Is Mylan CEO Heather Bresch the Daughter of W.V. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin?
In early October 2018, social media users shared a meme bearing a critical message about Sen. Joe Manchin, the lone Democrat who voted to confirm U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and his daughter, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch:   It's no secret Bresch is the daughter of the U.S. senator from West Virginia, and that father and daughter were the subjects of two very different and unrelated controversies. Bresch runs Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, a medical device that delivers a dose of life-saving epinephrine to people with severe allergies which can result in a deadly reaction known as anaphylaxis. In late summer 2016, Mylan was widely criticized for hiking the price of EpiPens by more than 400 percent, taking the price of the device from $100 in 2009 to roughly $600 in 2016. anaphylaxis hiking taking Manchin, on the other hand, earned the ire of his party and other critics when he broke ranks on 6 October 2018 and voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, who had been accused by three women of sexual misconduct while he was a high school and college student, to the United States Supreme Court. One of the accusers, California college professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testified about being assaulted as a 15-year-old, sparking an outcry and protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation. Mancin's vote broke the tie between Republican and Democratic senators, who otherwise voted along party lines. Amid the EpiPen controversy, Manchin voiced his support for his daughter, saying, "My daughter is my daughter with unconditional love, and she's the most amazing person that I know. She's so compassionate and generous in how she's always lived her life." saying It was not the first time Bresch's role at Mylan was used to attack her father politically -- in fact, Manchin took heat over it from the other side of the aisle as he fought to keep his seat in the November 2018 midterm elections: heat The RNC bashed Manchin after Mylan announced it was laying off 500 people at a plant in West Virginia. Manchin has taken heat before from his opponents over Mylans decision a few years ago to jack up the price of allergy drug EpiPen by 500 percent. Amidst the layoffs and scandals, Mylan has continued to contribute to Manchin's war chest for his upcoming election, an RNC bulletin said. Mylan executives and employees contributed more than $50,000 to Manchin's campaign in the first quarter of 2018. However, barring some yet-unknown potential future ruling by Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court that might benefit Mylan, it's unclear why the meme's makers considered the familial relationship between Manchin and Bresch relevant, other than to imply some vague nefarious characteristic they supposedly share. Wright, David.  "Manchin Defends CEO Daughter After Company Raised EpiPen Price."
  CNN.  7 September 2016. McClausland, Phil.  "Mylan Releases $300 Generic EpiPen After Price Hike Outrage."
  NBC News.  16 December 2016. King, Robert.  "Republicans Tarnish Joe Manchin with EpiPen Scandal."
  Washington Examiner.  28 April 2018.
One series of online scams that seemingly never ends is the false claim that Tesla CEO Elon Musk had involvement in the creation of an inexpensive "electricity-saving" device that's about the size of a plug-in night light. U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was also misleadingly mentioned as purportedly having endorsed the products, too. StopWatt is one of many names of a cheap and constantly rebranded "electricity-saving box" product that scammers have misleadingly associated with Musk, Granholm, Tesla (the company), and even Nikola Tesla himself. Pro Power Saver was one of the other rebranded product names, as we previously reported. reported According to images of such products, the only words that appeared on the physical devices were, "Intelligent Energy Saver. Electricity-Saving Box. The Result Is the Best." That last bit about "the result is the best" appeared to be poorly-translated English. Names like StopWatt and Pro Power Saver don't appear on the products, since the rebranding from "electricity-saving box" was apparently only a marketing tactic and had no bearing on the creation of the device. Scams for these "electricity-saving boxes" usually begin with an online ad displayed on a website or in an email newsletter that claims the compact, inexpensive device can save homeowners 90% off of their utility bill. Those ads then lead to a scammy article that falsely claims Musk created StopWatt.  