Most Texans aren't millionaires.
Linda Chavez-Thompson kicked off her campaign for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor by assailing the personal wealth of incumbent Republican David Dewhurst, whos jet-fueled three winning statewide campaigns partly from personal funds.Chavez-Thompson, whose background lies in labor unions, said Jan. 4: I know I will be an underdog against Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, who is a comfortable millionaire. But most Texans are not millionaires. See her single out the Lone Star state's wealth stereotype at the 1:08 mark of the video at right, which was posted on YouTube by the Texas Tribune.Thanks go to Chavez-Thompson for stating the obvious. We here at PolitiFact aren't millionaires and expect most Texans aren't, either.Still, Chavez-Thompson caused us to wonder: How many Texans are millionaires? And are many Texans well off compared to people elsewhere?We found that the latest statistics on Texas millionaires date back a few years. In 2004, according to an Internal Revenue Service estimate posted online in 2008, Texas was home to 108,000 individuals whose net worth was $1.5 million or more. (Why the $1.5 million benchmark? We don't know, but we suspect that a meager $1 million doesn't go as far as it used to. )Karl Eschbach, the state demographer, peeked at the same analysis and offered a quick caveat: The estimate was reached before the nation entered a recession partly driven by plunging home values, fueling drops in net worth.In 2004, 1 in 208 Texans were in the $1.5-million wealth tier--about 1/2 of 1 percent of the state's nearly 22.5 million residents. Texas ranked 37th nationally in its share of individuals with net worth of $1.5 million or more. Connecticut ranked first, Florida second, the District of Columbia third.Eschbach noted that the wealthiest people in Texas were better off than their rich counterparts in most states. In 2004, Texas ranked 18th in the average net worth of individuals whose net worth was $1.5 million or more. The average net wealth of such Texans was more than $4.5 million.We also found a 2001 estimate, based on an IRS sampling of federal tax returns, suggesting Texas was home to 182,000 millionaires, amounting to less than 1 percent of its 21.3 million residents that year.California was the heady home to 572,000 millionaires, New York to 317,000 and Florida to 249,000Even Illinois had more millionaires, at 185,000, making us scratch our heads: When was the last time peacock-proud Texans had to fret about keeping up with residents of the Land of Lincoln?In her campaign kickoff speech, Chavez-Thompson didnt recap the less salutary fact that Texas families rated as poorer than families nationally. In 2007, according to the Census Bureau, half of American households had income exceeding $50,740 and half made less than that. Texas had a median household income of $47,548.Of course, Texas still had enclaves of wealth. According to the bureaus study, the Dallas suburb of Plano was a nationally prominent pocket of lucre, with a median household income of $84,492.At the other end of the scale, the state retained bastions of poverty along the Mexico border. Residents of El Paso County had median household incomes of $34,980 while residents of Hidalgo and Cameron counties had median incomes of $30,295 and $29,347, respectively, both ranking worse off than other U.S. counties.As of 2008, nearly 16 percent of Texans (3.8 million residents) lived in poverty, with 22.5 percent of children living in poverty, according to the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for government aid to low-income residents. Nationally, 13.2 percent of residents lived in poverty, including 18.2 percent of children.Eschbach said sizing up the state's wealth is no cinch.You have a lot of major corporations headquartered here. You've got a lot of wealth creation, Eschbach said. In that respect, we certainly aren't the wealthiest state or the poorest state. We do have a large representation of very disadvantaged people. At the same time, we have a robust economy.Much debate lies in the details. Yet to Eschbach and the rest of Texas, Chavez-Thompson's statement was no surprise.We rate her statement True.
FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015. Claim:  During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.'  Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly.  As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism.  Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record.  It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans.  Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless.   Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins:  This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he  said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've  got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates  corporate tax rates  on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.  I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things  fair distribution and robust economic growth  are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated:  17 August 2008    Sources:   Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax."   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008  (P. A1).    Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'"   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008. On Jan. 9, 2023, a Twitter user tweeted that "Sony owns a patent that would force viewers to exclaim the brand name during commercials [in order] to end them." The tweet, which went viral, was accompanied by a "meme-worthy" patent illustration: meme-worthy  Snopes readers asked us if this was a genuine patent truly owned by Sony and if its purpose is accurately described in the viral tweet. In short, the answer to both questions is yes. More broadly, the patent  tracked down by TechRadar editor Lance Ulanoff  describes a "system for converting television commercials into interactive networked video games." The verbal commercial-ender is just one of several advertising solutions outlined in the patent. The patent is, indeed, owned by Sony. the patent The viral image comes from Figure 9 in this patent. The interpretation of the comic matches the technical notes for this figure: technical notes  In [the] first capture of the sequence, a user is watching [a] movie. Progress pointer in progress bar shows that [the] content display corresponds to a movie and that [a] break is approaching. On second capture, progress pointer shows that the movie has progressed to break for placing the IC [Interactive Commercial]. IC is interactive and instructions from the display ask the user to 'Say "McDonalds" to end [the] commercial.' On third capture, the user is saying "McDonalds!" The client device includes a microphone that captures the user's words and voice recognition on the device [that] determines that the user has responded. The system then proceeds to skip the rest of the commercial, as shown on fourth capture, where the user goes back to watch the movie. What's the point? The patent provides one example of a motivation for both advertiser and viewer: patent In one embodiment, the user gets rewarded with some points or a coupon from the sponsor [for shouting out the brand]. The rewards can be collected by the user in a variety of ways, such as receiving a coupon in the mail or via email, getting a text message in a mobile phone with the coupon, collecting points toward collecting [prizes] in a web site, etc. This, it bears highlighting, is not the only McDonald's-based interactive commercial technology described in the Sony patent. Figure 8 describes a scenario in which a viewer could "speed up" a commercial by "throwing a pickle" into a burger:  In the embodiment of FIG. 8, the instructions are "Throw the pickle to speed up commercial." The user, which is holding a one-handed controller with motion detection, swings his arm to simulate the act of throwing a pickle. As a result, the flying interactive pickle is placed in the burger, and the commercial message "Make it your way" is displayed briefly before the commercial ends and the user returns to watching the streaming media. Because this is a genuine patent owned by Sony that describes a system for skipping commercials that involves yelling brand names out loud, the claim is   Lance Ulanoff. "Sony Patent Would Have You Yell at Your TV to Skip Commercials." TechRadar, 11 Jan. 2023, https://www.techradar.com/news/sony-patent-would-have-you-yell-at-your-tv-to-skip-commercials. Zalewski, Gary M. System for Converting Television Commercials into Interactive Networked Video Games. US8246454B2, 21 Aug. 2012, https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454B2/en. A popular meme asserts that Ron Paul, a Republican/Libertarian who was the U.S. Representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district and a presidential candidate, once to referred his U.S. Congress colleagues as a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians:   Ron Paul supposedly made such a pronouncement during his final speech to the House of Representatives on 14 November 2012. In that speech, he affirmed his commitment to limited government and sought to put the history of the country (and his career) into a narrative about retaining personal liberty in the face of an expanding federal government. Paul offered the argument that the use of government to promote social change can lead to the immoral use of force, even when intended to promote humanitarian ideals (emphasis ours): final speech Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative. The immoral use of force is the source of mans political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned -- or especially when well-intentioned -- the results are dismal. While it is true that Paul used the phrase psychopathic authoritarians, he was referring not to Congress only or specifically, but -- along with religious groups and secular organizations -- to people who might be predisposed to endorse government-initiated change. Although it is undoubtedly true that some members of Congress, either implicitly or explicitly, support the use of government to effect social change, the notion that Paul was calling everyone serving in the U.S. Congress "a bunch of authoritarian psychopaths to their faces" is a misleading reduction of context. psychopathic authoritarians Campaign for Liberty.  "Transcript of Farewell Address"
