No, McDonald's Isn't Charging a 'Caucasian' Service Fee
Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know In January 2022, an image circulated online allegedly alerting Caucasian customers of the fast food chain McDonald's that they would be required to pay an additional fee:   "As an insurance measure, due in part to the recent coup attempt of the Capital (sic) earlier this year, all Caucasian customers are required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction." McDonald's has no such policy, but the image appears to be a variation of a similar internet post. In 2012, a similar image with similar wording circulated online claiming that McDonald's was instituting an additional $1.50 fee on Black customers. claiming Mikkelson, David. "FACT CHECK: Did a McDonalds Impose a Surcharge on African-American Customers to Cover Robbery Insurance? Snopes, 24 Jan. 2012, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/self-insured/.
We stop for red lights and go on green lights almost by instinct, so deeply steeped into us are our traffic rules. Just as we rarely give thought to the possibility of meeting a car traveling the wrong way on a one-way street, so too do we rarely pause to wonder where our traffic laws came from or who invented the crosswalk. Meet William Phelps Eno (1858-1945), an innovator who long ago earned the sobriquet "the Father of Traffic Safety."  William Phelps Eno Born in New York City, this forward-thinking man observed the massive traffic jams of his era and from those observations formulated solutions that carried over from the days of horses and carriages into the automotive age. In 1900 he penned the treatise "Reform in Our Street Traffic Urgently Needed," which immediately established him as a traffic safety expert, a mantle he was to wholeheartedly embrace.   In 1903 he developed the world's first city traffic code (for New York City) and the first traffic plans for New York City, London, and Paris.     It was William Phelps Eno who invented stop signs and who envisioned one-way streets, taxi stands, traffic circles, and pedestrian safety islands. He wrote the first manual of police traffic regulations, and it was he who designed the circular traffic pattern that courses around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. stop signs In 1921 he established the Eno Transportation Foundation, a non-profit study center located in Washington, D.C.  The Foundation is dedicated to improving all modes of transportation  ground, air, and water.  Eno was always a great fan of horseback riding but did not place all that much faith in the automobile, thinking it but a fad. He never learned to drive, and when events in his life necessitated car travel, he relied on a chauffeur.  William Phelps Eno's penchant for peculiarity outlived him. In 1996 his old home in Westport, Connecticut, came under the steady assault of determined bargain hunters who misunderstood the "bargain" they so intently pursued. Eno's 32-room mansion and the land it stood on had been sold for $1.5 million, but the buyer wanted the choice waterfront land for the purpose of subdividing it, not for the 119-year-old building that stood upon it. The old manse was to be razed to make way for new housing. Rather than see old building torn down, the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation stepped in and offered it for $1 to anyone who would cart William Phelps Eno's home away and give it a good home elsewhere. The costs of barging the mansion to a new site and restoring it were estimated at $500,000 and $1.7 million, respectively. The Today Show helped publicize the scheme, but unfortunately people heard only what they wanted to hear: that they could have a mansion for $1. Everything about the land not coming with it and the building having to be carted away and set up elsewhere went in one ear and out the other. The property was overrun by folks determined to look it over, and they showed up at all hours of day and night, often necessitating calls to the police to have them removed. The previous owner (who was living in its carriage house) was driven to distraction by the never-ending stream of phone calls and letters pleading for the house. "Keep Out" signs had to be posted, and the road leading to the mansion had to be chained off to keep dollar-waving people out. Meanwhile, the Trust's office was also fielding hundreds of calls and letters, some coming from those who thought this was a lottery, and one from a gal who thought the mansion was a prize offered for an essay-writing contest. Even utter chaos eventually dies down. Hundreds upon hundreds of inquiries later, no one really wanted the house. It was ultimately demolished in July 1997. Meyers, Kendra.   Will a Mansion Find a Home Before All the Doorknobs Are Gone?
  The New York Times.   4 February 1996   (13CN; p. 2).
 Wallace, Irving.   Significa.
