Is John Dillinger's Penis on Display at the Smithsonian?
One of the more bizarre celebrity legends is the claim that notorious bank robber John Dillinger was not only the proud possessor of an unusually large penis, but that this portion of his anatomy was removed post-mortem and put on display at one of the Smithsonian museums in Washington, D.C. (Some versions state that the receiving institution was not the Smithsonian but the Armed Forces Medical Museum, which is on the grounds of the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.) That the Smithsonian denies having (or ever having had) this piece of classic Americana in their collection is part of the game, of course. (An auxiliary portion of the legend is that Smithsonian docents, upon being asked where Mr. Dillinger's organ can be found, will not deny its presence in the collection but will fabricate an excuse as to why it is not currently on display.) How and when this rumor got started is unknown. No documentary evidence indicates that Dillinger was renowned for either his sexual prowess or his possession of a prodigious member during his lifetime. It is often claimed that the photograph below, taken in the circus-like atmosphere of the Cook County morgue after the elusive bank robber was finally gunned down by FBI agents outside the Biograph theater in Chicago on 22 July 1934, begat the legend of the pickled penis:  The bulge in the center of the photo (Dillinger's arm) was supposedly mistaken by contemporary viewers of fuzzy newspaper photos for his penis, thus starting the tale of an incredibly well-endowed John Dillinger. (How he managed to die in a fully erect state was a question the public either didn't ponder or else attributed to some rather strange misunderstandings about the process of rigor mortis.) We doubt this explanation of the rumor's genesis because the legend does not seem to have begun circulating until many years after the photograph was first published in newspapers, and it doesn't account for how the famous phallus supposedly came to be housed in one of America's premier museums (other than that, because it was an extraordinary anatomical specimen, somebody who felt that it belonged in a museum somewhere happily donated it). How the organ was surreptitiously severed also remains unexplained; presumably the undertaker who prepared the body for burial in Indiana would have noticed the mutilation and reported it to one of Dillinger's relatives before the funeral. Our psychological take on the rumor? Consider that Dillinger was the FBI's Public Enemy #1 after committing a string of flamboyant bank robberies, continually eluding capture, and boasting that no jail could hold him (and proving the latter by escaping from the Lake County Jail in Crown Point, Indiana, on 3 March 1934, reportedly bluffing his way out with a wooden replica of a gun). After Dillinger held up a few more banks and raided a Warsaw, Indiana, police station in the following months, the FBI was finally tipped off to his presence at the Little Bohemia Lodge in northern Wisconsin. The raid on the lodge by J. Edgar Hoover's vaunted FBI was an embarrassing disaster: agents opened fired on a carful of innocent lodge visitors (killing one), an agent was shot to death by Baby Face Nelson (who then escaped in an FBI automobile), and Dillinger himself once again eluded capture. Although the FBI finally caught up with and killed the infamous gangster in Chicago a few months later (with the assistance of Anna Sage, the "lady in red" who tipped off local police to Dillinger's presence and agreed to lead him into a trap), he had given Hoover and the FBI a black eye, leading them on a extended merry chase across the Midwest and humiliating them by escaping yet again when they had him cornered. What better revenge for Hoover than a symbolic emasculation, especially considering that it was a woman whom the FBI finally used to lure Dillinger to his death? Spread the word that Public Enemy #1 had been interred sans penis, and that his manhood had been put on display for all to see right across town from FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. It's an unlikely explanation, but a satisfying one. Sightings:  Look for Kevin and his buddies to refer to this legend in an episode of television's The Wonder Years ("Heartbreak", original air date 23 January 1991). Also, in the 2003 film The Recruit, one character offers his romantic interest a day of tourist activities in Washington, suggesting they "Look at John Dillinger's penis; I swear to God it's in the Smithsonian." The Recruit In the 1988 Jay McInerney's novel Story of My Life, we found this: "I remember I read somewhere that outlaw guy John Dillinger had one that was about a foot and a half long and it's preserved in the Smithsonian or someplace. Now that's what I call the Washington Monument." Leccese, Michael.  "Looking for Mr. Dillinger."
  Washington Tribune.  April 1980. McInerney, Jay.  Story of My Life.
  Canada: McClelland and Stewart, 1988.  ISBN 0-7710-5452-1  (p. 140). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!
  New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 28-29). Nash, Jay Robert and John Offen.  Dillinger: Dead or Alive?
  Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1970.