Just as we previously wrote about the Pro Power Saver scam, with StopWatt, we don't recommend trusting any claims that say homeowners will be able to save such an enormous percentage off of their electricity bills. If this was truly possible, it would be one of the most popular products around today. Always remember with online offers that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. As for the scammy article, it often bears the publisher name of Fox News. However, Fox News never published this story: Reducing Electricity Bills by 90%! Elon Musk's Revolutionary Device Designed Personally for Middle-aged, Elderly, and Low-income Groups Faces Suppression by Power Giants, Facing Production Crisis? Elon Musk, the genius CEO behind solar power giant Tesla has been the talk of the town lately. His most recent controversy is a genius electricity saving invention for those who can't afford fancy, expensive solar panels. The electric power companies are furious and want Elon's money saving invention banned before the American public can take full advantage of the savings. He goes on to say "The big power companies are scamming you. Yes, that's right. Believe it or not, they have been using a secret to cheat you every time you run your lights, dishwasher, blender, vacuum and anything else that draws power. This is why your power bill is so expensive every month and keeps rising with some residents paying as much as $500 a month in electric bills. Every American can slash their electricity bill by 90% using this revolutionary technology. You're welcome, America." This scam often features a picture of Musk holding one of the supposed "electricity-saving box" devices in his hand:  However, as readers can see at the top of this article, the photograph with Musk holding the device had been doctored. The original picture was available on the Getty Images website. available Continuing with the scam article, it went on to tell a sad story of a woman named "Dorothy Smith," purportedly a Tesla employee, who died of heat stroke in her home. According to the story, her death inspired Musk to create StopWatt: But for Elon Musk, this was more than just an invention to fight back against the greedy electric companies. When tragedy struck the Tesla factory, he knew he had to take action. Dorothy Smith was a 64 year old Tesla employee who died of a heat stroke after falling behind on her electric bills and her service was shut off in the middle of a record breaking heat wave. Her youngest daughter came to check up on her after many unanswered phone calls and tragically found Dorothy lifeless on the couch with her husband. ... Seeing just how devastating electricity prices are on the average American's wallet, and witnessing his own employee, Dorothy Smith pass away tragically, Elon Musk set out to find his old drawing plans for an electricity saver invention he had made as a young genius in South Africa. The original drawing was based on a concept by his idol, legendary inventor, electrical and mechanical engineer and visionary, Nikola Tesla. After a few hours of digging through old papers, he found it! Elon immediately called one of his brightest engineers at Tesla and trusted friend, Ed Sherwood. Combining their expertise, they set out to bring Elon's electricity saving dream to life. As we previously reported, none of this was true. Articles that claim Musk and Tesla created StopWatt are both fiction and scams. Further, there's no record of a Tesla employee named "Dorothy Smith" having died of heat stroke. "Elon Musk." Tesla.com, https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk. Liles, Jordan. "Was Pro Power Saver Endorsed by Elon Musk and Tesla?" Snopes, 23 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pro-power-saver-elon-musk/. Dec. 6, 2023: This report was updated to add the name of U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, whose image and likeness were being improperly used by scammers alongside Musk's in December 2023. A single tweet posted on Aug. 25, 2019 caused a significant social media headache for the Olive Garden chain of casual dining Italian-themed restaurants by positing that the business was "funding Trump's re-election in 2020" and suggesting that viewers share the message and promote a boycott:  That Tweet prompted the creation and use of the #BoycottOliveGarden hashtag, as numerous social media users advocated boycotting the restaurant chain over its alleged part in financing of President Trump's re-election campaign: Olive Garden is supporting Trump's bigotry, climate change denial, deregulation, tax cuts for the top 1%. Its okay for rich & corporations to get Gov assistance, meanwhile the average worker never had help from the Gov cuz of this corruption. This must stop. #BoycottOliveGarden pic.twitter.com/1HNT9tryMd #BoycottOliveGarden pic.twitter.com/1HNT9tryMd  Joe Negan (@mynameisNegan) August 26, 2019 August 26, 2019  Olive Garden responded to complaints on social media by quickly and repeatedly disclaiming having made any donations to presidential candidates: We dont know where this information came from, but it is incorrect. Our company does not donate to presidential candidates.  Olive Garden (@olivegarden) August 26, 2019 August 26, 2019  Corporations are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and their committees, so corporate-related donations typically come from a "[company's] PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate family members." prohibited Olive Garden's parent company is Darden, a corporation that also owns several other chain restaurant brands, including LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. Darden Open Secrets, a website operated by the Center for Responsive Politics that tracks "money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy" bears out Olive Garden's claim, showing no Darden-related donations to President Trump's campaign for the 2020 election cycle to date. donations For the previous election cycle, as Open Secrets observed, "all contributions to candidates from Darden Restaurants came from individuals," and contributions to Donald Trump from those individuals totaled a paltry $886 in 2016 and $250 in 2018, hardly enough to merit a claim that the company was "funding" Trump's election or re-election. (Hillary Clinton received nearly ten times as much in Darden-related campaign contributions in 2016 than Donald Trump did.) 2016 2018 Darden does not appear to be operating any political action committees (PACs), and all in all, Darden-related political contributions in 2018 were about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The top three donation recipients were GOPAC, (a Republican state and local political training organization), Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, and the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association. 2018 O'Kane, Caitlin.  "Olive Garden Disputes Claim That It Donated to Trump's Reelection Campaign."