  New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1983   (pp. 22-23). Claim:  Walt Disney's will specified that a substantial bequest go to the first man to become pregnant or bear a child. Status:  False. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2004] I've actually heard this quite a few times but, I was told that Walt Disney had a section of his will that the first MAN to give birth to a baby would a piece of his estate (I've heard they would get Disney World, I've also heard that they would get $10 million).   [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] One day at lunch, we some how got on the subject of Walt Disney, and someone brought up a new thing I had never heard before, he said "It says in Walt Disney's will that the entire Disney corporation goes to the first male to get pregnant." Origins:  The eccentric wealthy person who leaves behind a will giving a substantial fortune to the person who accomplishes some difficult feat (or meets some unusual qualification) is a common figure in entertainment and legend.  Such figures are generally found more often in fiction than in fact, although real-life instances are not hard to find.  (One of the most notable examples is the case of Charles Vance Millar, a Toronto lawyer whose will included a number of capricious bequests, including one that touched off years of legal wrangling in the 1930s in what came to be known as "The Great Stork Derby.") Millar One of the more odd (and puzzling) recent examples of this genre is the claim that Walt Disney's will specified cash or assets worth many millions of dollars be given to the first man to become pregnant or give birth to a child.  Although the reason why this particular claim has become attached to the name of Walt Disney may be something of a mystery, determining that it is false is a fairly simple matter, for a number of reasons: Walt Disney was, for the most part, a man whose sensibilities reflected turn-of-the-century, conservative Midwestern values.  He didn't truck in the outrageous or bizarre, and the thought of a man's bearing children is something he likely would have found disturbing and repulsive, not something he would have sought to encourage or reward with the bestowment of a considerable fortune.  Most  versions of this claim have Walt supposedly bequeathing something he could not give away, such as a sum of money exceeding the value of his portion of his estate, or corporate assets belonging to publicly held companies (e.g., Disneyland, Walt Disney World, Walt Disney Productions).  Although Walt Disney held a personal financial stake in a few Disneyland attractions (such as the railroad and the monorail) and made a good deal of money licensing the use of his name to Walt Disney Productions, he owned neither the theme park nor the company that bore his name and therefore could not direct that either be "given" to anyone.  (At the time of his death, Walt and his wife Lillian jointly owned stock amounting to about 14% of Walt Disney Productions.)  Walt Disney's will of March 1966, which was in effect when he passed away in December of that year, contained no provisions for rewarding pregnant men (or any other unusual disbursements).  Disney left 45% of his estate to his wife and daughters, another 45% to the Disney Foundation in a charitable trust (most of which was dedicated to CalArts), and the remaining 10% in a trust to be divided among his sister, nieces, and nephews. will CalArts Although some medical researchers have expressed the belief that a man might someday be able to carry a pregnancy to term (even if it isn't necessarily a good idea), and a renowned piece of Internet "performance art" presented the idea that a male pregnancy had already been accomplished, for now the subject still remains one of speculation rather than fact. pregnancy performance art Last updated:  11 March 2008     Sources:   Gabler, Neal.  Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination.   New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.   ISBN 0-679-43822-X   (pp. 629-630). Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination    Barrier, Michael.  The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney.   Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. ISBN 0-520-24117-7  (p. 323). The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney Claim:  The Department of Defense has cut off sales of spent cartridge cases to U.S. ammunition manufacturers.  OF AND  OUTDATED INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2009] Georgia Arms is the 5th largest retailer of .223 Ammo in America.  (they sell 9 mm, .45, etc ammo) They normally buy spent brass from the US Dept of Defense - 'one time used' shell casings by our Military - from training on Military bases, etc.  They buy the brass and then re-load for resale to Law Enforcement, Gun Shops, Gun Clubs, Wal-Mart, and etc. They normally buy 30,000 lbs of spent brass at a time. This week the DoD wrote a letter to the owner of Georgia Arms and said that from now on the DoD will be destroying the brass - shredding it. It is no longer available to the Ammo makers - unless they just buy it in a scrap shredded condition (which they have No use for).  