Claim:  E-mail reproduces interview with documentary filmmaker Pierre Rehov about the psychology of terrorism. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] The Psychology Behind Suicide Bombings By Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker On July 15, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the July 7th London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based oninterviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.  Q - What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film? A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up. Q - Why is this film especially important? A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude. Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know? A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil.  Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution. Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings? A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what theybelieve to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy. Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power? A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They thereforeexperience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.  Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology. A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise. Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction? A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do. Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way? A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderateMuslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of theProphecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists. Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers. A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior. Q - What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings? A - Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations throughdifferent networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel). Q - Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision? A - There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide. Q - Why are so many suicide bombers young men? A - As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman? Q - What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation? A - The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a dooropen by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. hasmaintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred"). Q - You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean. A - Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it. Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general? A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Naziism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people. Q - Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East? A - Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning. Origins:  Pierre Rehov is an Algerian-born filmmaker (his family left Algeria for France in 1961, when he was nine years old) who has Pierre Rehov  produced a number of documentaries about the Middle East, primarily focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In the wake of the 7 July 2005 terrorist bombings in London, he made a number of appearances on television news programs to discuss the causes and nature of terrorism and his experiences in producing films about the subject.  Those appearances included a 15 July 2005 interview for MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, the text of which is reproduced above. documentaries bombings appearances Connected We haven't yet been able to obtain a transcript of the 15 July 2005 Connected program, so we can't guarantee that what is reproduced above is a 100% complete and accurate reproduction of Pierre Rehov's interview.  However, we have verified that he was interviewed on Connected that day, that the substance of his remarks matched what is contained in the e-mail quoted at the head of this page, and that he offered substantially similar comments on other news programs around the same time as his Connected appearance. comments Last updated:  17 August 2006    Sources:   CNN Live Saturday.   "The Psychology of a Suicide Bomber."   CNN.com.  23 July 2005. In April 2022, a lengthy piece of text claiming that officials in the Australian state of Victoria were pushing legislation that would ban people from growing food circulated on conspiratorial websites, which presented the alleged bill as a nefarious plot to starve Australian citizens. The headline of an article on XYZ.Net.au, for example, read: "Psychopath Daniel Andrews (Premier of Victoria) Plans To STARVE Victorians." lengthy piece of text article on XYZ.Net.au On social media, the claim was boiled down to digestible memes and brief tweets, including the following:  The claim was not true, however.  This rumor centered on a genuine proposal by Victorian lawmakers called the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. That bill  which had bipartisan support, as of this writing  dealt with invasive species and other potential threats to Australia's agriculture industry. In a fact sheet about the bill, the state government explained its purpose and addressed the false claim that the legislation would prohibit Australians from growing their own food: Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 In a fact sheet This Bill aims to help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets which are vital for Victorias economy. Claim: The State Government is passing a bill now which means you won't be allowed to grow your own food, they can forcibly come in and rip it all out.  Facts: * The amendments will help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets. For example, by preventing contamination of food from pesticides.* The amendments will not result in the destruction of crops, nor will they prevent people growing their own food.