Did Ohio Man Who Called COVID-19 a 'Political Ploy' Die from the Disease?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.  Here's a screenshot supposedly showing a post from McDaniel on March 15 and a snippet from his obituary a month later:   McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media.  died The New York Daily News wrote:  wrote An Ohio man has tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his states coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWines stay-at-home order madness. If what Im hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesnt have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post circulated widely on social media. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize McDaniel, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.  McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media, but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him.  In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same.  Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our believed husband, father, soon to be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook have turned into national news. The news has opened the flood gates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.  As each day passes, we all are learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have all learned that the early actions taken by our National and State government were indeed the right action to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John was still here with us he would acknowledge the national crisis we're are in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly he is not with us and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Further, we will never be able to erase from our hears and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share. While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. rampant We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax."  bad medical advice conspiracy theories. fake news said Brown, Bruce.  "Its Dangerous for Public Officials to Cry Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic."
  Miami Herald.  27 March 2020. Egan, Lauren.  "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax.'"
  NBC News.  28 February 2020. Carter, Andrew.  "Marion Man Dies After Contracting Coronavirus; Local Cases Climb to 276."
  Marion Star.  16 April 2020. Dillon, Nancy.  "Ohio Man Dies From COVID-19 After Criticizing Governors Coronavirus Lockdown as 'Madness.'"
  New York Daily News.  21 April 2020.
Claim:  Six outrageous-but-real lawsuits showcase the need for tort reform. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This is what's wrong with the world:        1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000.00 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store.  The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son. 2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000.00 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord.  Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal. 3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning.  He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food.  This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change. 4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas was awarded $14,500.00 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. 5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500.00 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. 6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth.  This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000.00 and dental expenses. Origins:   This "and you wonder what's wrong with the world today?" whinge appeared on the Internet in May 2001. All of the entries in the list are fabrications: a search for news stories about each of these cases failed to turn up anything, as did a search for each law case.  The earliest version concluded with a seventh item that has since been snipped away, likely after someone noticed it was the venerable microwaved poodle legend. Its inclusion would have immediately called into question the truthfulness of the other six cases for any number of folks familiar with urban legends. The remaining six were still false, but they weren't as obviously false as the following poodle tale and thus wouldn't have set the alarm bells ringing: microwaved 7. And just so you know that cooler heads do occasionally prevail: Kenmore Inc., the makers of Dorothy Johnson's microwave, were found not liable for the death of Mrs. Johnson's poodle after she gave it a bath and attempted to dry it by putting the poor creature in her microwave for, "just a few minutes, on low,"  The case was quickly dismissed. A version of the list that began circulating in the spring of 2002 has yet another urban legend included as its final item, the venerable cruise control legend: cruise control In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded  $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. Some versions bear the following footer, although many omit it: PLEASE ASSIST OUR LAW OFFICES IN A TORT REFORM PROGRAM.  WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT A STOP TO THESE INSANE JURY AWARDS BY SENDING THIS E-MAIL OUT TO THE PUBLIC IN THE HOPES OF SWAYING PUBLIC OPINION.  PLEASE FORWARD IT TO EVERY EMAIL ADDRESS YOU KNOW.Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio There is no law firm of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and Thomas in Dayton, Ohio, as a call to directory assistance quickly confirmed. This detail was included to give the mailing credibility in the eyes of those who received it: if a law firm had pulled this list together to build grassroots support for its tort reform program, then it went without saying a pack of lawyers had properly researched each item and were guaranteeing the information provided. But of course this detail was as false as everything else in the e-mail. Speaking about implied credibility, we note that the "outrageous lawsuits" list has made it into the newspapers at times, which only works to add to the perception that the information given in it is reliable. In June 2002, the New York Daily News presented it solely as an e-mail it had received, making no statements as to its likeliness to be real or detailing any attempts that publication might have made to verify any of the entries. (Had such attempts been made, the Daily News would have quickly found the article you're now reading, which originally appeared on this site a full ten months prior to the Daily News piece.) Fake or not, a list of outrageous awards bestowed upon those whose actions  nay, misbehaviors  had brought them to grief would fall upon very receptive ears because current feeling is very much against large jury awards for frivolous claims. This e-mail preaches to the choir in that it "confirms" what is already deeply believed. Numerous states have enacted measures to reform their civil law systems in response to the problem of frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury awards. Tort reform usually amounts to placing a cap on punitive damage awards, making the state's joint-and-several liability law more equitable, and limiting judge and court shopping (which means cases are tried in front of whomever they've been assigned to rather than the judge the plaintiff figures will be most sympathetic). Though the cases described in the e-mail are fake, real lawsuits of equal silliness can be found in abundance. An equally impressive list could easily have been compiled by anyone with access to a news database and a few moments to spare. For instance:  In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something that can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.  A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.  In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.  In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving. Although the cases cited above were all eventually dismissed, they still managed to work their way at least partway through our court system. When we hear such stories, it's hard not to be rabidly in favor of tort reform  these kinds of cases make it appear that the idiots have taken over the asylum and only the rapid institution of some rules is going to bring things back into a semblance of sanity. Yet this solution is not all skittles and beer; many see such changes as potentially denying those in need of legal remedy their day in court and refusing them their right to be heard. The cap on jury awards is also viewed by some as unfair to the seriously injured, who may well require a large sum to afford the cost of living with whatever disability someone else's negligence or recklessness left them with. Capped awards are also scant deterrent to large corporations who could easily afford the judgments against them and therefore have little reason to mend their ways. Big Business is poised to benefit under tort reform in that it will no longer need to fear the courts. It can also be argued that the need for tort reform is overblown. Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgment goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgment went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media.  (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Consumer Attorneys of California provides a good description of this case). this case Tort reform thus has both its advocates and its adversaries. On the one hand, we bridle at the thought of the terminally clueless being rewarded for their folly  that strikes us as just plain wrong. We also fear for the continued wellbeing of the small- to mid-sized business which can ill afford to fend off one frivolous lawsuit after another and thus stands in danger of being litigated to death. Also, even when litigants do not prevail, costs associated with their suits rain down onto the average citizen through his taxes (some of which underwrite the judicial system) and through increased prices for goods produced by firms who had to mount legal defenses.  Yet on the other hand, we don't want to see those who have legitimate cause denied their right to sue (or in the case of the seriously injured, their right to sue for an appropriate amount). We also don't want to see corporations run unchecked, free to turn out whatever dangerous product they like because the combination of capped awards and their deep pockets render them bulletproof. It's a complicated issue, one not made any easier to make sense of by lists of fake cases of horrendous miscarriages of justice. One has to wonder why someone is so busy trying to stir up outrage and who or what that outrage would ultimately benefit. Additional information:  George W. Bush's first act upon becoming the Governor of Texas was to reform that state's civil justice system. In January 1995, just after being sworn in, he convened a session of the Legislature to tackle tort reform. Within weeks he signed bills to limit punitive damages to $750,000, cut down on "venue shopping" for favorable judges and juries, and made it easier for judges to impose sanctions on plaintiffs who file frivolous suits.  Sightings:  The "woman in a store trips over a toddler, then sues the store" fiction was incorporated into an episode of the television drama Boston Legal ("Tabloid Nation," original air date 8 April 2008). Last updated:  11 April 2008    Sources:   Associated Press.  "Men's Room Invasion Prompts Suit."   The Fresno Bee.  1 April 1995  (p. F8).     Coile, Zachary.  "Bush's Formula to Win Over Business."   The San Francisco Examiner.  2 October 2000  (p. A1).     Elias, Paul.  "So What's a Little Litigation Between Friends?"   The Recorder.  14 December 1999  (Court Watch; p. 4).     Heller, Jonathan.  "Man Seeks $1.5 Million from City; Says Library Cat Attacked His Dog."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  5 May 2001  (p. B2).     Littlefield, Dana.  "Suit Over Library Cat's Attack Bites Back at disabled Dog Owner."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  31 July 2004  (p. NC3).     Perkins, Joseph.  "We All Pay When Others File Frivolous Lawsuits."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  18 May 2001  (p. B7).     Perry, Tony.  "A One-Man Campaign for More Women's Restrooms."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 1995  (p. A3).     Riffel, James.  "Jury Rejects Claims of Disabled Man Against City for Cat Attack."   City News Service.  30 January 2004.     Vogt, Andrea.  "Ludicrous Lawsuit Against University of Idaho Rears Its Ugly Head."   Lewiston Morning Tribune.  2 August 1994  (p. A1).     New Jersey Lawyer.  "Moral of a Burger Suit: Don't Eat and Drive."   15 November 1993  (p. 3).     [New York] Daily News.  "Mighty Quinn."   25 June 2002  (Sports, p. 63). The February 2018 shooting deaths of seventeen people at a high school in Parkland, Florida and a subsequent, charged town hall meeting about gun safety with some of the mass shooting's survivors and their families has put the National Rifle Association under intense scrutiny for its opposition to gun control. shooting deaths meeting Against this background, many were surprised to discover that the NRA, despite being well known for its political lobbying and ties to the gun industry, is in fact a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. On 22 February 2018, the "Really American" Facebook page posted a meme that showed President Donald Trump holding a replica flintlock rifle, along with this message: meme rifle The NRA has non-profit, tax-exempt status. Even though they transformed from an organization for gun owners to an organization for gun manufacturers, and donate millions of dollars to politicians to make sure they vote the "right way." Corruption in action.    The National Rifle Association is indeed a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. To be specific, it has 501(c)(4) status, meaning it is regarded as a "social welfare organization" by the Internal Revenue Service: 501(c)(4) status social welfare organization To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements.) A 501(c)(4) organization like the NRA is allowed to engage in political lobbying and advocacy, but this cannot be its main activity, and it must be related to the group's primary mission and the issue upon which its tax exemption is based, according to the IRS. Social welfare organizations may also get involved in political campaigns and elections, provided their involvement is related to the group's mission, and again, only if this does not constitute their primary activity.  IRS Critics of the NRA have claimed that the organization's tax exemption should be taken away, because, roughly speaking, the NRA spends less time and money providing a genuine service to the public at large than it does on political lobbying, and because the NRA's activities benefit the private gun industry. In its 2015 tax return, the NRA described its mission as "Firearms safety education and training and advocacy on behalf of safe and responsible gun owners." In April 2016, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence published a report on this very issue, labelling the NRA "a tax-exempt [organization] loaded with private interest." The authors  attorney Alexandra O'Neill and financial analyst Daniel O'Neill  wrote: tax return report ...The majority of the NRAs lobbying, education, training and publication activities operate to benefit a private interest: the firearms and ammunition industry. As a result, under the cases and rulings interpreting section 501(c)(4), the NRA does not primarily serve the community interest and should not qualify as a tax-exempt social welfare organization.  Instead, the NRA should operate as a political lobbying organization to be accountable for its key interests: the firearms and ammunition industry. A spokesperson for the NRA rejected this, telling us in an e-mail that the group's legislative lobbying was "textbook social welfare activity," and that any benefits that accrued to gun manufacturers from the NRA's activities were "incidental": The assertion that the NRA is not operated for tax-exempt purposes is false because legislative lobbying to protect the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans is social welfare activity. The defense of civil rights secured by law is textbook social welfare activity, regardless of the size and extent of such activity.... It was established in case law, the spokesperson argued, that "occasional" private financial benefits resulting incidentally from a nonprofit group's activities are allowed: Just as newspapers and other information sources incidentally benefit from the ACLUs advocacy about the First Amendment, gun manufacturers incidentally benefit from the NRAs advocacy about the Second.  Reilly, John Francis; Braig Allen, Barbara A. "Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) Organizations."
 Internal Revenue Service. 2003 National Rifle Association of America. "Form 990  Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, 2015."
 ProPublica. 2016. O'Neill, Alexandra F.; O'Neill, Daniel P. "The NRA, a Tax-Exempt Loaded With Private Interest."