The shredded brass is NOW going to be sold by the DoD to China as scrap metal.... after the DoD pays for it to be shredded. The DoD is selling the brass to China for less money than Ammo manufacturers have been paying... plus the DoD has to pay to have the brass shredded and do all the accounting paperwork.  That sure helps the US economy now, doesn't it?  Sell cheaper to China - and do not sell shells at all to a proven US business.  Any agenda working here???? Obama going after our ammunition!!!!! The Georgia Arms owner even related a story that one of his competitors had already purchased a load of brass last week - and the DoD contacted him this week and said they were sending someone over to make sure it was destroyed.  Shell Casings he had already bought!  THE BRASS HAS NO VALUE TO THE AMMO MAKER IF IT IS DESTROYED/SHREDDED/MELTED.  THE AMMO MANUFACTURER ONLY USES THE EMPTY BRASS SHELLS TO RELOAD DIFFERENT CALIBERS - MAINLY .223 BULLETS. Georgia Arms owner says that he will have to lay off at least Half of his 60 workers, within 2 - 3 months if the DoD no longer sells their spent brass to him. He has 2 - 3 months inventory of shells to use.  By summer - he's out. If he has to buy new manufactured brass shells, then the cost of ammunitioin to the buyer will double and triple. Origins:  The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), which is part of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which in turn is part of the Department of Defense (DoD), is the service "responsible for the disposition of excess and surplus DoD property" and is tasked with "protecting national security by ensuring property is properly identified for reutilization and disposition and not released for public sale when to do so would jeopardize national security." DRMS In March 2009, while reviewing a policy change issued by the DoD the previous year, the DLA halted or reclassified the sale of a broad category of items, a  category which included spent cartridge cases. This event caused consternation among manufacturers and purchasers of ammunition because it cut off some ammunition manufacturers from their largest supply of brass casings, as U.S. senators Max Baucas and Jon Tester noted in a letter on the  subject to the DLA: "This reclassification has an impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use." letter The issue was quickly resolved, however: a week later the DLA issued a press release announcing that upon completion of their review, they had determined that cartridge cases "could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale": press release Small arms cartridge cases are identified as a sensitive Munitions List item and were held pending review of the policy relating to the category of items in which cartridge cases were included. Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale. The DRMS sales contractor has been notified of this decision and has begun the process of reoffering the cases that have been held pending completion of the policy review. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) also issued a statement on 18 March 2009  which noted (in part): statement [T]he Department of Defense informed NRA-ILA that fired military small arms cartridge cases are once again eligible for sale, following a temporary suspension in such sales instituted last week. NRA-ILA began discussions with DoD shortly after the suspension took effect, and we were assured from the beginning that efforts were underway to resolve the issue favorably.  In announcing that the suspension has been lifted, DoD also made clear that no cartridge cases that, in the absence of the suspension, would have been sold for reloading purposes were destroyed while the suspension was in effect. Such cases were instead protected by DoD during the suspension, and are again eligible for sale. With ammunition currently in short supply, that was welcome news, to be sure.  DLA also put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet concerning the reason for the suspension. As DLA explained to Senators Baucus and Tester, and to NRA-ILA, DoD officials responsible for the demilitarization of military property temporarily halted the release of the cartridge cases last week pending review of a policy change issued last year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security, halted the sale of items within a broad category of government property including, but not limited to, surplus small arms cartridge cases.  To make cartridge cases eligible for sale once again, DoD demilitarization officials verified that the cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for use within the United States, and then executed the recategorization. Whereas during the brief suspension, fired cartridge cases would have been releaseable only if the purchaser crushed or smelted them, now the cases may be sold as before, intact and reloadable. Last updated:  19 April 2009    Gonsalves, Chris.  "Feds Lift Rule That Threatened Ammo Shortages."   Newsmax.  19 March 2009.     Johnson, Tonya.  "Small Arms Cartridge Case Policy Revised."   Defense Logistics Agency   20 March 2009. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In the winter of 1968, the H3N2 virus, also referred to as the "Hong Kong flu," spread widely in the United States. Over the next 18 months, the pandemic killed an estimated 100,000 people in the U.S. and 1 million worldwide, yet daily life, more or less, proceeded as if it were business as usual. There were no statewide lockdowns or mandatory mask requirements, and large public events, such as the Woodstock music festival, took place as scheduled.  