* Information circulating online misinterprets and misrepresents amendments in the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill. Professor Paul Martin, director of the Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, told AAP FactCheck: told AAP FactCheck What the legislation does do is provide a way of dealing with potential biodiversity issues and invasive species problems that have emerged or could emerge. Some of these are serious, real threats, and laws are being tightened in response, to make existing controls easier to enforce." Reuters spoke to a Victoria Government spokesperson, who also said of the bill: "No one will be prevented from growing their own food as part of these changes."  The news agency continued: news agency continued [The spokesperson] added that the bill was designed to support the agriculture sector, as well as safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets. Professor Michael Blakeney, from the University of Western Australias Institute of Agriculture (here), said he couldnt find anything within the bill that prevents people cultivating food crops on their own properties." here The claim that Australian lawmakers were considering the purported food-growing ban was shared in articles that also pushed other debunked conspiracy theories. The article on XYZ.Net.Au, for example, falsely claimed that there had been an unusual amount of fires at food processing plants this year and that the U.S. government was paying people to destroy crops.   unusual amount of fires at food processing plants this year U.S. government was paying people to destroy crops While the rumor about Australian legislation gained traction on social media, it reached a larger audience thanks to podcast host Joe Rogan. In an episode that aired in mid-May 2022, he talked about the claim like Australian officials really were pushing a policy package that would prohibit people from growing their own food. Then, another person on mic presumably looked up online whether any reputable news outlets had reported on the alleged initiative and came up empty. In other words, the conspiratorial podcast was once again spreading misinformation.  spreading misinformation  It's important to note that this claim was part of a baseless conspiracy theory that the government (either Australia's or the United States' or the "New World Order") was purposefully creating a food shortage in order to starve people so that a nefarious group of elites could enslave them. These conspiracy theories are often connected to white supremacist ideals as they pit "regular" Australian farmers attempting to grow their own food against "others" who are competing for the food supply.  New World Order The XYZ article, for example, ended like this: "Well also need to defend our food supply, and a network of solid friends to help us. Time to tribe up, White man." Claim Victorians Will Be Banned from Growing Food a Load of Crop. Australian Associated Press, 12 May 2022, https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claim-victorians-will-be-banned-from-growing-food-a-load-of-crop/. Fact Check-Amendments to Legislation in Victoria, Australia, Will Not Prevent Citizens from Growing Their Own Food. Reuters, 12 May 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-australia-agriculture-idUSL2N2X40ZQ. Hiscox, David. AFTER THE PANDEMIC, IS FAMINE NEXT? Richardson Post, 29 Apr. 2022, https://richardsonpost.com/davidhiscox/26794/after-the-pandemic-is-famine-next/. ---. Psychopath Daniel Andrews Plans To STARVE Victorians - XYZ. https://xyz.net.au/2022/04/psychopath-daniel-andrews-plans-to-starve-victorians/. Accessed 17 May 2022. On Dec. 16, 2019, the night before the U.S. House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on two articles of impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump, people gathered around the United States to hold impeachment rallies: impeachment rallies Hours before the House votes on whether to impeach President Donald Trump, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in Times Square Tuesday night chanting "Tell me who's above the law? Nobody is above the law!" They weren't alone. Rallies sprang up from Oregon to Florida on the eve of the vote on two articles of impeachment against Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats say Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals in exchange for security aid and that he obstructed a congressional investigation by refusing to allow key officials to testify. Trump has asserted that Democrats' attempt to impeach him is part of a larger effort to avenge the results of the 2016 election. As photographs of these crowds started to circulate on social media, some people started to share a picture that supposedly showed an impeachment rally held in Toronto, Canada: share This is a genuine photograph of a large crowd gathered in Toronto, but it has nothing to do with the impeachment of Trump.   The picture comes from a video taken on June 17, 2019, by 680 News reporter Momin Qureshi, and shows thousands of people at a parade in honor of the recent NBA champions, the Toronto Raptors: reporter  That said, a rally in support of the impeachment of Trump was indeed held in Toronto, Canada, but it was nowhere near as large as the crowd pictured above. The group Democrats Abroad held a small protest in the Canadian city to call for the president's impeachment: Democrats Abroad  Rush, Curtis.  "Toronto Raptors Draw Massive Crowds to Victory Parade and Rally."   Forbes.  17 June 2019. Holcombe, Madeline.  "Pro-Impeachment Protests Span the Country Ahead of Historic Vote."