 The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. April 2016. Claim:  Letter to the Wall Steet Journal responds to a "Where's the Outrage?" editorial. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on August 8, 2008 by Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills, CA, in response to the Wall Street Journal article titled "Where's The Outrage?" that appeared July 31, 2008. Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I? I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement. I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates. I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public. The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change. Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America, is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair. Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment? When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could  not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country. I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants. I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company, or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America, our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English. I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee. Tennessee, last I checked, is still part of the United States. If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history. In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country. I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews  one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end? As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit. But when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil.. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags. So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me. Alisa Wilson, Ph.D.Beverly Hills, California Origins:  On 31 July 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, entitled "Where's the Outrage? Really."  The gist of Mr. Brooks' commentary was to note that"virtually every group in the [U.S.] population [was] less angry" in 2008 than in 1996 with the exception of those who identify themselves as "very liberal," and to question why "folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment." editorial In response to Mr. Brooks' opinion piece, Beverly Hills, California, resident Dr. Alisa Wilson penned the above-quoted letter, which was submitted to (but not published by) the Wall Street Journal.  As Dr. Wilson told us: a) I did indeed write that letter in August 2008.  Please note, however, that although I submitted the letter to the Wall Street Journal, the Wall Street Journal did not publish my letter.   b) The thoughts and sentiments in that article are my own, but apparently have resonated with many people.   c) I have seen some people in the "blog-o-sphere" question whether I am a real person.  Yes, indeed, I exist. Last updated:  19 May 2009 Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that New Mexico gained 75,800 jobs from December 2002 to July 2007, which is slightly lower than Richardson's claim. As our friends at FactCheck.org note in thisarticle, Richardson has consistently cited the higher number, even when the actual number was lower. For our ruling, however, we'll rely on the current 75,800 and call it mostly true. It's difficult to calculate how big a role his tax cuts played in getting businesses to create those jobs. James Peach, an economics professor at New Mexico State University, said many factors make a company decide to add jobs and that tax incentives often play only a modest role. Indeed, much of the job growth in the state began before Richardson became governor, Peach said. Still, Peach said Richardson's tax incentives and income tax cuts have created a favorable atmosphere for business that is a stark change from the state's mentality in the mid-1970s, when state officials refused to provide help to a promising young company named Microsoft. The climate here has changed considerably since then, Peach said. Bill Richardson has been a big part of that. He's not the whole story, but he's been a big part of it. Revelations came to light in fall 2019 that U.S. President Donald Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate current Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden and his son. In response, the presidents defenders have highlighted a May 4, 2018, letter signed by three Democratic senators to Yuriy Lutsenko, the prosecutor general of Ukraine (a similar role to the U.S. attorney general), as evidence that claims of improper behavior are misplaced. The letter was notably described by Washington Post columnist Marc Theisen as betraying a double standard. have highlighted letter notably described This sentiment was amplified by several media outlets, as well as a viral tweet (retweeted by Donald Trump Jr.) from the Twitter account Comfortably Smug, which according to BuzzFeed News is run by a Republican political consultant and deliberate spreader of false information: retweeted run by   Several reasons exist why the above tweet and associated sentiment are incorrect and misleading. At the top of that list is the fact that the letter in question did not concern a request to investigate Trump, nor did it request the opening of any investigation. letter Instead, it requested information on why Ukrainian special prosecutor Serhiy Horbatyuk (who serves in a special prosecutor role charged with investigating corruption cases linked to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich) had been prohibited from issuing subpoenas for evidence or interviewing witnesses in four existing investigations into former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort. Manafort, prior to joining the Trump campaign, had worked as a political consultant for Yanukovich and his political party. The four investigations involved money that flowed either to Manafort for this consulting work or to a law firm working with Manafort and others to improve Yanukovichs image in the West. They did not involve Trump. consultant law firm The three Democratic senators  then-Foreign Affairs Committee members Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy  were responding to a May 2, 2018, New York Times report that the four Manafort investigations in Ukraine were specifically singled out from a docket of nearly 3,000 corruption cases in Horbatyuks portfolio to be blocked from issuing subpoenas and interviewing witnesses. U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his charge to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, was investigating Manafort in part because of concerns that he owed substantial funds to Russian oligarchs as a result of this consulting work, potentially giving them leverage over him as he ran Trump's campaign. The reason Ukrainian officials impeded the investigation was no secret, according to the Times  it was to placate the Trump administration, which opposed the Mueller probe: report as a result according Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Parliament who is an ally of [now former] President Petro O. Poroshenko, readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manaforts activities in the long-term box. In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials, Mr. Ariev said in an interview. We shouldnt spoil relations with the administration. These discussions came at a complicated time for Ukraine, a country that has been fighting Russian aggression and that had been in the process of securing arms from the United States. The decision to halt the investigations by an anti-corruption prosecutor was handed down as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins, the Times reported. reported Far from requesting an investigation, the senators requested answers to three specific questions from a specific Ukrainian government official: specific questions Manafort broadly admitted to involvement in activities related to those four Ukrainian probes via a September 2018 guilty plea. admitted Even ignoring the allegedly implied quid pro quo in the Trump-Zelensky call, a comparison between the senators request for information from the chief Ukrainian law enforcement official and Trumps requests of Zelensky is problematic. As senators on the Committee on Foreign Relations, which not only provides oversight for arms deals but also general oversight of Americas relationships with its allies, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy were acting within their constitutional rights and obligations as official representatives of the U.S. government with oversight responsibility over the executive branch. for arms deals constitutional rights Conversely, in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky, Trump explicitly requested that the Ukrainian president meet with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani  an unelected private citizen without a security clearance or oversight from anyone but Trump  to initiate investigations into a disparate set of claims whose sole unifying feature is that they concern Trumps political rivals: the Democratic National Committee and the Biden family. disparate set of claims Because the letter at issue did not actually demand an investigation into Trump or even compel initiation of any investigation, we rank the claim that Democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump in 2018 as false. DailyWire.com.  Double Standard: Senate Democrats Asked Ukraine To Help Them Investigate Trump.