  CBS News.  26 August 2019. Goforth, Claire.  "A Made-Up Tweet About Olive Garden Supporting Trump Sparked a Boycott."
  The Daily Dot.  26 August 2019. Carman, Tim.  "Olive Garden: Unlimited Breadsticks, Yes. Trump Campaign Donations, No."
  The Washington Post.  26 August 2019. Claim:  American Muslims for Jerusalem have called for a boycott of Estee Lauder products. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Estee Lauder Corporation (which is also is the parent company of  Prescriptives, Mac, Bobbie Brown, La Mer, Jo Malone, Origins, Aramis, Aveda and Bumble and Bumble) is being boycotted by a loud and ambitious campaign of the world's Arab and Muslim community due to Ron Lauder's (Estee Lauder's President) support for Israel.  Mr. Lauder has been extremely courageous and public in his support for the Jewish State and has taken real personal and financial risks to inform the world of the war that the Palestinian Authority has declared on Israel and Jews worldwide.  To combat this boycott I suggest that we all go out and buy as much Estee Lauder and Clinique products as possible.  Make the Estee Lauder and Clinique counters your gift of choice.  Switch brands at least for a while.  It is said that beauty has many discomforts. So does supporting those who speak for us.  Am Yisrael Chai!   PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! LET'S SHOW THE ARABS THAT PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD WILL STAND TOGETHER.  Ronnie Lauder is married to Jo Carol Knopf Lauder born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware. Her parents were humble Holocaust survivors!  He also works undauntingly for the re-establishment of the Hungarian Jewish community. A good man! PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE! Origins:  In February 2001, the American Muslims for Jerusalem, a political group in Washington, called for a worldwide Arab boycott of Estee Lauder products. The group was acting in protest against Ronald Lauder, chairman of Estee Lauder International and Clinique Laboratories, because of his "activities in support of Israeli right-wing extremists." A spokesman for the group said Muslims and Arabs had long been offended by Mr. Lauder's pro-Israeli views, but had not decided to call for a boycott until Mr. Lauder appeared at the "One Jerusalem" rally of religious and nationalist Israelis in January of that  year. The call for an Arab and Muslim boycott of Estee Lauder almost immediately inspired an appeal to Jews and those of pro-Israeli sentiment to support the company by buying its products. This call to arms was circulated in many forms, including via the Internet. (No mention of the Arab/Muslim boycott, the anti-boycott, or Ron Lauder's actions appears on either the Estee Lauder or the American Muslims for Jerusalem web sites, though.) Ron Lauder has been a vocal supporter of Israel and Israeli causes for many years. In 1999 he attempted to broker a peace pact between Israel and Syria by acting as a go-between for Syrian President Hafez Assad and then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The deal failed because the two parties could not reach agreement on the disposition of the Golan Heights. Whether any boycott or a show of support would have an appreciable impact on Estee Lauder's bottom line is debatable  when a multinational coporation with sales in the billions of dollars is involved, only the sustained, concerted actions of millions of consumers can make the needle so much as twitch. For the fiscal year ended 30 June 2001, Estee Lauder had net sales of $4.62 billion, which was an 8% increase on the preceding year's $4.37 billion. For the first three quarters of the fiscal year that will end on 30 June 2002, net sales are $3.57 billion, which is the nearly the same sales figure as the equivalent period last year. More simply, if there's a boycott or counter-boycott going on, the income statement isn't demonstrating any impact from it. Barbara "estee of execution" Mikkelson Additional Information:   Estee Lauder Corporation  Last updated:  1 October 2007    Sources:   Barron, James.  "Boldface Names."   The New York Times.  28 February 2001  (p. B2).     Dan, Uri and Niles Lathem.  "Lauder Was a Go-Between for Israel, Syria."   The New York Post .  6 October 1999  (p. 18).     DeNitto, Emily.  "New York, New York."   Crain's New York Business.  13 August 2001  (p. 6).     The New York Post.  "Unkindest Cut for CNN Legend."   