  CNN.  18 December 2019. In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12) Claim:  A serious prospectus inviting investors to become part of a cat-and-rat farm was once circulated, the basic premise of which involved skinning cats for their fur, feeding the cat carcasses to rats, then feeding the rats to the cats being raised for their fur.  Origins:  This   grey-bearded leg pull has been around for a whopping 125 years, since that day in 1875 when Willis B. Powell, editor of a newspaper in Lacon, Illinois, pulled the wool over the collective eyes of Associated Press by supplying that newswire with details about a supposedly real cat-and-rat ranch being advertised in that area. Despite its silliness, the story evaded scrutiny, and an obvious prank took on a life of its own in the imaginations of many. Then, as now, the Associated Press imprimatur conferred credibility. Not until April 1940, when an article appeared in Goldfish Bowl (a publication of the National Press Club of Washington, D.C.), was the famous Lacon, Illinois, ranch for felines and rodents widely revealed as a hoax. The spurious prospectus on which the Associated Press news  accounts were based read as follows: Glorious Opportunity To Get Rich!!!  We are starting a cat ranch in Lacon with 100,000 cats. Each cat will average 12 kittens a year. The cat skins will sell for 30 cents each. One hundred men can skin 5,000 cats a day. We figure a daily net profit of over $10,000. Now what shall we feed the cats? We will start a rat farm next door with 1,000,000 rats. The rats breed 12 times faster than the cats. So we will have four rats to feed each day to each cat. Now what shall we feed the rats? We will feed the rats the carcasses of the cats after they have been skinned. Now Get This! We feed the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats and get the cat skins for nothing!Barbara "ratified" Mikkelson Sightings:  The 1934 film Maniac contains this urban legend, and various music lovers have informed me that on its 1985 album New Day Rising, Husker Du features a song called "How to Skin a Cat." The lyrics, I'm told, go something like "We'll feed the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats . . ." Just goes to show that you can't keep a good story down. Last updated:  10 August 2011 Hoaxes   Sifakis, Carl.  The Big Book of Hoaxes.  New York: Paradox Press, 1996.  ISBN 1-563-89252-9  (p. 41).  The Big Book of Hoaxes    Tan, Paul Lee.  Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations.  Rockville, Maryland: Assurance Publishers, 1979.  ISBN 0-88469-100-4  (p. 289). Claim:  Drunk Chairman of the Federal Reserve lets loose in a bar about how bad the U.S. economy truly is.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, August 2011]  Drunken Ben Bernanke Tells Everyone At Neighborhood Bar How Screwed U.S. Economy Really Is SEWARD, NE   Claiming he wasn't afraid to let everyone in attendance know about "the real mess we're in," Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly got drunk Tuesday and told everyone at Elwood's Corner Tavern about how absolutely fucked the U.S. economy actually is. Bernanke, who sources confirmed was "totally sloshed," arrived at the drinking establishment at approximately 5:30 p.m., ensconced himself upon a bar stool, and consumed several bottles of Miller High Life and a half-dozen shots of whiskey while loudly proclaiming to any patron who would listen that the economic outlook was "pretty goddamned awful if you want the God's honest truth." "Look, they don't want anyone except for the Washington, D.C. bigwigs to know how bad shit really is," said Bernanke, slurring his words as he spoke. "Mounting debt exacerbated  and not relieved  by unchecked consumption, spiraling interest rates, and the grim realities of an inevitable worldwide energy crisis are projected to leave our entire economy in the shitter for, like, a generation, man, I'm telling you." [Remainder of the article here] here  Origins:  If anyone were truly in the know about the state of the U.S. economy, it would be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. However, folks shouldn't give any credence to the story quoted above, because it originates with The Onion, an American news satire organization that has been publishing spoofs based on current events since the late 1980s. (Long before it had a web presence, The Onion was a newspaper.) Ben Bernanke The Onion Other Onion articles of approximately the same vintage: Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition Despite Danny DeVito A Lot Taller, Thinner In Person DeVito Windows Opened On Both Coasts In Effort To Create Transcontinental Cross-Breeze Windows Barbara "onion peals" Mikkelson Last updated:  4 August 2011 A reader questioned Sen. Ted Cruzs comparison of military spending to how much it costs Americans to get their taxes done. According to ablog poston txwinelover.com, Cruz toured Becker Vineyards in July 2014 before holding a roundtable with wine industry representatives during which he agreed the tax system should be simplified. Every year, Cruz elaborated, we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. I agree with you we should move to a simple flat tax where everyone can fill out their taxes on a postcard and that we should shut down the IRS. Cruz, a Texas lawyer elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, has since declared his candidacy for president.But hed already calledfor a flat-rate income tax and abolishing the IRS. And was he right that about the same $500 billion a year getting spent on complying with tax laws and funding the military? Both figures need explaining. Military spending Per military spending, Cruz campaign spokesman  Rick Tyler said by email that Cruz drew ona chartposted byThe Washington Postin 2012 indicating that adjusted for inflation, defense spending has exceeded $500 billion a year since 2007 or so: SOURCE:Blog post,Defense spending in the U.S., in four charts,Wonkblog,The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2012, chart citingCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments(noted in an email from Rick Tyler, chief national spokesperson, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, May 5, 2015) ThePostrelied on the Washington, D.C.-basedCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessmentswhere by email, analyst Todd Harrison told us the militarys 2014 base budget, meaning the cost of maintaining a standing military in peacetime, totaled $496 billion. So far so good, except, Harrison advised, that figure did not reflect all military spending. Generally, he said, the base budget does not include the cost of using the military to fight a conflict, nor does it include legacy costs, such as unfunded pensions and veterans benefits, or military activities conducted outside of (the Department of Defense) such as the maintenance and upgrade of nuclear weapons. All of those things are extra, he said. If you count those other expenses, Harrison said, the U.S. spent $866 billion on the military in 2014. By email, Tyler stressed the militarys base budget doesnt include overseas contingencies. But its your rigged game, you make up any facts you want, Tyler said by email. Next, we turned to what it costs Americans to fulfill federal tax requirements. Tax compliance costs To get our arms around compliance costs, we reached out to certified public accountantConnie Weaver, a Texas A&M University professor, who guided us toJune 2011 testimonyon compliance costs by tax expert Michael Brostek of the investigative arm of Congress, the General Accountability Office. Broadly, Brostek said that complying with IRS regulations costs taxpayers time and money, at least $107 billion in 2005, the GAO estimated, with other studies estimating costs 1.5 times as large. Beyond compliance costs, Bostek noted even larger estimated economic efficiency costs, which are reductions in economic well-being caused by changes in behavior due to taxes. Previous fact checks Even before Cruz commented at the roundtable, the FactChecker atThe Washington Postawarded two Pinocchios toHouse Speaker John Boehners claim that it was costing Americans $500 billion a year to comply with federal tax demands. Cost estimates varied, thePostwrote, with the safest bet at the time being $163 billion as estimated by the IRSsTaxpayer Advocate Service, entrusted with helping taxpayers resolve problems and recommending changes.Adjusting for inflation,that cost would have been nearly $172 billion a year around the time Cruz spoke in 2014. More recently, the FactChecker weighed in again afternoticing Cruzmade his $500 billion military-tax compliance spending comparison at a May 2015 South Carolina stop. Like Boehner, Cruz drew a couple Pinocchios. Weaver told us that because Cruz didnt say what he meant by compliance costs  where hed draw the boundaries  an observer could explore three possibilities: a taxpayers basic liability as in how much he or she sends the government in taxes; the costs associated with pulling together information and submitting it to the government; or efficiency costs as in lost outputs, time taken from other productive activities or from missing out on other consumption activities. For an individual, she said, its easy to calculate compliance costs by gauging how long it takes to fill out the required forms and multiplying that by an hourly dollar figure for how the individual values their time. When you try to aggregate that nationally, she said, its very difficult. She said she wouldnt be comfortable specifying a national compliance-costs figure. But all in all, Weaver said, it looks like Cruzs figure was high. Cruz aide: Senator relied on two studies Tyler told us Cruz got his tax-compliance costs from anApril 2011 analysisby supply-side economist Arthur B. Laffer and others indicating $431.1 billion in combined annual costs incurred by taxpayers to pay federal taxes and aMay 2013 studyby researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stating the annual hidden costs of U.S. tax compliance ranged from $215 billion to $987 billion. Laffer study The Laffer-led study said researchers created a comprehensive estimate of the total administrative costs, time costs, and direct tax compliance costs created by the complex U.S. federal income tax code. The $431.1 billion in estimated annual spending, the report said, reflects money spent to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system. * Its estimate, relying on 2010 figures, broke out to approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (paying a professional tax preparer or purchasing tax software), total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion; and nearly $378 billion for the  time value costs taxpayers must bear to pay their taxes, filling out and submitting forms. In 2011, thePosts FactChecker called the Laffer study dubious, noting it took a figure from the Internal Revenue Services Tax Advocate  that individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours complying with tax filing requirements  and got to its cost estimate by multiplying it against an absurd hourly income of $68.42 on the theory that the wealthy pay most of the income taxes. Mercatus Center study The Mercatus Centers study, led byJason J. Fichtner, a senior research fellow, similarly noted the high wage costs applied in the Laffer study, stating that in the study, the average income used to monetize taxpayers time is significantly greater than the average income used in other estimates. For its part, the center suggested a range of hidden costs connected to paying taxes including time and money spent submitting tax forms, foregone economic growth, lobbying expenditures, and gaps in revenue collection though the authors said they couldnt pin a figure for lobbying by interests trying to reduce taxes paid. As far as compliance costs, what Cruz singled out, the center study estimated $67 billion to $378 billion a year in accounting costs associated with filing taxes, a range based on IRS information suggesting 60 percent of individual taxpayers and 71 percent of unincorporated business taxpayers pay someone--an accountant, lawyer or tax professional--to prepare their taxes, with 32 percent of individual taxpayers relying on software. Significantly, Fichtner told us, his paper, based on a review of relevant studies, was intended to cover far more than simple compliance costs. I chose to give a range based on the different methodologies that I found in the research literature. Its not that one method is better than anotheror right versus wrong, Fichtner said. All the measures have different assumptions for the time value of an hour of