So what changed? Why did the U.S. operate under one set of guidelines during a pandemic in the 1960s only to implement much stricter rules during a pandemic in 2020?  That's the thrust of an article published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) on May 1, 2020, under the headline "Woodstock Occurred in the Middle of a Pandemic." Although the headline of this article is factually accurate (Woodstock took place in August 1969), the argument that government officials should be approaching all future pandemics the same way they did during the 1960s is flawed for several reasons.  Let's start with the basics. The world has seen a number of plagues and pandemics in its history, from the bubonic plague in the 1300s, which killed an estimated 200 million people, to smallpox, which killed an estimated 300 million people throughout the 20th century. Although these diseases may all have the same end result (sickness and death), they also vary in variety of ways, such as their lethality and incubation periods. bubonic plague estimated 300 million Medicine, too, improves, and some diseases are more quickly met with treatments and vaccines than others. The bubonic plague, for example, still exists but can be easily treated with antibiotics.  treated Every pandemic has unique challenges, yet the premise of the AIER article is based largely on the idea that the pandemic in the 1960s and the pandemic today involved two practically interchangeable diseases. After noting that the population in the U.S. was smaller in the 1960s (200 million compared to 330 million), the article states that "in terms of lethality, [H3N2] was as deadly and scary as COVID-19 if not more so." But that really isn't the case.  pandemic While the 1968 flu was classified as a pandemic, this outbreak wasn't as deadly as previous pandemics, such as the 1918 flu.  Dr. David Morens, a senior scientific adviser at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, described the 1968 pandemic as "wimpy" compared to previous pandemics and noted that the total number of deaths wasn't much different than the amount of deaths seen during an average flu season. Morens told us: The number of deaths caused by that pandemic in the first two years, 1968 and 1969, weren't much higher than the average seasonal flu. So, it really was kind of a pandemic that was such a wimpy pandemic it didn't make much of a blip on the radar screen.  A 2008 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that examined seasonal flu trends supports Morens' assertion. This study found that the 1957 pandemic and the 1968 pandemic did "not stand out as exceptional outliers, nor were these pandemics visually discernible from non-pandemics in seasonal or monthly influenza mortality graphs." American Journal of Public Health   While this flu analogy has been poorly used to describe COVID-19, it is an apt description for the H3N2 virus which, quite literally, continues to circulate as a variety of the seasonal flu.  seasonal flu The H3N2 virus followed a seasonal flu pattern after its initial outbreak in 1968. Generally speaking, this means that the disease peaks during the winter months before waning in the summer. Here's a chart from a study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showing the seasonal spread of H3N2. We added a red "X" to this chart to show when Woodstock occurred:Woodstock took place in the summer of 1969 when there were practically no reported cases of H3N2 in the U.S. The majority of U.S. deaths happened several months prior to this festival, and the second wave of this pandemic didn't hit until a few months after.  seasonal flu pattern Journal of Infectious Diseases  COVID-19 is not expected to follow a similar seasonal pattern. Although researchers are not entirely sure how the changing seasons will impact the spread of COVID-19, evidence exists that COVID-19 can spread in warmer climates.  Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, wrote: wrote The short answer is that while we may expect modest declines in the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2 in warmer, wetter weather and perhaps with the closing of schools in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere, it is not reasonable to expect these declines alone to slow transmission enough to make a big dent. The H3N2 virus proved to be less deadly than previous pandemics in part because it emerged approximately 10 years after the world dealt with a similar virus, H2N2, also called the "Asian flu." As these two diseases both contained the N2 neuraminidase, populations that survived H2N2 had already built up immunity to the H3N2 virus.  Morens told us: "In 1968, the US population had partial immunity. Because the 1968 virus was H3N2 and the 1957 virus was H2N2 so the whole population had a degree of protection related to the N2 neuraminidase. So the brakes were on this pandemic before it even appeared and we knew that early on." A vaccine for this disease was also quickly developed (although it was not widely available) just a few months after the initial outbreak. On the other hand, there are no "specific treatments for COVID-19" and a vaccine is still months, if not years, away as of this writing.  