5 March 2001  (p. 8). It was clear that everyone would pay a bit more when the Georgia Legislature rammed through a $900 million transportation funding bill that voters and businesses alike said the state needed. State gasoline taxes will increase by almost 35 percent. Electric vehicle drivers, who havent been paying for gas, and truckers both will see new annual fees. And if Gov, Nathan Deal signs the measure as expected, it also will add a $5-a-night fee on hotel and motel stays starting July 1. The hospitality industry opposed that last-minute provision. Michael T. Owens, President and CEO of the Tourism Leadership Council in Savannah, told GPB that the charge would have a serious effect in that tourist hotspot and statewide. We absolutely expect to see cancellations of major, major groups, he said. PolitiFact Georgia cant fact-check predictions. But there is a part of Owens comments that callsout for a ride on the Truth-O-Meter:  claims that the fee would hurt convention business by adding tens of thousands of dollars in costs for large groups. Georgia does not have a statewide hotel tax. Instead state law allows local governments to levy up to a 3 percent excise tax or up to an 8 percent sales tax. Some of the collections have no limits while others must pay for tourism promotion or specific projects or attractions. Atlanta sets its hotel rate at the maximum 8 percent. Savannah charges 6 percent. The new charge is a flat $5 fee, tacked on for every night of a hotel stay. Owens was out of town when PolitiFact called, but Tourism Leadership Council Vice President Molly Swagler said the group is concerned about an increase to the bottom line of a multi-day stay. We would typically have a 500-room convention and that adds up to another $2,500 on their bill, Swagler said. In a larger market like Atlanta, youll see 15,000 room nights, so it could be a $75,000 increase out of a $5 fee. Lawmakers did not discuss any of those figures in committee or public, since the fee was added only after a dramatically revised compromise bill. That means the fee was not part of the fiscal note, or official estimate of the effect a bill will have on tax revenues or public spending. Teresa MacCartney, the states chief financial officer, released the state Senates original fiscal note but said the updated report, with estimates from the bed tax, will not be available until later this week. Senators did request an analysis from the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of West Georgia, that will be part of that updated note. William J. Smith, the universitys economics chair who did the work on the fee, said his research involved collecting information about the average number of hotel rooms and occupancy rate in Georgia, plus the states share of tourism visits relative to the rest of the country. That gave an estimate of room nights per year that, multiplied by $5, showed the fee will generate about $160 million a year for transportation projects. In the most basic economics of supply and demand, that tab appears to back up tourism officials worry. After all, when prices go up, dont people buy less? Sometimes. But there are more complex economic realities to that $5 fee. First, even tourism officials agree that the visitors who are set on seeing the historic squares and other Spanish-moss draped sites will still come. Paying $5 more every night could eat into those visitors budgets for their stay  costing restaurants and shops business. But there is nothing that saysvisitorsmust pay the new fee. Put bluntly, the hotel could eat the cost, if it meant remaining competitive with the likes of, say, Charleston, said Bruce Seaman, an economics professor at Georgia State University who specializes in the impact of projects and attractions. Seaman used 2013 data from the Savannah Area Chamber to see if the citys hotels would be better off absorbing the cost or increasing the cost to guests. His math included sympathy to the idea that some guests would be sensitive to price changes and stay away. In his scenario, the price change could chase away about 7.5 percent of room nights  costing Savannah-areal hotels about $22.5 million a year. And if the hotels eat the $5 per night themselves? With 3.6 million room nights at a 67 percent occupancy rate, the price tag would be $18.7 million. The bottom line is, to whatever extent they pass along any of this cost to their customers, they will pay more in a year, Seaman said. Except, no one is requiring hotels to increase the price paid by customers and in this case, it looks like it would cost them less to eat it than pass it forward. In other words, the overall point from Owens is legitimate. The $5 per-night fee is an increase that will affect business. That is, there are downsides to levying any new tax or fee. But part of that risk can be mitigated by the business eating some of the cost  additional context that shows there is not always a price increase with a new fee. More money is headed to state coffers if the transportation plan becomes reality. But the state is not requiring hotels, which change their rates constantly as a reflection of demand, to raise rates. Considering that caveat, we rate Owens statement Mostly True. On July 10, 2019, we examined a claim holding that Google was "scrubbing" its search results of any pictures showing President Bill Clinton together with convicted sex offender and billionaire/financier Jeffrey Epstein. While this rumor was false (Google's search results were not notably different than those of Yahoo, Duck Duck Go, Yandex, or Bing), we were left with one unanswered question: Are there any photos of Epstein and Clinton? false After all, Clinton flew on the private plane of Epstein, a convicted sex offender who was arrested again in July 2019 on new charges related to child-sex-prostitution. The two were also both present at a "small dinner party" in 1995 hosted by Revlon mogul Ron Perelman to raise funds for the Democratic National Convention. It seems reasonable to believe that someone at some point took a photograph of these two well-known public figures together.  