  14 November 2012. In his2023-25 budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers called for tapping a state surplus to spend $290 million on stadium renovations to help ensure the Milwaukee Brewers stay in Wisconsin. The cash would go into an escrow account operated by the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, a state-created agency that owns American Family Field and leases it to the Brewers. In return, the Brewers would extend their current ballpark lease, which could expire by the end of 2030, and agree to stay in Milwaukee through 2043. But Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has said the stadium funding question should be taken up outside of the budget process, and has argued there are other sources of money that could better be tapped to address the issue. (In March we ratedMostly Falsea claim by Evers that the original plan was bipartisan in nature.) In a March 9 appearance on aWisconsin Right Nowpodcast, and more recently at the Milwaukee Press Club, Vos has noted that taxes paid by visiting professional athletes could be tapped as a revenue source. Here is what he said on the podcast: When a basketball player or football or baseball player from another team plays in Wisconsin, that one game's salary, they pay Wisconsin income tax on it. ... So, if for some reason we do not have the Brewers in Wisconsin all of those player salaries that generate dollars for the state of Wisconsin go away, Vos said. This statement piqued our interest. Is it true that if the Brewers leave town, Wisconsins tax coffers would take a hit? Jock tax If a pro athlete plays in a state that collects income tax, any money made from that game is taxed as income earned in that state, which is informally known as a jock tax. The jock tax has been around in some form since the 1960s, according to severalonline sources. However, the practice heated up in the 1990s, after the state of California slapped the tax on the earnings of Chicago Bulls players who traveled to Los Angeles for the 1991 NBA finals. Illinois retaliated, imposing a similar tax on out of state players. According toHuddle Up, a newsletter focused on the business of sports, such taxes are collected in every state, with theexception of five:Florida, Nevada, Texas, Washington and Tennessee. RELATED:Will Wisconsin taxpayers get 'tremendous' payback for money spent on new Fiserv Forum? RELATED:Examining Scott Walker's 'cheaper to keep them' slogan The Vos claim came in response to a question about baseball players, so lets start there. Patricia A. Mayers, communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, provided a breakdown of the amount of Wisconsin withholding from MLB teams by year, noting It doesn't account for non-wage income of the team employees or any income of individuals who are not employed by the teams. State withholding by year Year             Baseball 2012           $8.4 million 2013            $8 million 2014            $8.9 million 2015            $9.2 million 2016             $7.8 million 2017            $8.8 million 2018            $11.9 million 2019            $12.3 million 2020             $5 million 2021            $10.5 million 2022            $12.4 million  Meanwhile, these are the figures for the three top-level professional leagues in which there is a Wisconsin team, in millions by year:  2020 2021 2022 Baseball 5.0 10.5 12.4 Basketball 10.6 14.1 13.3 Football 21.3 16.1 25.5 So, in 2022 alone, taxes from those visiting athletes topped $50 million. Vos said: When a basketball player or football or baseball player from another team plays in Wisconsin, that one game's salary, they pay Wisconsin income tax on it. ... So, if for some reason we do not have the Brewers in Wisconsin all of those player salaries that generate dollars for the state of Wisconsin go away. Indeed, in 2022 alone, state income taxes on visiting players in the big three leagues topped $50 million. For a statement that is accurate and has nothing significant missing, our rating is True. In April 2023, a rumor began to spread that claimed Twitter owner Elon Musk had revealed a new line of CBD gummies that could "reverse dementia." According to the story, Musk's gummy product sparked a "huge lawsuit" with Fox News. However, none of this was true. Musk was simply the latest famous person to have his image and likeness used by scammers without permission in an attempt to push miracle promises about CBD or keto gummies. He has nothing to do with any of these products. While the answer here is a fairly simple "it's all fake," the massive reach of these gummy scams might surprise some readers. As of May 18, the scam was still making the rounds in at least one paid ad on Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. The ad on a Facebook page named Aromathy read, "Media Backlash Over New Musk Business Announcement. Elon Has a Response. His New Business Venture Has Been Under Scrutiny By Media."  The ad led to a fake article onaromasense.shop that was designed to fool readers into believing they were reading from the Fox News website. Many of the Facebook users who commented on the ad believed that the post was a real news announcement. For example, one person commented, "MEDIA IS AGAINST ANYTHING THAT IS GOOD!! IGNORE THEM!" Some users also appeared to think that Musk made the post himself, with one person writing, "Don't pay attention to the media! So many are fake and bias! Be true to yourself! I trust you." In other words, Fox News and Elon Musk may have been included together by scammers to target easily influenced users who have conservative political leanings and a distrust of mainstream news media. To create the fake Fox News article, scammers copied the logo and article layout from foxnews.com and replicated it on the aromasense.shop website. Scammers have been doing this design-replication process with the logos and designs of multiple publishers for years. The article began with the headline, "Elon Musk reverses dementia, solution sparks huge lawsuit pressure on Fox, he finally fights back on air."  The body of the fictional story was a template that scammers had used many times before about various TV personalities who had their own shows. However, in this case, the article didn't really make sense to be used with Musk since he didn't have a show. The fake article began as follows: (Fox) - In an Exclusive Interview, Elon Musk, a business magnate and investor, CEO of SpaceX, Tesla, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. reveals that the show will be ending after his latest business sparks tension with Martha MacCallum. During a heated episode last week, Elon Musk made headlines after revealing his new CBD line on Live TV. Martha MacCallum was outraged saying she will be filing a lawsuit against Elon Musk and Fox for violating his contract and 'scaring-off' sponsors. Elon Musk responded with this: "I know Martha is just coming after my timeslot. I am not giving in to 'Cancel Culture'. When I started this whole thing back in 2018, it really was just a part time passion project and a way for me to give back. After being given so much, I figured there was no better time to make Impact Garden CBD Gummies available to everyone, as it can help thousands of people experience life pain-free and live much happier lives." His product, Impact Garden CBD Gummies, has