perhaps, but it's far from "absolutely never done." Take, for example, this anecdote from a book about one of American's most prominent business executives, Apple's late co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs: Bill Curley, a middle-aged Apple marketing manager, remembers this incident from his very first week on the job at Apple. "I was at a meeting with [Apple CEO Steve] Jobs and several other managers, and he is in shorts, running shoes, and no socks. He's disagreeing with a guy, so he kicks off his shoes and puts his bare feet on the table. He framed the guy's face with his feet." An executive's kicking his feet up on a desk or table is an action that can be regarded quite differently in varying contexts: Doing so in the middle of a staff meeting might be regarded as demonstrating rudeness, arrogance, or disrespect; on the other hand, doing so at the end of a long, hard workday while engaging in friendly chit-chat with a few subordinates might be perceived as showing oneself to be a warm, folksy, regular ol' guy. If a U.S. President's putting his feet up on the Oval Office desk is an indication that "he thinks of himself as a king" and should be "inundated" with mail "demanding he stop desecrating his office," then we seem to have missed the boat on that issue  identical actions by President Obama's predecessors in the White House provoked no such outrage, as demonstrated by the following unremarked-upon photographs of Presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford: This photograph became the subject of renewed interest after President Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway was photographed kneeling with her feet on an Oval Office couch. kneeling Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, campaigning for re-election,tweeteda parody of President Barack Obama promoting his signature health-care law. Around midday Dec. 12, 2013, the official White House Twitter accountposteda photo of Obama holding a sign urging Americans to get health coverage because nobody should go broke just because they get sick. Social media denizensstarted creatingversions that rewrote the signs text; Dewhursts had Obama saying, I want more of Texans private data. Some perspective: Texas in 2012 had approximately 19.5 million insured residents and 5.2 million legal residents without insurance according to a March 18, 2013,reportby the state Health and Human Services Commission. Does the Obamacare law demand private data on them that wasn't known to the government before? PolitiFact reporters have checked out several claims about how the Affordable Care Acts online marketplaces will handle personal information. Many of the concerns addressed are about how government agencies will share information they already collect -- andhow securethat information will be. As part of a May 2013fact-check, PolitiFact in Washington, D.C., reported that afederal data hubresulting from the 2010 law would pull information from government agencies, but not expand federal data collection. For example, the Social Security Administration is asked to verify a person's Social Security number, and the IRS confirms financial data to see if a person is eligible for a subsidy. PolitiFact in D.C. gave aFalse ratingSept. 19, 2013, to a claim by former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey that Obamacare will question your sex life, finding that nothing in the health care law required such questions. So what information does the government collect under the Obamacare law? If you apply to shop in the federal online insurance marketplace or the marketplace for your state, youll supply information on yourself and perhaps family members, some of which the government already has. Healthcare.gov offers achecklistfor people preparing to fill out applications, whetheronlineorprinted: Social Security number, employer, income, current insurance policy numbers and information about your employers insurance plans (if any). Such answers will help determine whether youre eligible to buy insurance through the marketplaces and if you can get free- or reduced-cost coverage via tax credits, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. The standardizedfamily applicationasks for information on you and everyone who lives with you, including whether you are pregnant and how many babies youre expecting, whether you have a health condition that limits daily activities, whether you live in a nursing home and whether you were in foster care after age 18. Other questions concern employment, military service, sources of income, tax deductions taken and whether you are American Indian or Alaska Native. A Sept. 18, 2013,fact sheetfrom the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said, Personal health information (PHI) will be requested only when it is needed to complete the application and make an eligibility determination for health coverage options. Health privacy expert Deven McGraw told us by email that the applications do collect some information the government did not already have, but said its the same type of information gathered when people apply for public coverage such as Medicaid. They are questions that are specifically designed to match eligibility criteria. So none of it is extraneous, said McGraw, director of the health privacy project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which advocates for Internet freedom. And, she said, the data cant be used for any purposes other than the marketplaces functions. More information about you could come, the fact sheet says, from common federal data sources including the Social Security Administration (SSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Wait -- Homeland Security? According to the National Immigration Law Centerswebsite, applicants who are not U.S. citizens will have their status verified through a Homeland/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servicedatabase. Agencies already