flew child-sex-prostitution On July 22, 2019, Josh Rosner, the managing director of independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co, alerted us to his tweet containing a photograph of Epstein and Clinton that was published in a 2003 issue of Vanity Fair: Josh Rosner published Disturbing! The #press wiped all pictures of @BillClinton & #JeffreyEpstein from the #internet. Even @VanityFair who published this image in 03 from their #sex(?) trip to Brunei scrubbed it. #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai #press @BillClinton #JeffreyEpstein #internet @VanityFair #sex #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai  joshua rosner (@JoshRosner) July 22, 2019 July 22, 2019  Again, no evidence exists that this image was "wiped" from the Internet. In fact, this image is available online in Vanity Fair's digital archive (subscription required). digital archive This photograph was published in a March 2003 article by Vicky Ward entitled, "The Talented Mr. Epstein." The photograph's caption: "Epstein with President Clinton in Brunei, 2002." published   One possible explanation as to why this photograph doesn't pop up in search engines is that Vanity Fair didn't publish it as a standalone image. Rather, it is embedded in a digital copy of the March 2003 edition of the magazine. While we're not in the business of offering predictions, we'd bet that this image will start finding its way into Google Images and other image-based search engines in the near future (especially if more outlets pick up and publish stories including this image). Clinton is mentioned three other times in the Vanity Fair story; each iteration is reproduced below (emphasis ours): Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. VICKY WARD explores Epstein's investment career, his ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past. In addition to the town house, Epstein lives in what is reputed to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico, on an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch which he named "Zorro." "It makes the town house look like a shack," Epstein has said. He also owns Little St. James, a 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the main house is currently being renovated by Edward Tuttle, a designer of the Aman resorts. There is also a $6.8 million house in Palm Beach, Florida, and a fleet of aircraft: a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and a Boeing 727, replete with trading room, on which Epstein recently flew President Clinton, actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, Lew Wasserman's grandson, Casey Wasserman, and a few others, on a mission to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development in Africa. Epstein is known about town as a man who loves womenlots of them, mostly young. Model types have been heard saying they are full of gratitude to Epstein for flying them around, and he is a familiar face to many of the Victoria's Secret girls. One young woman recalls being summoned by Ghislaine Maxwell to a concert at Epstein's town house, where the women seemed to outnumber the men by far. "These were not women you'd see at Upper East Side dinners," the woman recalls. "Many seemed foreign and dressed a little bizarrely." This same guest also attended a cocktail party thrown by Maxwell that Prince Andrew attended, which was filled, she says, with young Russian models. "Some of the guests were horrified," the woman says. "He's reckless," says a former business associate, "and he's gotten more so. Money does that to you. He's breaking the oath he made to himselfthat he would never do anything that would expose him in the media. Right now, in the wake of the publicity following his trip with Clinton, he must be in a very difficult place." In 2002, around the time that this photograph was taken, Clinton told New York Magazine via a spokesperson that, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service and combating H.I.V./AIDS." New York Magazine Clinton once had a relationship with Epstein and even took multiple trips on his private plane. However, the former president said that he hasn't had contact with Epstein for a decade and knows nothing about the crimes the latter has been accused or convicted of: Statement on Jeffrey Epstein. pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l  Angel Urea (@angelurena) July 8, 2019 July 8, 2019  Clinton, of course, isn't the only high-profile politician connected to Epstein. U.S. President Donald Trump has also been photographed with Epstein.  photographed Gold, Michael.  "Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They Connected?"
  The New York Times.  9 July 2019. Thomas Jr., Landon.  "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery."
  NY Magazine.  28 October 2002. Ward, Vicy.  "The Talented Mr. Epstein."