been flying off the shelves within minutes and Elon Musk says his number one struggle as CEO is being able to keep up with demand. His CBD wellness line is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than those being offered by Bayer and other "Big Pharma" companies. Marthan MacCallum was furious after seeing multiple sponsors sue Fox News Network. Martha is now calling for Elon Musk to be indicted, saying: "I am happy Elon Musk found something to replace prescriptions, but his announcement was a direct breach of contract. Fox News should sue him immediately and he should formally apologize." ... Elon Musk eventually admitted that although Martha MacCallum is enraged, other Fox hosts has been supportive of him. Tucker Carlson even went on Live TV to say that:"Impact Garden CBD Gummieshas completely changed my life and it's clear that MacCallum is attempting a Coup." Again, this article was fictional. The story about Musk, CBD gummies that can "reverse dementia," Fox News, Martha MacCallum, and Tucker Carlson all never happened. (Vitality Labs CBD Gummies, Organicore CBD Gummies, and other product names were also mentioned.) For more information on CBD and keto gummies scams, we recommend a recent story about Ree Drummond, another celebrity whose image and likeness were also used by scammers to push these products. a recent story about Ree Drummond If any readers were scammed and ordered any gummy products after being led to believe that Musk or other celebrities endorsed them, we recommend filing a report with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). filing a report with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) We also advise readers to call their credit card company to dispute the charges. It may be a good idea to block future charges from the sellers in question or to get a new card number altogether, as many of these scams sign customers up to be charged subscription fees of hundreds of dollars per month. Bear in mind that, while it is rare, scammers sometimes use the exact name or a similar name of a real CBD company without permission to push these sorts of scams. In those minority of cases, there's no evidence that the company had any involvement in the activity. We've received word from users in recent months who said that they were being charged for these sorts of gummy products despite having no recollection of ordering them. Some people who left messages for our reporters even said that along with having no memory of ordering the products, they also had no charges on their credit card, yet still received the products at their doorstep. It's possible that some of these apparently unauthorized purchases occurred in the aftermath of what's known as card skimming. The FBI has said of the practice, "Skimming occurs when devices illegally installed on ATMs, point-of-sale (POS) terminals, or fuel pumps capture data or record cardholders' PINs. Criminals use the data to create fake debit or credit cards and then steal from victims' accounts. It is estimated that skimming costs financial institutions and consumers more than $1 billion each year." card skimming We are continuing to look into various aspects of these CBD and keto scams, including something associated with purported "fulfillment center" P.O. Box addresses in Smyrna, Tennessee, and Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as some activity apparently occurring in Tampa, Florida. "Elon Musk Reverses Dementia, Solution Sparks Huge Lawsuit Pressure on Fox, He Finally Fights Back on Air." AromaSense, https://aromasense.shop/. Liles, Jordan. "Is Ree Drummond Leaving Food Network to Sell Keto Gummies?" Snopes, 15 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ree-drummond-leave-food-network-keto-gummies/. "Skimming." Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/skimming. Smith, Daeshen. "Better Business Bureau Warns Customers to Be Mindful of Card Skimming Schemes." Fox 10 News, 25 Apr. 2023, https://www.fox10tv.com/2023/04/25/better-business-bureau-warns-customers-be-mindful-card-skimming-schemes/. Claim:  President Obama said women should not choose to be stay-at-home-moms.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2014] Obama wants stay at home moms back in workforce  Obama does not like stay at home moms.  Many sites are reporting that Obama doesn't want women to be stay-at-home moms based on this speech.  Obama's speech on Stay at Home Moms Aren't worth a Hill of Beans....also, it's a choice we don't want Americans to make.  Video with comment by President Obama on Stay-at-Home Moms: 'That's Not a Choice We Want Americans to Make.' I'm just seeing this posted on Facebook and wondering if it's true or taken out of context. Origins:  On 31 October 2014, President Obama delivered a speech titled "Remarks by the President on Women and the Economy" at Rhode Island College in Providence. Plucked from the context of a broader speech about paid leave for parents and general household costs such as daycare, one snippet of the President's words grabbed the attention of political blogs and social media users. A short portion of the President's remarks became a story unto themselves following the speech, with a common claim attached to those words holding that President Obama had "slammed stay-at-home moms" in the cited portion of his speech. One widely-circulated extract from his remarks read that way to some who hadn't caught the entire speech: Sometimes, someone ... usually mom ... leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. That's not a choice we want Americans to make. So let's make this happen. By the end of this decade, let's enroll 6 million children in high quality preschool ...  Taken out of context, it appeared to some President Obama  was advocating all stay-at-home moms should return to the workforce without question and place their children in government-run preschools (presumably ones of questionable quality, or, at the very least, schools chosen by the government and not by the families themselves). What President Obama actually said, however, did not pertain to the worth of stay-at-home moms versus that of working parents. Explaining his recent experiences in discussing the challenges that mothers in the workforce face, President Obama said: I kept on hearing about my mom struggling to put herself through school, or my grandmother hitting that glass ceiling. And I thought about Michelle, and I told some stories about when Michelle and I were younger and getting starting, and we were struggling to balance two careers while raising a family.  And my job forced me to travel a lot, which made it harder on Michelle, and we would feel some of the guilt that so many people feel  we're working, we're thinking about the kids, we're wondering whether we're bad parents, we're wondering whether we were doing what we need to do on the job.  