lost work/productivity as well as time spent. Heres a chart from the study summarizing a range of cost studies dating back to 2003:                  Other analyses Next, we asked the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation about Cruzs figure. Spokesman Richard Borean said by email it had no analysis to confirm or refute the $500 billion figure. But he noted the Mercatus Center study and suggested we consider annual reports on tax compliance costs put out by the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan research and educational organizationthat saysits devoted to showing Americans how taxes, government spending and regulations affect them. The unions April 2014report, which would have been the the latest one available before Cruz spoke, noted the IRSs National Taxpayer Advocate had most recently estimated the annual paperwork burden generated by the federal personal and corporate tax system at 6.1 billion hours  the equivalent of about 3.05 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round with two weeks off each. The group said: The value of the labor behind the 6.1 billion hours amounts to a jaw-dropping $192.6 billion, when calculated with the most recently reported average employer cost for non-federal civilian workers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: $31.57 per hour. Add in the $31.7 billion spent on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs for individuals and the total is $224.3 billion a year. (The unionslatestlook at compliance costs, released in April 2015, said compliance with the federal income tax cost the economy $233.8 billion in productivity in 2014.) Our ruling Cruz said: Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. This claim proved squishy at both ends. It looks like depending on how you value time, you can get to almost any total for what it costs Americans to prepare and file tax returns. However, most estimates run short of Cruzs figure. Meantime, military spending exceeded $800 billion when he spoke though the senators spokesman indicated he meant to not count spending on conflicts abroad and other items not in the militarys nearly $500 billion base budget. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. We stop for red lights and go on green lights almost by instinct, so deeply steeped into us are our traffic rules. Just as we rarely give thought to the possibility of meeting a car traveling the wrong way on a one-way street, so too do we rarely pause to wonder where our traffic laws came from or who invented the crosswalk. Meet William Phelps Eno (1858-1945), an innovator who long ago earned the sobriquet "the Father of Traffic Safety."  William Phelps Eno Born in New York City, this forward-thinking man observed the massive traffic jams of his era and from those observations formulated solutions that carried over from the days of horses and carriages into the automotive age. In 1900 he penned the treatise "Reform in Our Street Traffic Urgently Needed," which immediately established him as a traffic safety expert, a mantle he was to wholeheartedly embrace.   In 1903 he developed the world's first city traffic code (for New York City) and the first traffic plans for New York City, London, and Paris.     It was William Phelps Eno who invented stop signs and who envisioned one-way streets, taxi stands, traffic circles, and pedestrian safety islands. He wrote the first manual of police traffic regulations, and it was he who designed the circular traffic pattern that courses around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. stop signs In 1921 he established the Eno Transportation Foundation, a non-profit study center located in Washington, D.C.  The Foundation is dedicated to improving all modes of transportation  ground, air, and water.  Eno was always a great fan of horseback riding but did not place all that much faith in the automobile, thinking it but a fad. He never learned to drive, and when events in his life necessitated car travel, he relied on a chauffeur.  William Phelps Eno's penchant for peculiarity outlived him. In 1996 his old home in Westport, Connecticut, came under the steady assault of determined bargain hunters who misunderstood the "bargain" they so intently pursued. Eno's 32-room mansion and the land it stood on had been sold for $1.5 million, but the buyer wanted the choice waterfront land for the purpose of subdividing it, not for the 119-year-old building that stood upon it. The old manse was to be razed to make way for new housing. Rather than see old building torn down, the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation stepped in and offered it for $1 to anyone who would cart William Phelps Eno's home away and give it a good home elsewhere. The costs of barging the mansion to a new site and restoring it were estimated at $500,000 and $1.7 million, respectively. The Today Show helped publicize the scheme, but unfortunately people heard only what they wanted to hear: that they could have a mansion for $1. Everything about the land not coming with it and the building having to be carted away and set up elsewhere went in one ear and out the other. The property was overrun by folks determined to look it over, and they showed up at all hours of day and night, often necessitating calls to the police to have them removed. The previous owner (who was living in its carriage house) was driven to distraction by the never-ending stream of phone calls and letters pleading for the house. "Keep Out" signs had to be posted, and the road leading to the mansion had to be chained off to keep dollar-waving people out. Meanwhile, the Trust's office was also fielding hundreds of calls and letters, some coming from those who thought this was a lottery, and one from a gal who thought the mansion was a prize offered for an essay-writing contest. Even utter chaos eventually dies down. Hundreds upon hundreds of inquiries later, no one really wanted the house. It was ultimately demolished in July 1997. Meyers, Kendra.   Will a Mansion Find a Home Before All the Doorknobs Are Gone?