  Vanity Fair.  March 2003. Phishing bait:  Software order confirmation from Intuit. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2012]     Origins:  In October 2012, Internet users were spammed with phony e-mailed confirmation orders from Intuit, a financial and tax preparation software company, bearing subject lines such as "Intuit Order Status," "Intuit GoPayment Order Status update," "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Information," and "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Note." Intuit posted an alert on its web site about the fake e-mail, advising recipients to: alert  Do not click on the link in the email. Send a copy of the email to spoof@intuit.com. Do not forward the email to anyone else. Delete the email. Intuit's alert also advises users that: On the Internet, "phishing" refers to criminal activity that attempts to fraudulently obtain sensitive information. Here's what you can do to protect yourself from a phishing attack:  If you suspect you have received a phishing email from Intuit, please forward it immediately to spoof@intuit.com. We will look into each reported instance. Make sure you subscribe to an anti-virus software and keep it up-to-date. Make sure you have updated your web browser to one that includes anti-phishing security features, such as Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox version 3 or higher. Make sure that you keep up to date on the latest releases and patches for your operating systems and critical programs. These releases are frequently security related. Do not respond to emails asking for account, password, banking, or credit card information. Do not open up an attachment that claims to be a software update. We will not send any software updates via email. Do not respond to text messages or voicemails that ask you to call a number and enter your account number and pin. Make sure you have passwords on your computer and your payroll files. Last updated:  1 October 2012 In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was "the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor" re-emerged social media   The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase "First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor": 2017 The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called "strongman politics," whereby "those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning." He also criticized "far-right parties" with a platform of "protectionism and closed borders" as well as "barely-hidden racial nationalism." perceived Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a "symptom, not a cause" of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the "wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage." Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented "one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for." speech Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer "There is no military victory here" and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: took aim efforts George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: reported Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress "for his demise or things that weren't going right." "He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it," Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. "I think America is a little tired of it." During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having "the nerve" to blame the GOP for "his own failures," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazettereported: reported Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. "He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress," the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: reported Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. "I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess," Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. "But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold." Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to "accept his responsibilities as president," the New York Times reported: New York Times Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, "we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors" ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan "my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency." "My offer still stands," Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. "When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him." At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were "irresponsible and ill-advised" and that his Republican successor had made "radical" and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: reported Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: "Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth" ... "It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised," he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: interview "Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion," Ford said. "It's going out like a mouse" ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: negotiations crisis reported "The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter," Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. "The president blew it." Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. "He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible." Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is "the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor" is false. Wintour, Patrick.  "Obama Criticises 'Strongman Politics' in Coded Attack on Trump." 