vaccine One of the arguments made in the AIER article is that the 1968 pandemic resulted in the deaths of 100,000 people, yet daily life, more or less, proceeded as normal. By comparison, the author argues, the COVID-19 pandemic has killed fewer people (as of this writing), yet has resulted in a major disruption of American life. When we take a closer look at these figures, however, we see that they aren't truly comparable.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 100,000 people died in the U.S. during the H3N2 pandemic, with the majority of deaths occurring during the first wave in 1968. This figure accounts for pandemic-related deaths over the span of approximately 18 months. Comparatively speaking, COVID-19 has so far resulted in more than 80,000 deaths over an approximate 4-month span. estimates 80,000 deaths Morens told us: "It's not comparable. It's not comparable in a lot of ways but particularly in its mortality. It's also not comparable in the effects of what would happen if you just let it go." Of course, when we compare the death tolls from the 1968 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic, we also have to factor in the impact of social distancing and shelter-in place policies. While the 1968 pandemic saw some social distancing measures (more on that below), these guidelines were nowhere near as stringent as the policies put in place today. Generally speaking, H3N2 was allowed to spread unabated. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, on the other hand, the U.S. economy was basically shut down to slow the spread of the disease. But even with these extreme measures in place, COVID-19 resulted in more than 80,000 deaths during its first few months. If these social distancing measures were not put in place (i.e., if Woodstock-like festivals were allowed to go on as planned), it's reasonable to assume that the death toll would be much higher.  In fact, in April 2020, after some states started to relax their shelter-in place guidelines and allowed businesses to reopen, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington revised its death toll estimate for the beginning of August from 60,000 to 135,000: revised The institute wrote that the revisions reflected rising mobility in most U.S. states as well as the easing of social distancing measures expected in 31 states by May 11, indicating that growing contacts among people will promote transmission of the coronavirus." While the social-distancing measures implemented in 1968 were a far cry from the policies enacted 2020, it's not accurate to say that "nothing closed" and "schools stayed open," as the AIER article stated. We found several newspaper clippings from 1968 noting that schools, businesses, and even political ceremonies were impacted by H3N2:  newspaper clippings  Fri, Dec. 13, 1968  9  The Post-Crescent (Appleton, Wisconsin)  Newspapers.com  Fri, Dec. 13, 1968  9  The Post-Crescent (Appleton, Wisconsin)  Newspapers.com A Getty Images photograph from December 1968 shows a nurse at Cleveland's Grace Hospital in front of a sign announcing the temporary restriction of all visitors during the pandemic:  Nurse Nadyne Weber stands by her notice severely restricting visiting hours at Cleveland's Grace Hospital due to a flu outbreak.  The argument that today's shelter-in place rules are unnecessary because similar rules were not implemented in the 1960s is based on a faulty comparison between two vastly different pandemics. On one hand, you have a disease that killed approximately 100,000 people over the span of 18 months during which little to no social distancing rules were implemented to stop it. On the other, you have a disease that has killed more than 80,000 people over the span of just a few months in spite of extreme self-quarantine laws that were implemented around the country.  So what if we treated COVID-19 the same way we treated H3N2 in 1968? In other words, what if we let another Woodstock go on in 2020?  Morens told us that if we just let things go the way we did in the Woodstock era and waited until the population reached herd immunity, the U.S. would see more than 1 million deaths from COVID-19.  Morens said: "COVID-19 is far more deadly than the 1968 pandemic virus ... We have about 5% of herd immunity right now in the nation. By the time we get to 70%, think about that, that's 14 times as many cases as we have now. And if you project that onto 80,000 deaths, you can see [if we just] let things go, as we did in the Woodstock era, we'd have more than 1 million deaths." Jester, Barbara; Uyeki, Timothy; Jernigan, Daniel.  "Fifty Years of Influenza A(H3N2) Following the Pandemic of 1968."
  American Public Health Association.  8 April 2020. The New York Times.  "Models Project Sharp Rise in Deaths as States Reopen."
  4 May 2020. Viboud, Cecile; Grais, Rebecca; Lafont, Bernard; Miller, Mark; Simonsen, Lone.  "Multinational Impact of the 1968 Hong Kong Influenza Pandemic: Evidence for a Smoldering Pandemic."
  Journal of Infectious Diseases.  15 July 2005. Tucker, Jeffrey.  "Woodstock Occurred in the Middle of a Pandemic."
  American Institute for Economic Research..  1 May 2020. Kossakovski, Fedor.  "One Simple Chart Explains How Social Distancing Saves Lives."
  NPR.  13 March 2020. Piper, Kelsey.  "Data Shows Social Distancing Has Slowed Down the Coronavirus Outbreak. But Whats Next?"