  25 September 2019. Pollack, Joel B.  Democrats Wrote to Ukraine in May 2018, Demanding It Investigate Trump.
  Breitbart News. &nbsp 24 September 2019. foreign.senate.gov.  Letter to Yuriy Lutsenko.
  4 May 2018. Thiessen, Marc A.  Democrats Double Standard on Ukraine.
  The Washington Post. 24 September 2019. Stuef, Jack.  The Man Behind @ComfortablySmug, Hurricane Sandy's Worst Twitter Villain.
  BuzzFeed News.  30 October 2012. Kramer, Andrew E.  Ukraine, Seeking U.S. Missiles, Halted Cooperation With Mueller Investigation.
  The New York Times. 2 May 2018. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  1:17:cr-00201-ABJ #423 Statement of the Offenses and Other Acts.
  14 September 2018. WhiteHouse.gov.  Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: President Zelenskyy of Spain
  24 September 2019. Congressional Research Service.  Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process.
  Updated 14 August 2019. Graham, David, A..  Trumps Incriminating Conversation With the Ukrainian President.
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2019. Vogel, Kenneth and Matthew Goldstein.  How Skadden, the Giant Law Firm, Got Entangled in the Mueller Investigation.
  The New York Times. 24 February 2019. Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."    Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). In February 2021, a video went viral on TikTok that supposedly showed a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. The video, which supposedly came from the cop car's dashcam, racked up more than 26 million views within a few days of its initial posting by @kd_k97:   There are strong reasons to doubt this is a genuine video of a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. More likely, it's a staged video that was created as a sort of "morality play" asking the viewer to ponder what they would do in this situation.  While there are no explicit disclaimers labeling this footage as a scripted moment as opposed to a genuine incident captured on a police car's dashcam, there are a number of indications that this video could be more accurately captioned as the former.  For one, this "dashcam" video did not originate with a police department, a news article, or any other official source. Rather, this video first went viral on TikTok.  This is also just one part of a three-part video series. Part one showed the initial confrontation, involving a Black man being stopped and handcuffed after reports of "suspicious activity." Part two shows the handcuffed man saving the cop's life after he starts to choke. Part three shows the Black man retrieving the cuffs after saving the cop's life, giving them back to the police officer and preparing to be arrested again, before the cop decides to reward his good deed and let him go. Part one showed Part two shows Part three shows While this may be an effective way to break down and share a scripted performance, this would be an odd way to release a genuine police dashcam video.  We have not seen any news reports about this alleged incident, nor have we found any "official" versions of this video from a police department. On social media, users also noted that the officer's "costume" didn't seem authentic. For instance, he doesn't appear to be wearing a weapon and the "bullet proof vest" appears a bit flimsy.  TikTok user kd_k97 has not commented on the authenticity of the video. However, they did respond to a comment that highlighted the intended message of the video:   We reached out to KD97 for more information, and will update this article accordingly. Claim:  E-mail claims a Mexican woman attempted to abduct a tot from a store in Tupelo, Mississippi. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Ok this is freaky but it really happened at the mall in Tupelo. Everyone please beware this Holiday Season. A couple of weeks ago a lady with two kids was shopping at JCPennys in the mall here at Tupelo.  One of her sons was pretty small and he was in a stroller buckled in and the other one was older and he was walking beside her. A mexican woman came by and told the lady how cute her little baby was...well the lady told her "Thank You" and went on her way. A couple of minutes later the mexican woman approched the lady again telling her how cute her little baby boy was. The lady again replied with thank you. As the lady turned her back to look at a piece of clothing the oldest son started screaming. The lady turned around to find that the mexican lady had unbuckled the baby and grabbed him out of the stroller and took off with him.  