  The Guardian.  17 July 2018. Reuters.  "Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush on Iraq." 
  19 July 2007. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay and Jeff Zeleny.  "Clash Over Iraq Becomes Bitter Between Bush and Congress." 
  The New York Times.  12 July 2007. Zizzo, David.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton During Stop in City." 
  The Daily Oklahoman.  5 November 1994. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton." 
  5 November 1994. Associated Press.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton, But Says Scandal Will Fade." 
  The Atlanta Constitution   25 January 1999. Clymer, Adam.  "Carter Says Reagan Has Failed to Accept His Responsibilities." 
  The New York Times.  1 October 1982. Pippert, Wesley G.  "Jimmy Carter Criticized President Reagan Wednesday for Making 'Radical'..." 
  United Press International.  10 November 1982. Cannon, Lou.  "Ford Criticizes Carter Economics." 
  The Tampa Bay Times.  17 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Policy." 
  The [Uniontown] Evening Standard.  8 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Economic Policies." 
  The [Staunton] News Leader.  11 October 1979. Carrol, Jan.  "Former President Ford Criticizes Carter for 'Flip-Flopping' Policies." 
  The [Lousiville] Courier-Journal.  27 June 1980. In January 2022, an online advertisement showed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway next to the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." online advertisement  The ad was misleading clickbait.  The ad led to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All." article It wasn't until the last page of the long story that Elway was featured. However, it said nothing of him running out of money and going "broke." last page Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison. fell victim to a Ponzi scheme reported The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016 that reported Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by the year 2015, potentially a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation." an ABC News article As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager. the team's general manager There was no evidence that Elway was broke, nor did the lengthy MoneyWise.com article mention any such thing. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat  a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011  is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers.  Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen:   Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever  TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015  It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ?  B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it  namely U.S. patent #9396354:   granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature  as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is  a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison.  "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head."
 Naked Security.  20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin.  "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action."
 Legal Newsline.  2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al.  "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America."
 Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology.  18 October 2016. Graham, Meg.  "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google."
 Chicago Tribune.  13 January 2017. Korte, Amy.  "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed."
 Illinois Policy.  8 March 2017. Maass, Dave.  "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven.  "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses."
 Digital Trends.  1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven.  "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks."
 US News & World Report.  18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John.  "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups."
 Fortune.  16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam.  "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals."
 The Guardian.  15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario.  "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold."
 The Hill.  1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana.  "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will.  "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law."
  Inc.  18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation.  "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law."
 18 July 2012. Google.  "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1."
  19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office.  "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law."
 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards."
 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program."