And as the catch-22 of working parents, we wanted to spend time with our kids, but we also wanted to make sure that we gave them the opportunities that our hard work was providing.  And then, of course, I think about my daughters.  And the idea that my daughters wouldn't have the same opportunities as somebody's sons  well, that's unacceptable.  That's not acceptable. President Obama then addressed the advances women have made in education and in graduating college and continued by explaining females are disproportionately affected by a lack of protective policy pertaining to sick leave and paid family leave: But here's the challenge  that's all good news  the challenge is, our economy and some of the laws and rules governing our workplaces haven't caught up with that reality.  A lot of workplaces haven't caught up with that reality.  So while many women are working hard to support themselves and their families, they're still facing unfair choices, outdated workplace policies.  That holds them back, but it also holds all of us back.  We have to do better, because women deserve better.  And, by the way, when women do well, everybody does well. So women deserve a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship.  And Rhode Island has got the right idea.  You're one of just three states where paid family leave is the law of the land.  (Applause.)  More states should choose to follow your lead. The quoted bit came soon thereafter. President Obama made a case for paid leave and for the economic gains to be had if daycare and preschool were affordable to all mothers. He said: THE PRESIDENT: Without paid leave, when a baby arrives or an aging parent needs help, workers have to make painful decisions about whether they can afford to be there when their families need them most.  Many women can't even get a paid day off to give birth to their child.  I mean, there are a lot of companies that still don't provide maternity leave.  Of course, dads should be there, too.  So let's make this happen for women and for men, and make our economy stronger.  (Applause.)  We've got to broaden our laws for family leave. Moms and dads deserve a great place to drop their kids off every day that doesn't cost them an arm and a leg.  We need better childcare, daycare, early childhood education policies.  (Applause.)  In many states, sending your child to daycare costs more than sending them to a public university.  AUDIENCE MEMBER:  True! THE PRESIDENT:  True.  (Laughter.)  And too often, parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn't have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child's development.  And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be too far away.  And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result.  And that's not a choice we want Americans to make. It's clear from the context of President Obama's full remarks on 31 October 2014 his view wasn't one that "slammed" stay-at-home moms and stated "we" don't want anyone to choose to be a stay-at-home mom; rather, the choice to which he referred was for women to fairly have the option of deciding whether to remain in the workforce or to stay at home with their children, without (in the latter case) having to lose their place on the employment ladder and thus be relegated to earning lower wages for the rest of their working lives.  In short, President Obama did not "slam" stay-at-home moms; he instead argued current policies affecting mothers are unfair and should be changed to allow, among other things, expanded maternity leave and affordable daycare and preschool options to ensure women have more choice in deciding how to balance their economic and family lives. remarks Last updated:  3 November 2014 A number of members of the U.S. Congress have been accused of sexual misconduct over the years, but as a viral Facebook message suggests, have at least 260 of those members really settled sexual assault charges? accused settled   Certainly one reason that this bit of congressional trivia is "little known" is because it is factually inaccurate. This meme refers to a report released by Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann in November 2017, which compiled the amount of money that was paid out between 1997 and 2017 to cover 264 settlements in connection with conduct prohibited under the Congress Accountability Act: report Congress Accountability Act   That report did not state that all 264 settlements involved sexual assault charges, that all 264 settlements involved members of Congress, or that the settlements involved 264 different individuals. The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) established a Treasury Department fund "to settle workplace harassment and discrimination claims." Although this fund has been used to pay out settlements related to sexual harassment, the CAA also applies to "thirteen civil rights, labor, and workplace safety and health laws." established According to Grundmann, a "large portion" of the aforementioned settlements stemmed from offices outside of the House of Representatives and the Senate and involved everything from overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards act to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act: A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the CAA, such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA. Although the details of these payments are typically confidential, outrage over the revelation that congress was using taxpayer funds to pay sexual assault settlements persuaded the House Administration Committee to release more details about the settlements. In December 2017, the committee released additional statistics which broke these settlements down into distinct categories. released statistics settlements Those categorized statistics showed that 13 settlements involving claims of sexual harassment or sex discrimination, totaling nearly $300,000, were paid out from the fund between 2003 and 2017: In total, between 2003 and 2017, taxpayers spent $292,652 on 13 settlements involving claims of sexual harassment or sex discrimination, the committee's data shows. This figure does not include settlements agreed to privately between members and their employees, which are sometimes paid in the form of severance out of congressional office budgets. The viral Facebook message incorrectly proclaimed that 260 members of congress had settled sexual assault charges, while in reality some 264 different settlements related to a wide range of workplace violations were paid out between 1997 and 2017. Only a small proportion of those settlements totaling were related to sexual misconduct or discrimination. MacFarlane, Scott.  "264 Congressional Accountability Act Settlements in 20 Years."