The lady ran after them and caught the mexican woman as the was getting out the door with her son. The only way that she caught her was the mexican woman had long hair and she pulled it and knocked her down. The lady held her in her custody until the authorities arrived. The lady  was shocked when the authorities asked her if she wanted to press charges. The lady replied back with heck yeah this is my son your talking about. Come to find out the mexican lady was here illegally. They are coming here to steal our kids and carry them across the border to sell to the black market... scary I know....but I had to pass on. Now you do the same.. Thanks and have a Great Day  This really happened to a relative of a girl that goes to church with me. They have the lady in custody that tried to take the baby. She was hispanic and finally admitted that she was taking the baby across the border to sell it. This was last Wednesday night, Nov. 15 at the JC Penneys at Barnes Crossing. They did not catch anyone that was accompanying the lady andwe don't know if she gave up any names. So there could still be predators out there. Warn everyone you know with small children. Very scary... Last night as our family was out eating out at a local resturant , one of my aunts shared with us a very disturbing event that happened this past Wednesday night at JC Penny. A lady was shopping with her 2 small children  one a baby in a stroller and the other a toddler that was just old enough to talk. The lady had her children both right next to her as she was looking at clothes and the toddler said "Mama that lady just got my sister". This mother started chasing this Hispanic lady and finally caught her by reaching out and grabbing her hair from behind. She then started screaming this woman has my baby. Security came and took care of the horrible situation and told the Mom - we can almost bet you the lady had a car waiting outside with a driver and ready to take off and sell your baby on the black market in Mexico. This mother's grateful thought was Thank Goodness my toddler could talk and tell me - because she never thought this could happen since her children were right next to her within arms reach. I am sure with the Holiday Season approaching us all, the distractions as we shop will be more - but I hope this will help us all to stay a little more alert while out and about doing our shopping. And better Yet lets all each day Ask for the Lord to Guide and protect us and our families! Origins:  In November 2006, these accounts describing a foiled child abduction at a store in Tupelo, Mississippi, began arriving in our e-mail. Akin to other Internet-circulated tales about attempted childnappings at large stores (such as the venerable canard about kids being pulled in store washrooms to be drugged and have their hair dyed by those attempting to make off with them, or the 2006 hoax about a failed child grab at a Blockbuster in North Texas), this one also proved to be a fiction. dyed Blockbuster According  to Lee County Sheriff Jim Johnson and Tupelo Police Chief Harold Chaffin, the story about a Mexican woman who initially admired a shopper's baby, then grabbed it from the stroller and ran off with it was pure invention. There hadn't been any such incident  no brave mom who seized the would-be abductor by her long hair and held her until police arrived, no baby-stealing illegal immigrant now behind bars awaiting trial, no ring of kidnappers frequenting Tupelo-area stores in search of product for a Mexican black market in American infants. The Mall at Barnes Crossing, a venue where the alleged foiled abduction was said to have taken place, did succeed in tracing the e-mails to their source. Mall manager Jeff Snyder indicated no legal action was contemplated against the rumor's originator, but he noted that this could well be the last time the Mall would be inclined to be so lenient regarding damage done to its reputation. The false story spread from inbox to inbox because it invoked not just the specter of the child-abducting stranger (a frightening enough figure all on its own) but melded into it a bogeyman of the moment, the illegal immigrant from south of the border. While illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico has long been a problem, prior to 2006 it was less of a concern to those not living in border states. In 2006, however, the illegal immigration issue was pushed to the center of the political arena, with some of that pushing taking the form of unsubstantiated rumors positioning all those who come into the U.S. on the sly as violent criminals. The fictive Mexican woman of this tale is presented as a kidnapper of small children, and not even one propelled by misguided maternal desire into taking youngsters so she could become their mother, but one motivated purely by avarice, in it for the cash that selling the purloined tots would bring. She is wholly and irredeemably evil and therefore held up as an example of the sort of person a "look the other way" attitude towards illegal immigration has allowed into the country. Her theft is not merely that of social services, it is of defenseless children; the cost of having her here is not merely a small increase in taxes paid by the typical family, but the risk that the next tot she or her compatriots snatch will be yours. Barbara "bogeyman the barricades" Mikkelson Last updated:  15 December 2006    Sources:  Gray, Lloyd.  "Today's Falsehoods Spread Faster, Wider."  Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.  10 December 2006  (p. B4). Since the 2020 elections, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has attackedU.S. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, for allegedly engaging in business practices by means of which Hunter allegedly benefited from his father's position. But just a few years ago, according to an internet rumor, Carlson was asking for the younger Biden's help in getting his son into college. attacked A meme going around claims that an email shows Carlson thanking Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown University on behalf of his son, Buckley.  