  VOX.  15 April 2020. Claim: The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared the Fox News Channel a hate group.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, June 2015] So. Southern Poverty Law Center declares Fox News a hate group. Origins: On 10 June 2015, the web siteFree Wood Postpublished an articledeclaring that the Fox News Channel had been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a legal advocacy organization known for its representation of victims of hate groups.  The SPLC is also known for maintaining a list of hate groups, which they define as groups that "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." article The Free Wood Post article reported: In what should come as a surprise to no one, considering their coverage of unarmed black people being brutalized by the police, the Southern Poverty Law Center has added Fox News to their list of hate groups, as they meet the criteria. From calling any black person who stands up in protest against the policethugs to thinking black people will shank officers, to glossing over a white biker gang that actually killed nine people, to thinking gay people are persecuting Christians with their audacity to think, they too can, should be able to file for taxes under married. While many social media users (particularly on Twitter) took the headline at face value, Free Wood Postis a satirical web site that prominently features a "Satire Disclaimer" on their pages: Satire Disclaimer Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience. The article was not dissimilar to a previous satirical piece published by theFree Wood Post in March 2012, claiming that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had reclassified the Fox News Channel "from a valid news source to that of satire." reclassified Last updated:  10 June 2015 Fox News host Bill O'Reilly andDaily Showhost Jon Stewart traded wisecracks -- and a few insults -- in O'Reilly'sNo Spin Zoneon Feb. 3, 2010.O'Reilly told Stewart that it was frightening that theDaily Showhost had been called an important cultural arbiter. O'Reilly said that his audience is primarily stoner slackers who love Obama, but that a lot of people don't think you're smart.Stewart shot back that O'Reilly was now the voice of sanity at Fox, which he likened to being the thinnest kid at fat camp.At times, they got serious. One topic was Stewart's belief that Republicans seem intent on opposing everything President Barack Obama puts on the table -- even if he presents an opportunity to compromise.But the president won't give the GOP anything, O'Reilly said.Stewart pointed to Obama's stimulus plan as an example. The bill was opposed by Republicans even though it included tax cuts, which typically appeal to their small government sensibilities. [Obama] has given [Republicans] many different angles, Stewart said. For instance, even in the stimulus plan, a full third of that was tax cuts. ... Just like at the State of the Union when he said we cut taxes for 95 percent of middle-class Americans, and everybody clapped, and the Republicans just sat there like this. Tax cuts, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is Stewart right that tax cuts account for a third of the stimulus plan? The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.Simple math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill.But calculating the cost of the true tax cuts in the stimulus is a bit more complicated. In July 2009, we checked Obama's claim that, at the time,the stimulus had delivered $43 billion in tax breaks. According to the Treasury Department, about $8 billion of that figure came from extending a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT was targeted at very wealthy people, but over the years it spread to include some middle-income taxpayers as well. Congress passes yearly fixes to prevent those middle income taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.All told, the AMT fix in the stimulus will cost about $70 billion over 10 years, according to a bill summary published by the Senate Finance Committee. But many tax experts say the AMT fix should not be considered a tax cut. They say that, by extending the AMT fix every year, the government is basically maintaining the status quo.Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus tax cuts is a stretch.Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:AMT is something those people never expect to pay, he said. It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money.The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand.So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True. In November 2015, the biography of Frederick Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, was condensed into two paragraphs and then passed around the internet via a meme. While some of the information included in the meme is accurate, much of it is either over-exaggerated or incomplete:  This particular rumor centers on the idea that Frederich Trump made his fortune via brothels and opium dens. While there is anecdotal evidence that Trump dabbled in prostitution, there is no proof that this made up the bulk of his fortune. In Gwenda Blair's 2000 book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, she described how Frederick Trump opened a series of restaurants and hotels during the Klondike Gold Rush in the 1890s. One of those hotels, The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel, was described as decadent and far superior to other restaurants in the area: book In the larder was salmon and an extraordinary variety of meats, including duck, ptarmigan, grouse, goose, and swan, as well as caribou, moose, goat, sheep, rabbit, and squirrel. Incredibly, the New Arctic served fresh fruit: red currants, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, even cranberries. A small oasis of luxury, the Arctics menu was a vast improvement over what the two restaurateurs had been able to offer on the trail. An anonymous letter to the Yukon, however, claimed that The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel was also known for prostitution: I would advise respectable women traveling alone, or with an escort, to be careful in their selection of hotels at Bennett, he wrote. For single men the Arctic has excellent accommodations as well as the best restaurant in Bennett, but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings  and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex. While it's unclear if Frederich Trump directly profited from prostitution at his hotel (or whether it even occurred there), it should be noted that the world's oldest profession was relatively commonplace during the Gold Rush. The meme also claims that Frederick Trump decided to go back to Germany when police started cracking down on "his criminal rackets." Again, this is based on little more than a morsel of truth, and does not tell the whole story. In 1901, Trump sold his assets and returned to Germany. While one could argue that Trump made the decision because he believed that police were going to start enforcing prostitution laws, that is only one factor that led to Trump's departure for Germany: Frederick Trump saw that it was time to leave. If Major Wood actually enforced the laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and liquor, hotels and restaurants would be far less profitable. Not only that, the economic boom was bound to be short lived. There was not nearly enough solid economic development to absorb these newcomers in any long-term way; when the placer deposits were emptied, they would go back home. Without the umbrella of gold, other local industries would not be strong enough to keep going on their own and compete with cheaper sources farther south. The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized... ... Frederick Trump left just in time. He avoided the uproar when his erstwhile partner hit the skids, and he avoided the economic decline that would soon sweep over White Horse. Once again, in a situation that created many losers, he managed to emerge a winner. He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed from White Horse with a substantial nest egg. He had accomplished this goal of making and saving enough money to marry. But he had no intention of doing so in America. For this important moment, he would have to return to Germany. While the meme exaggerated Trump's involvement in "criminal rackets," it did correctly state that Trump returned to the United States after the German government determined that he had originally left Germany in 1885 to avoid taxes and the army. returned In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. Grier, Peter.  "Donald Trump: The Son of an Immigrant."