  The New York Times.   4 February 1996   (13CN; p. 2).
 Wallace, Irving.   Significa.
  New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1983   (pp. 22-23). On 16 March 2017, the web site Newslo published an article positing that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price had said that it would be better for the federal budget if cancer patients died quickly:   "At the risk of sounding insensitive, we've pretty much got two choices here: we either repeal Obamacare, or we take out more loans from countries like China. And nobody wants to be in debt to the Chinese. At the end of the day, it's better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it's a lousy way to live anyway, and I'm sorry to say it out loud, but it's the truth," Price concluded. This quote was not a genuine statement issued by Secretary Price.  It originated with Newslo, a "hybrid" web site that publishes articles containing a mixture of fact and fiction: hybrid JUST ENOUGH NEWS ... Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. The web site's hybrid articles are accompanied by two buttons labeled "show facts" and "hide facts" that allow readers to see which parts of an article are factual and which parts are fictional. In this case, pressing the "show facts" button highlighted the introductory paragraph of the article, indicating that the remainder of the article, the portion containing the fake Price quote, was fictional:   Newslo is a rather prolific purveyor of fake news, having previously penned articles containing fake quotes from Steve Bannon, KellyAnne Conway, and Mike Pence. Steve Bannon KellyAnne Conway Mike Pence Newslo.  "Tom Price: 'Its Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly.'"
  16 March 2017. Back in December 2016, the America's Last Line of Defense junk news website published an article falsely reporting that First Daughter Malia Obama had been indicted on food stamp fraud charges (emphasis ours): article A member of the First Family will face fraud charges early in 2017, but it isnt who you might think. President Obama is certainly guilty of fraud for his use of a fake birth certificate and for pretending hes a Christian and Michelle Obama is certainly guilty for the $180 million in lavish vacations and 200 staffers she keeps to walk her dog and weed her garden on the taxpayers dime, but they seem to be impervious to any kind of action against them. Malia, however, isnt going to be so lucky. It seems that while putting in her paperwork to go to school at Harvard, the oldest Obama daughter, who recently turned 18, lied on her financials and failed to disclose the $9 million she has ion the bank. Thats not an issue with the school, as shes going on a full scholarship for being the daughter of a president, but it didnt bode well with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thats because Malia decided that she would fail to disclose her assets when she applied for food stamps. Yes, you heard that right. Obama has trained the youth of America to be so dependent on the government that even his own daughter thought she was entitled to free stuff just because shes not technically working. This item was a fabricated report that originated solely with America's Last Line of Defense (LLOD), a junk news website that frequently publishes political misinformation as "satire." A number of clues on the site indicate the satirical nature of its content, such as the "you're an idiot" tag at the top of the article, the disclaimer in the site's "About Page," and a special note beneath the article mocking its conservative targets: About Page   DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. While this story is ridiculous and can in no way be verified, conservatives tend to not reads below the pictures of Patriotic pets. It is here that we can gather to point at them and laugh as they head back to the Facebook page to make an immediate connection between Malia, food stamps and black people. Yes, it really is that predictable. Although the rumor that Malia Obama was indicted on food stamp-related fraud charges originated with a 2016 junk news article, several social media users have continued to spread the false rumor in the ensuing years. In April 2019, nearly two-and-a-half years after this fake article was originally published, we encountered a meme asking, "What happened to Malia Obama's Food Stamp Fraud Charge?": meme   The answer to the question posed in this meme can be answered quite simply: Nothing, because those charges never existed to begin with. America's Last Line of Defense has published a number of articles offering false claims about Malia Obama. We've previously covered items asserting that Malia once said white people will be "blended out," that she was expelled from Harvard, that she was busted for streaking at college, that she founded an anti-Trump website, that she attacked an old woman, and that she was arrested for purchasing marijuana. None of the aforementioned stories was true. blended out expelled streaking anti-Trump website attacked purchasing marijuana. America's Last Line of Defense.  "An Obama Was Just Indicted for Fraud -- But Its Not Who You Think."
  December 2016.