This claim is accurate. In 2014, when Joe Biden was serving as vice president, Carlson and his wife, Susie,reached out to Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown University. Their email communication was revealed through forensic analysis of a laptop once owned by Biden that he had purportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The laptop was obtained by Trump's then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and its contents pushed out to the New York Post in 2020. The correspondenceon Biden's hard drive, a copy of which was also in the possession of the FBI, was largely used to investigate his overseas business dealings during his father's time in the White House, but also have illuminated more about the Carlson-Biden relationship. reached out revealed laptop once owned by Biden correspondence The emails were given to The Washington Poston a hard drive by activist Jack Maxey, who received it from Giuliani. The Washington Post revealed the details of Carlson's and Biden's communication in May 2022, and was able to confirm with the help of forensic analysis and interviews with people familiar with the communications that this and other emails on the hard drive were real. The Washington Post So what did Carlson actually say? The Post shared an image of a few of the emails in which he thanks Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown "on Buckley's [his son's] behalf." He added, "So nice of you. I know it'll help." The Post Image via Washington Post Carlson's wife wrote to Biden in 2014: "I realize you don't really know Buckley. Maybe you could meet or speak to him and he could send you a very brief resume with his interests and grades attached." She also wrote: "Tucker and I would be so grateful if you could write a letter or speak to someone in the Georgetown Admission's Office about Buckley." Biden wrote back that he would be honored to help. "I will do anything you would like me to do," he said. Carlson described his son's interest in squash and fly fishing and wrote, "He loves Washington for all the right reasons, I think, and really wants to go to school here." When Biden agreed to write a letter for Buckley, Susie responded with, "Tucker and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. Always!" Carlson admitted that he was once close with Biden in a phone interview with the Post. He said: "Hunter Biden was my neighbor. Our wives were friends. I knew him well. I talked to him many times about addiction, something I know a lot about. And I've said that. I think that Hunter Biden is an addict and that's why his life is falling apart, and I feel bad for him. I've said that many times, and I mean it." admitted He refused to discuss the emails, however, pointing (with apparent irony) to claims that the timing of the laptop's emergence in 2020 had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Previously, Carlson had dismissed and mocked claims of a Russian disinformation campaign as an effort by the establishment and tech giants to protect Joe Biden's 2020 election campaign. It is unclear if Biden ended up writing a letter, but Carlson's son did end up going to the University of Virginia. refused "I can't confirm these emails. The emails that you're referring to were described by our intel community as Russian disinformation," he said. He added that he could not verify the emails as he did not have access to the account. said Hunter Biden declined to comment to the Post. Since 2020, Carlson has regularly skewered the younger Biden on his show, accusing him of getting "lucrative jobs  because he had an important father." skewered He did say there were certain lines he would not cross, pertaining to the laptop. In October 2020, he said: "Much of the material on the laptop is of limited relevance to the public. [...] And by the way, if we're being honest, some of the exchanges between Hunter Biden and his father, and they are on there, too, reveal that whatever you say about them, Joe Biden really loves his son, and they're touching." But following the 2020 election, Carlson's anti-Hunter Biden rhetoric grew, and he even poked fun at his addictions in an October 2021 segment:"So again, let's say you were a crackhead through your 40s, made a lot of pornographic videos mostly of yourself, your genitals covered in M&Ms, and then once you got to your 50s, decide, 'Hey, I want to be Andy Warhol. You probably couldn't do it unless your dad happened to be the president, and that's how Hunter Biden pulled that off." grew "A Look at the Time Tucker Carlson Asked Hunter Biden for a Favor." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/look-time-tucker-carlson-asked-hunter-biden-favor/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. Pengelly, Martin. "Tucker Carlson Tried to Use Hunter Biden to Get His Son into Georgetown." The Guardian, 20 May 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/19/tucker-carlson-hunter-biden-georgetown-emails.Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012