  The Christian Science Monitor.  24 August 2015. Blair, Gwenda.  The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate.
  Simon and Schuster, 2000.  ISBN 0-684-80849-8. An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In December 2020, as states certified their election results and confirmed that Democratic candidate Joe Biden had won the U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump continued to push baseless claims that the election was "rigged," "stolen," or marred with widespread voter fraud. On Dec. 9, Trump furthered this false narrative by claiming on social media that his election loss was an historic oddity: voter fraud claiming  This claim is factually inaccurate and this argument is moot.  Precedent exists for a candidate losing an election while winning both Florida and Ohio. In 1960, Republican candidate Richard Nixon received more votes than his Democratic opponent, John F. Kennedy, in both Ohio and Florida, but still ended up losing the election.  Nixon only managed to secure a total of 219 electoral college votes, while Kennedy won the election with 303 electoral college votes. Here's the electoral college map from the 1960 election: electoral college map   Winning in both Ohio and Florida may increase a person's chances of winning a presidential election, but it is in no way required to do so. In order to secure the presidency, a candidate must win 270 electoral college votes.  Like Nixon, Trump won both Florida and Ohio during the 2020 election, but he fell short of the 270 electoral college votes required to secure the presidency. Trump's electoral college results were slightly better than Nixon's at 232 electoral college votes, but they simply weren't enough compared to Biden's 306.  electoral college results Claim:  After the implementation of "Check 21" on 28 October 2004, consumers will no longer be able to "float" checks. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] "Check 21" starting in late October You've probably bought something in a store with a check even though you don't have the money in your account at the time. You figure you have a few days for the check to clear, and by then the money will be there. It's called the "float." Well, the float is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Because of a new law going into effect in October, money will be drafted from your account immediately when you write a check. It's called "Check 21," and it allows retailers to scan your check through a machine that deducts the cash within minutes. It's essentially the end of the paper check system, as well, because the check will eventually be destroyed. There will be an image of the check online and that will serve as proof if you need it. But everything is becoming electronic, and a bank will know if a check is good right away. So, be prepared to move to an electronic bill pay system. It's the smart way to go. What about checks that you deposit? Well, the float is no longer available to you, the customer. But the bank still will hold a deposit for a few days to make sure it clears. It's not fair, but it's the way it's happening. What are the main effects of "Check 21" on consumers? You won't be able to get your original paper checks back, because your bank will no longer have them. Checks you write will clear sooner, increasing the risk that a check will bounce if funds are not in the account when you write the check. Don't write a check unless the funds are already in the account to cover it.  You may not get access to the funds from checks you deposit any sooner, because the new law does not shorten check hold times. After 30 months, there must be a study on whether banks are making funds available to consumers earlier than the allowable hold periods. Banks will save money on processing checks, but banks are not required to share these savings with consumers. Different kinds of copies of a check will have different rights attached. Check 21 creates a new kind of paper copy of an electronic image of a check. This special kind of copy is called a "substitute check." Only a substitute check can be the legal equivalent of the original check, and only a substitute check triggers your right to recredit of disputed funds. A regular copy of a check does not carry these same protections. If you ask for a copy of a check, your bank may send you an ordinary copy insteadof this special kind of copy which triggers legal rights and protections unless you ask for a substitute check. A bank other than your bank will have your original check, and will decide whether to destroy it. Neither Check 21 nor other law requires a bank to keep your original check for any period of time. Before Check 21, your own bank decided how long to keep your original checks, if you didn't get them returned with your statement. Under Check 21, the bank of the person you wrote the check to may decide when to destroy your check. Consumers will get new rights for some electronically processed checks, but not for others. When a so-called "substitute check" is provided to a consumer, Check 21 gives the consumer a right to have funds of up to $2,500 recredited to the consumer's account in 10 business days if the check is paid twice, paid for the wrong