  NBC News.  16 November 2017. USA Today.  "Sexual Harassment Fund Exposes Congress."
  27 November 2017. Paige, Leslie.  "When Will the Senate Start Holding Congressional Sexual Harassers Accountable?"
  USA Today.  26 April 2018. PBS.  "$300k in Taxpayer Funds Has Been Spent Settling Sexual Harassment Claims Against Congress, Report Says."
  12 January 2018.
 Przybyla, Heidi.  "House Admin. Committee Reports $342K in Discrimination and Harassment Payouts from 2008 to 2012."
  USA Today.  19 December 2017. In August 2017, a national debate about the display of Confederate flags and monuments once again gained steam after a protest of the planned removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a park in Charlottesville, Virginia turned deadly. Charlottesville In the wake of that incident, several cities (and protestors) moved to quickly take down monuments, statues, and plaques. Meanwhile, rumors appeared that Congress had passed two laws retroactively declaring Confederate soldiers United States veterans, which means that removing the statues is illegal. Some of the claims were bolstered by a link to an extremely dubious web site: statues illegal dubious Confederate soldiers, sailors, and Marines that fought in the Civil war were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, Approved 23 May, 1958. This made all Confederate Army/ Navy/ Marine Veterans equal to U.S. Veterans. Additionally, under U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by the 17th Congress on 26 Feb 1929 the War Department was directed to erect headstones and recognize Confederate grave sites as U.S. War dead grave sites. Just for the record the last Confederate veteran died in 1958. So, in essence, when you remove a Confederate statue, monument or headstone, you are in fact, removing a statue, monument or head stone of a U.S. VETERAN. The rumor also appeared as a meme on the Facebook page "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" on 16 August 2017: appeared meme   The same image was previously shared by the same Facebook page in a July 2015, just after a gunman in Charleston, South Carolina, killed nine black churchgoers. According to the meme, two acts of Congress (Public Law 810 of 1929 and Public Law 85-425 of 1958) bestows upon Confederate soldiers the benefits and status of a United States military veteran.  shared Charleston Public Law 810 refers to Part II, Chapter 23 of U.S. Code 38 which says that the government should, when requested, pay to put up monuments or headstones for unmarked graves for three groups of people: Code 38 (1) Any individual buried in a national cemetery or in a post cemetery. (2) Any individual eligible for burial in a national cemetery (but not buried there), except for those persons or classes of persons enumerated in section 2402(a)(4), (5), and (6) of this title. (3) Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War. No portion of the law appears to confer any privilege other than markers for graves of Confederate soldiers, nor does it grant Confederate soldiers status equal to those of veterans of the United States military. As of 1901, 482 individuals (not all soldiers) were already interred in the Confederate section of Arlington National Cemetery. interred In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers, but did not grant them U.S. veteran status. Public Law 85-425 was passed 23 May 1958, entitling the widows of deceased Confederate soldiers (what few were left by 1958) to military pensions: pardoned passed To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. A National Archives and Records Administration document details the matter of Confederate soldiers and pensions, and shows that the law seems to recognize those who fought for the Confederacy as veterans of a war, but not necessarily of the United States military. document The last recorded Confederate soldier deaths were in 1959, meaning that the 1957 law had negligible effects for those under its provisions, and in any event the law again conferred no status or other benefit to Confederate soldiers themselves.  1959 effects We reached out to several historians, none of whom wished to be quoted on the record. Several were dubious about the purported laws. One, a scholar who specializes in the Civil War and Reconstruction, told us that he, too, had trouble locating them: [It's] clear that Public Law 85-425, section 410 of 1958 was intended solely to provide a symbolic, Civil War Centennial gesture late-life pension to Walter Williams, the supposed only surviving Confederate veteran, and did not apply in any way to any other Confederate soldiers. Of course it turned out (as many people knew then) that Williams was not, in fact, a Confederate veteran  but the desire to still have a living link to the War proved more important than fact. I have been no more successful than anyone else in finding the supposed Public Law 810 passed in 1929. But, given my experience with other claims based on legislation introduced or passed in Congress during that era, I would surmise that any such law was symbolic and meant as a gesture. On the