use the web service, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), to determine immigrants eligibility forbenefitsincluding Medicaid, housing loans and unemployment. Via email, Social Security spokeswoman Kia Anderson told us her agency can, when CMS needs the information to determine eligibility, provide applicants ID numbers, citizenship data, death or disability indicators and Social Security income and coverage earned. So the application process puts together some information the government already had with some it didnt have. People who arent applying to shop inthe marketplaces but are subject to the Obamacare laws mandate will also be sharing some new information with Uncle Sam. The mandate to have or get insurance applies, according to the immigration law center, to all U.S. citizens, naturalized citizens and legal immigrants. Via email, IRS spokeswoman Lea Crusberg said 2014 tax returns will ask whether you have health coverage that meets the new standards or an exemption, whether you got coverage through an Obamacare marketplace and whether you got a tax credit to help defray the cost. The laws new tax payments and credits will also be on returns, of course. In 2015, Crusberg said, the IRS will start collecting coverage information from insurance providers. Employers who insure their own workers in-house will report which employees are enrolled and give enough information so the IRS can tell if those workers are due a tax credit. Self-insuring employers will also put the cost of the plan theyre providing on W-2 forms so workers can see it. Is the new data private information? Per the CMS fact sheet, Obamacare applicants could be asked to cough up some personal health information. But the fact sheet also says the marketplaces systems will not store this information -- which casts some doubt on whether the government is really collecting it, but serves as an indication that its considered sensitive. How about when the IRS asks where your insurance comes from, whether you got a tax credit for it and whether it meets the Obamacare laws standards? Generally, the IRS regards what you put on your tax return as private. For example, tax preparers who disclose such information without your consentcan face criminal charges. Final IRS regulations governing who can disclose what tax return information to HHS under the Obamacare lawwere issuedAug. 13, 2013. AnFAQposted by the IRS that day said that officers and employees of the IRS will disclose to HHS, the Marketplace, and state agencies only, upon written request and subject to strict privacy and security rules, certain return information ... for the purpose of determining eligibility for certain health care affordability programs. Our ruling Dewhurst said Obama wants more of Texans private data. The subset of Texans shopping for coverage through the online marketplace are providing additional private data for a reason: to ensure theyre qualified. Dewhurst's statement overlooks these aspects. Regardless, many more Texans will be asked to give the IRS information about their health coverage that was previously not requested. We rate Dewhursts statement as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. After Illinois teen Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with fatally shooting two people and wounding another during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020, Snopes received numerous inquiries from readers wondering if a self-described Christian crowdfunding website was hosting a fundraiser to supposedly help pay Rittenhouse's legal defense. two people and wounding another The killings occurred during a chaotic confrontation between people protesting the Aug. 23 police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, and armed vigilantes who claimed to be patrolling the lakeside city to prevent looting and property destruction. Rittenhouse, 17, was captured in video footage carrying a military-style rifle, marching alongside members of the latter group, and putting his hands up after shots were fired. Authorities arrested him on Aug. 26 in connection with the deaths in Antioch, Illinois, where he was being held without bail and awaiting his next court hearing on Sept. 25. Jacob Blake footage was being held without bail The charges against Rittenhouse included first-degree intentional homicide, which carries a life sentence. The Chicago Tribune reported: The Chicago Tribune Rittenhouses case immediately became a popular cause in conservative circles, where pundits began defending the teenager before he had even been charged. At least two defense funds have been launched in his name in recent days, though its unclear if the Rittenhouse family supports either of those efforts. That brings us to the question from Snopes readers: Was a website that brands itself as Christian called GiveSendGo hosting an apparent online fundraiser to help Rittenhouse pay court costs? First, we searched several crowdfunding sites for online campaigns with a similar stated goal: to raise money to help Rittenhouse or his family fight criminal charges against him. None appeared on GoFundMe, as of this report. GoFundMe Several crowdfunding pages, however, were active and allegedly supporting Rittenhouse's case on Fundly (see partial search results below). Additionally, a conservative student group at Arizona State University pledged to donate half of its future fundraising dollars to the cause. "[Rittenhouse] does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riot," the college group tweeted. Fundly conservative student group pledged tweeted   Next, we considered crowdfunding platforms that describe themselves as Christian and researched GiveSendGo at readers' requests. According to the website, which describes itself as the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site," users can organize and run crowdsourcing campaigns for free by using personalized logins and donate to GiveSendGo directly. The website's "About Us" page stated: GiveSendGo GiveSendGo is meant to give Christians the opportunity to be supported by the body of Christ. A place for the body of Christ to get out from their comfortable pews and support people in God's family that they might not have ever known about. [...] A place for Christians. Based on that evidence, it was accurate to claim GiveSendGo describes itself as a website that promotes Christianity. Then we looked for proof of pages supporting Rittenhouse on the platform. A keyword search for "Kyle Rittenhouse" uncovered several pages, including a fundraiser titled "Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense" that had raised more than $314,000 as of this report. Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense It was the most popular and active GiveSendGo campaign created to supposedly help the teen or his family. The page included the following the description: Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA  the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one, as he was forced to take two lives to defend his own. Now, Kyle is being unfairly charged with murder 1, by a DA who seems determined only to capitalize on the political angle of the situation. The situation was clearly self-defense, and Kyle and his family will undoubtedly need money to pay for the legal fees. Let's give back to someone who bravely tried to defend his community. On Aug. 28, 2020, the page's organizers  "Friends of the Rittenhouse family" of Atlanta, Georgia  wrote an update to the page in which they claimed they had spoken with Rittenhouse's mother and legal team and that that party was raising money via multiple methods. The organizers of the GiveSendGo campaign pledged: "All of the money donated ... will go to Kyle's defense, as it is likely to be an expensive and protracted affair."   No specific details on the GiveSendGo page's organizers were known, including how or under what circumstances they started the alleged fundraiser. Anyone can establish a campaign on the site; donors are encouraged to report pages that appear suspicious or fraudulent, and there was no evidence to confirm or deny the organizers of the campaign for Rittenhouse were indeed giving the payments to help his legal defense, aside from the above-described pledge from them. That update also read: Kyle is reportedly in good spirits, and I'm told that the incredible support shown by you good people is what's keeping him going. ... This young man has reinvigorated the faith of many that this country and its founding principles are indeed founded upon the rock, not built upon the sand. However, a city upon a hill cannot be hid; Kyle now faces the wrath of those who would see us stripped of our God-given rights and reduced to servitude. He is in dire need of our help. The GiveSendGo page collected more than 7,330 donations as of this report, some of which included messages of support for Rittenhouse. "This young man is a hero. Give him a medal and make him a millionaire. Every patriot can spare him a few bucks" said an anonymous donor who contributed $10, per the page. Another donor said:   Based on those findings  yes, a self-described Christian crowdfunding website GiveSendGo was hosting a campaign to supposedly help Rittenhouse  we reached out to the website's administrators to learn under what terms it hosts campaigns on its platform. Jacob Wells, a co-founder of the site, told us via email: GiveSendGo allows campaigns from all kinds of different people and political/religious ideologies. Just because we are Christians does not mean every campaign on our site has to be one or that we agree with its campaign premise. [...] We will withhold judgement and leave that for the courts and God. Our judicial system works on the principle of innocence until proven guilty. As a veteran owned platform we recognize the freedoms we have in the USA came at a very high price and we will not just trample on them to satisfy political correctness. Additionally, he said site administrators were conducting a review of the page involving Rittenhouse to make sure it follows site guidelines, though they "currently believe the campaign is eligible like any other campaigns because it does not violate our terms of service." On Aug. 27 the crowdfunding site posted the following statement to Twitter:  The campaign stoked controversy online among people who believed it wrongfully celebrated the actions of an alleged killer and should be removed from the crowdfunding website. Referring to Blake, who was paralyzed from the waist down after a white police officer shot at his back multiple times on Aug. 23, one Facebook user alleged: paralyzed   In response to those critics, Wells told Snopes: We recognize that we live in a world of diverse ideas and opinions and that part of our strength is in that diversity. We will respond with grace to those that disagree with us. We will give grace to ourselves to not always get it right as we learn and grown. Finally we will give grace to the campaign owner, those that support the campaign, and Kyle as he walk out [sic] the ramifications of his actions. In sum, given how GiveSendGo describes itself  the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site"  as well as evidence of listed donations on a webpage that says it will give all contributions to help fund Rittenhouse's legal defense, we rate this claim  Republicans United.  "Welcome."
  Accessed 31 August 2020. The Associated Press.  "Arizona Student Fundraiser for Kenosha Shooting Suspect Kyle Rittenhouse Stirs Outrage."
 Los Angeles Times.  31 August 2020. GiveSendGo.  "About Us."
  Accessed 31 August 2020. GiveSendGo.  "Got Questions?"
  Accessed 31 August 2020. Stone, Michael.  "Christian Crowdfunding Site Raising Money For Kenosha Killer Kyle Rittenhouse."
  Patheos.  28 August 2020. Willis, Haley, et. al. "Tracking The Suspect In The Fatal Kenosha Shootings."
 The New York Times. 27 August 2020.