amount, or otherwise paid in error. The statute is ambiguous about whether this new right applies when a paper substitute check is used in the processing of the check but is not returned to the consumer. The regulations restrict the right of recredit only to checks where the consumer was provided with a substitute check. If a check is processed electronically by all the banks it is routed through without the use of a substitute check and the consumer is not providedwith a substitute check, then the check remains under state check law. In that case, the consumer does not receive a 10 day right of recredit even if the electronic image of the check is paid twice, paid for the wrong amount, or if both the electronic image and the paper check are paid. Consumers who want to maximize their consumer rights should ask for return of "substitute checks" with their checking account statements. Watch out for fees associated with a substitute check-returning account. Look for another bank if your bank charges a high fee to get copies of all your checks as substitute checks.  Only the special "substitute check" can be legally equivalent to the original check to prove payment. The copies that a bank sends to consumers under a so-called "voluntary truncation" agreement, where the consumer agrees not to get the checks back, do not prove that a payment has beenmade, and do not trigger your Check 21 recredit right. When do these changes go into effect? Check 21 becomes effective October 28, 2004. Origins:  On 28 October 2004, the provisions of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (commonly known as   "Check 21") will go into effect.  The intent of the act is to eliminate check-clearing delays, primarily by removing the requirement that checks must be physically transported to the banks that issued them in order to be cleared for payment.  After 28 October 2004, banks will be allowed to transmit and clear checks by electronic facsimile, a practice that should avoid any clearing delays caused by circumstances that make the physical transportation of checks difficult or impossible (e.g., severe weather, power failures, terrorism). Check 21 Of course, one result of faster check processing will be a much shorter gap between the time consumers issue checks for payment and the time the covering funds are withdrawn from their accounts (usually referred to as the "float" time).  After Check 21 goes into effect checks may be processed in a matter of hours or even minutes, so consumers can no longer safely assume they have a grace period after writing checks before the funds are actually tapped from their accounts.  Check 21 does not, however, change the rules affecting how long banks can hold for clearance checks deposited by their customers.  Generally, banks can hold local checks for up to two days, out-of-town checks for up to five days, and other types of checks (e.g., checks over $5,000, checks drawn on new accounts, checks written against consistently overdrawn accounts) for up to thirty days.  The bottom line is that consumers will have to be more careful than ever to ensure that adequate funds are always available to cover the checks they  write. Also, under Check 21 banks will no longer be required to return canceled checks to their customers; they may return photographic images of the checks instead.  Banks will be able to issue certified photocopies of checks known as "substitute checks," and these copies will have the same evidentiary standing in courts of law as the originals.  (Although banks may allow customers to view and print out images of their checks over the Internet, those self-printed copies will not technically be considered substitute checks even though most courts will likely still accept them as evidence of payment.)  Check 21 will not explicitly require banks to provide substitute checks, so consumers may want to check with their banks to ensure they receive substitute checks with their statements.  Another provision of Check 21 will speed up resolution of customer claims regarding fraud and error.  Currently banks do not need to credit the accounts of customers who complain of error or fraud until their investigations are complete. After Check 21 banks must prove within ten days that disputed transactions were not their fault; if they do not provide such proof, they must credit their customers' accounts for the disputed amounts even if they have not completed their investigations. Although the Check 21 act goes into effect on 28 October 2004, banks do not have to begin electronically clearing checks on that date  Check 21 merely authorizes banks to begin use of electronic check clearing.  Most major banks already have imaging technology in place, but not all banks do, and some banks may therefore continue to process checks the "old" way until they upgrade their processing systems. Additonal information:       Frequently Asked Questions About "Check 21"   (Federal Reserve Board)     Questions and Answers About "Check 21"   (Consumers Union)   Last updated:  28 October 2004    Sources:   Kristof, Kathy M.  "Checks About to Be Put on Fast Track."   Los Angeles Times.  5 September 2004.    Associated Press.  "Banks Implement Check 21 Starting Thursday."    28 October 2004.