other hand, there was the 1906 Foraker Law that began Federal involvement in caring for Confederate graves. You have probably seen this VA publication [PDF] and consulted John Neffs important work, Honoring the Civil War Dead (University Press of Kansas, 2005) about that issue. Neff makes clear that Federal money spent on maintaining Federal graves always kept the distinctions between the graves  and the service  of Federal versus Confederate soldiers. PDF [There is, however] the decision in the case of Patrick G. Griffin, III vs. Department of Veterans Affairs issued by the US Court of Appeals 4th District ... the decision ultimately affirmed the VAs contention that the Confederate prisoners buried at Point Lookout were buried and honored as American soldiers and, therefore (the issue before the court) there was no obligation to allow Confederate flags to fly over their graves. decision The cited ruling did not recognize the flag of the Confederacy as a legitimate American flag suitable for display in veterans' memorials. The Veterans' Affairs document to which the historian pointed, Federal Stewardship of Confederate Dead, contained historical context about Confederate burials and the evolution of federal involvement in the interment of their dead, and included President William McKinley's 1898 remarks to legislators in Georgia, noting that was a time when "no disabled Confederate veteran was eligible to live in a federal soldiers home, receive a pension, or, when they died, be buried in a national cemetery": The Department of War had been content to allow Northern cemeteries where Confederates were interred to languish. However, after the Spanish-American War (1898), the federal government, led by President William McKinley, in the spirit of national reconciliation and in the postwar glow of recent victory, proposed that a loving nation would reach out and care for the graves of fallen Confederates. Recognition of these places as hallowed ground and the individuals interred in them as deserving of honor began with the creation of the Confederate section at Arlington National Cemetery in 1900, and continued with the renewal through 1916 of 1906 legislation that authorized federal funds to mark all Confederate graves. Until the turn of the 20th century, United States government interment of Confederate soldiers generally involved deceased prisoners buried during the Civil War on Union lands. In 2013, The Atlantic reported that the United States government continued to follow through on its subsequent promises to provide for all Confederate war dead: reported Providing headstones for America's fallen soldiers is a tradition that goes back to laws passed in 1867 and 1873 that ordered the Department of War to properly establish national cemeteries and furnish graves with headstones ... It wasn't until the 20th century, though, that Confederate veterans were included in this tradition. It started with legislation passed in 1906, at first providing headstones for a very limited number of Confederate veterans, specifically prisoners of war, "who died in Federal prisons and military hospitals in the North and who were buried near their places of confinement." That mandate for the Department of War was expanded to all Confederate graves with a law passed in 1929. Responsibility for headstones was transferred to the VA in the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, which declared, "The Administrator shall furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of" a number of categories of veterans and those who'd served the country or were buried in a national cemetery, including specifically, "Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War." It's no coincidence that many of these changes in attitude and law, and the erection of so many Confederate monuments and memorials, occurred around the turn of the 20th century. They followed the federal withdrawal from the South in 1877, a strategic retreat from the failed policies of reconstruction. When a debate over Confederate monuments and flags came under the national spotlight in June 2015, codified changes in burials and pensions enacted in 1929 and 1958 were puffed up to suggest that a nebulous act of Congress, either in the 1920s or the 1950s, officially declared that Confederate soldiers were the same as United States veterans in the eyes of the federal government. However, no legislation either explicitly or implicitly granted Confederate soldiers status as United States veterans. Survivors of dead Confederate soldiers often took offense at measures appearing to equate them to Union soldiers, objections that died off as Southerners from the Civil War era did. Sturgis, Sue.  "Busting The Myth That Congress Made Confederate Vets Into U.S. Vets."
  Facing South.  24 July 2015. Weiss, Steven I.  "You Won't Believe What the Government Spends on Confederate Graves."
  The Atlantic.  19 July 2013. U.S. Code, Title 38.  "Part II, Chapter 23,  2306: Headstones, Markers, And Burial Receptacles."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. 85th Congress, H.R. 358.  "Public Law 85-424."