 15 June 2016. On April 14, 2010, former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin addressed a tea party event in Boston and tried to characterize the scale of the tax burden in the United States.Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves, she said.By making her point this way, Palin was using a yardstick that receives both attention and criticism every April 15, the day federal tax returns are due. So we thought it would be as good a time as any to look once again at the skirmishing over Tax Freedom Day. (Welast studied the questionmore than two years ago, when Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee cited a similar statistic.) Tax Freedom Day is the date when Americans . . . have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels, according to the Tax Foundation, the Washington, D.C.-based group that has calculated it for decades and also determined it retroactively back to 1900.The foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day by taking the amount of tax revenue collected and dividing it by national income created, producing an average tax burden for the U.S. economy as a whole. That percentage is then multiplied by 365 to calculate the number of days over the course of a year it would take to pay off the entire tax burden. (The calculation counts every day of the year, not adjusting for weekends, holidays or leap years. )To determine tax revenue, the foundation adds together individual income taxes paid at every governmental level; payroll taxes, the federal levies that fund Social Security and Medicare; sales and excise taxes, which are typically collected at the state and local level; corporate income taxes; property taxes; and other miscellaneous taxes such as those for car licenses, energy or mineral production and estates.The Tax Foundation also offers state-specific Tax Freedom Days. These range from 85 for Alaska (Palin's home state) and Louisiana to 117 for higher-tax Connecticut. But the national average is 99.So if we measure Palin by how closely her figure tracks with the current Tax Freedom Day statistic, she scores well. She rounded up from 99 to 100 -- close enough in our book -- and she used the national average rather than any state figure, which is appropriate.Still, before giving Palin the Truth-O-Meter seal of approval, we need to determine whether she described the number's meaning accurately. And this requires delving into the annual debate over how useful the Tax Freedom Day concept is.The Tax Foundation's loyal antagonist in this annual battle is the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. CBPP doesn't suggest that Tax Freedom Day is a bad statistic; it acknowledges that it's a perfectly fine tool if you need to compare the level of taxation in different countries, or measure how the tax burden has changed over time.However, CBPP does cite a number of complaints. We're ignoring a bunch that aren't addressed by Palin's comment, such as concerns over how the state-by-state tax burdens are calculated.The one criticism by CBPP that we do think is relevant to Palin's comment is the argument that Tax Freedom Day ignores differences in how much Americans of different income levels pay in taxes.The Tax Foundation's number represents an average tax burden for the economy as a whole. But CBPP argues that the foundation's number is not a good measure of what a typical taxpayer pays. To explain the difference, CBPP offers the following example:Suppose four families with incomes of $50,000 each pay $2,500 in taxes  5 percent of their income  while one wealthy family with income of $300,000 pays $90,000 in taxes  30 percent of its income. Total income among these five families is $500,000, and the total amount paid in taxes is $100,000. Thus, 20 percent of the total income of the five families goes to pay taxes. But the 20 percent figure is highly misleading as an indicator of the typical tax burden for families in this group, since four of the five families have tax rates just one-fourth of that amount.This is obviously an extreme case, and William Ahern, the Tax Foundation's director of policy and communications, countered that in the real world of taxation, the differences between taking a strict average (as the Tax Foundation does) and using a median figure (which would more closely reflect patterns of income distribution) aren't that great. CBPP cites research showing that the difference is significant.CBPP argues that there's enough income inequality in the United States, and enough progressivity in the tax code, to undermine the usefulness of Tax Freedom Day calculations. That's because a sizable majority of taxpayers must work significantly fewer days to pay off their tax bill -- and a minority must work significantly more days. So any attempt to suggest that Tax Freedom Day represents the experience of a typical American -- as opposed to one on the higher end of the income spectrum -- may be problematic.The good news for the Truth-O-Meter is that we don't have to resolve this dispute in order to rate Palin's comment -- we only need to make sure that Palin described accurately the statistic she was using. The bad news in this particular case is that Palin's phrasing is a bit elliptical, making it difficult to parse her words. Palin said, Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves. That's pretty close to what the Tax Foundation said in its own release -- Americans will work well over three months of the year  from Jan. 1 to April 9  before they have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels. Both Palin and the Tax Foundation avoid saying that Tax Freedom Day represents the experience of a typical American, which would have been a more problematic phrasing. Our graduated tax system, which is weighted more heavily on the wealthy, means that the average amount paid is skewed upward by a smaller number of wealthy people who pay a lot. In other words, there are many, many more people who would fall under the 100-day threshold mentioned by Palin than over it. We think listeners take Palin as referring to what a typical American pays in taxes, since she didn't specify otherwise. Leaving that impression in listeners' minds, we knock her statement down to Mostly True.