  23 May 1958. Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Andrew Johnson.  "Proclamation 179Granting Full Pardon And Amnesty For The Offense Of Treason Against The United States During The Late Civil War."
  25 December 1868. Arlington National Cemetery.  "Confederate Memorial."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. U.S.Department of Veterans Affairs,National Cemetery Administration.  "Federal Stewardship Of Confederate Dead."
  July 2016. National Archives and Records Administration.  "Pensions For Military Service In The Army Of The Confederate States Of America."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. Correction [25 August 2017]:  Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article stated that President Andrew Jackson pardoned Confederate soldiers. On Aug. 23, 2019, conservative radio personality Mark Simone posted a message on Twitter asserting that that former U.S. Vice President (and 2020 presidential candidate) Joe Biden owned the largest mansion in his state: posted   Since Simone's tweet, near verbatim copies of this message  "Joe Biden lives in the biggest mansion in his state and just bought another mansion in DC, Bernie Sanders has 4 hours, Obama just got his 3rd mansion. All of this money was made from lecturing you on income inequality!"  have been reposted by a several additional Twitter accounts. This message was also turned into a meme that has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook: reposted several additional Twitter accounts meme shared   While Simone's post mentioned politicians Bernie Sanders and former President Barack Obama, for the purposes of this article we'll be focusing on the real estate rumors concerning Biden. It's unclear which state this meme is referring to by "his state." Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, but he represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate for more than 30 years between 1973 and 2009. As Biden doesn't own any property in Pennsylvania (and therefore couldn't own the largest mansion in that state), we'll assume that this meme references Delaware, where Biden owns two properties. The Washington Post reported in June 2019 that Biden owned two homes in Delaware: his primary residence, a 7,000-square-foot lakeside home in Wilmington, and a 4,800-square-foot vacation house in Rehoboth Beach. While these are both sizable and expensive properties (the beach house was purchased for $2.7 million), neither of them would be considered the "biggest mansion" in the state of Delaware. reported By one measure, the Winterthur Estate could be considered Delaware's largest mansion. The house was originally built in 1839 but has been enlarged considerably over the years. Henry Francis du Pont renovated the building between 1929 and 1931, resulting in a 175-room mansion sitting on 2,500 acres. This estate was turned into a museum in 1951, however, so some may not consider it to be the "largest mansion" in Delaware. Winterthur Estate The Du Pont family built another massive property in Delaware in the early 1900s. While the Nemours Mansion dwarfs the properties owned by Biden at 47,000 sq. ft. (compared to 7,000), this property, too, no longer serves as a single-family residence and therefore may not be an applicable comparison. Nemours Mansion Still, Biden's Delaware homes are not the biggest in the state. We were able to find several articles concerning homes with more square footage than Biden's residence in Wilmington. The image below shows a 17,588-square-foot estate in Wilmington, for instance, according to Homes of the Rich: Homes of the Rich   The most expensive home in Delaware, according to Delaware Online, is a $14.9 million, 7,800-square-foot oceanfront home. Redfin.com also lists properties in excess of 7,000-square-feet, including this 9,957-square-foot property in Dewey Beach, and this 12,000-square-foot home in Wilmington. Delaware Online Dewey Beach Wilmington While Biden's Delaware homes are certainly large, they are not the biggest mansions in the state. The Washington Post's June 2019 article about Biden's finances also mentioned that he had started renting a large home in McLean, Virginia, after leaving the White House: The Georgian-style home  from the front a brick version of the White House  once belonged to Alexander Haig, the former secretary of state. Nestled on a wooded lot in McLean, the nearly 12,000-square-foot residence has five bedrooms and 10 bathrooms, marble fireplaces, a gym and a sauna. While the McLean property is larger than both of Biden's Delaware properties, it is not the biggest mansion in Virginia. For instance, a $62.95 million, 48,900-square-foot residence dubbed The Falls went up for sale in McLean in 2018. for sale Zap, Claudine.  "Oceanfront Opulence: $14.9M Shell House Is Delaware's Most Expensive Home."
  Realtor.com.  5 February 2019. Gerhardt, Nick.  "The Biggest Home in Each State That Will Stun You."
  Family Handyman.  Retrieved 22 October 2019. Viser, Matt.  "Once the Poorest Senator, 'Middle Class Joe Biden Has Reaped Millions in Income Since Leaving the Vice Presidency."
  The Washington Post.  25 June 2019. Polus, Sarah.  "A New Listing Sets the Record for the Most Expensive Home to Ever Hit the D.C. Area Market."
  The Washington Post.  29 May 2018.