Is West Virginia Building a 'Sharia Zone' Housing Project for Syrian Refugees?
On 5 March 2019, a conspiracy-minded Twitter account shared a video purporting to be from the site of a construction project funded by West Virginia taxpayer money for the purpose of housing 321 Syrian refugees. The video also claimed this was being done at the expense of regular Americans who, the man claims, were being pushed into substandard housing. He asserted that the area he was standing in will be a sharia zone, and no non-Muslims will be allowed to enter: a video  Several factual problems exist with assertions in this video. Chief among them is the fact that this video shows the Littlepage Terrace housing project, a low-income, housing tax-credit property allocated through the West Virginia Housing Development Fund, which houses zero Syrian refugees and many regular Americans. Several lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, someone who works next to the project refers to it as Littlepage: Littlepage Terrace   Second, a wider, composite view of the mans video shows clearly identifiable markers of the Littlepage housing complex, including a tell-tale smokestack and buildings that exactly match the structures built at Littlepage:   For comparison, heres video shot at Littlepage:  Third, Mark Taylor, the chief executive officer of Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority, which works with the Littlepage Terrace project, confirmed to us by email that the suspect video was taken at that site during renovations that likely occurred in May 2017. He also confirmed to us that the community houses no Syrian refugees. Another significant oversight in the tweeted narrative is that the entire state of West Virginia has taken in far less than 321 Syrian refugees in total. In 2016, the year the United States took in the largest number of Syrian refugees, West Virginia resettled only five of them in their state. On 1 February 2017, the Trump Administration announced Executive Order 13769, commonly referred to as the travel ban," which indefinitely suspended the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. In 2017, West Virginia took in 13 refugees, but these individuals were not necessarily Syrian. largest number only five travel ban 13 refugees It is true that Littlepage was torn down and rebuilt, but that decision had nothing to do with refugee housing. Instead, the renovations aimed to reduce crime and revitalize the area, as reported by West Virginias WCHS television station in 2016: reported The Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority is now on the last phase of revitalizing three housing projects. Similar to Orchard Manor and Washington Manor, Littlepage Terrace will be demolished and rebuilt as two-story town homes.  This housing project was built nearly 80 years ago with no air conditioning and poor visibility. Now it is simply not a secure living space.  The goal for these new developments is to reduce crime and revitalize the area. Because the housing complex displayed was not built for Syrian refugees, and because the state has taken virtually no Syrian refugees at all, we rank the claims made in this video as aggressively and demonstrably false. Charleston-Kanawha Housing.  Developments - Littlepage Terrace."
  Accessed 14 March 2019. Zong, Jie, and Jeanne Batalova.  Syrian Refugees in the United States
  Migration Policy Institute.  17 January 2017. Beck, Erin.  Few Syrian Refugees Resettle in WV, At Least for Now.
  Charleston Gazette-Mail.  2 September 2016. Whitehouse.gov.  Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
  27 January 2017. U.S. Department of State.  Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2019."
  24 September 2018. Gunderson, Kaela.  Residents, Housing Officials Hope Littlepage Terrace Project Will Boost Safety.
  WCHS/WCAH ABC 8.  3 August 2016.
Several similar items have been circulated during or since the 2008 U.S. presidential election, all suggesting (without evidence) that Barack and Michelle Obama, both of whom obtained licenses to practice law in Illinois, were forced to give up those licenses in order to avoid having them revoked through disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution. In fact, neither of the Obamas gave up their law licenses because they were facing disciplinary actions or criminal charges: Barack Obama  Editor of the Harvard Law Review  Has No Law License? I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have it's 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesnt seem to give a crap about his law license. Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law. There's more to this story, I'm sure. I'll let you know when I find it. Such claims are false ones, based on misreadings of information about license status and erroneous interpretations and assumptions about such information, as detailed below: I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. This lead-in was wrong on two counts: Michelle Obama does in fact have a license to practice law in Illinois (it is currently on inactive status), and she did not hold a position as legal counsel with the University of Chicago Hospitals (rather, she worked at that institution as Executive Director for Community Affairs and then Vice President for Community and External Affairs). None of her job duties at the University of Chicago Hospitals required her to have an active law license. worked She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. This passage was also wrong: Michelle Obama did not "voluntarily surrender" her law license; she requested that her license be placed on "inactive" status. The difference is crucial: a lawyer who has surrendered his law license has given it up and therefore no longer has a license, while a lawyer who has gone on inactive status still holds a valid law license but is not currently engaged in any professional activities that require it to be active. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse.  A lawyer's holding active license status can entail a number of obligations, both financial and otherwise: paying bar association fees, carrying malpractice insurance, taking continuing legal education classes, etc. Therefore, it is not uncommon for lawyers who are not in practice (i.e., do not appear in court or counsel clients) and do not expect to return to practice in the near future to request that their licenses be placed on inactive status in order to avoid these ongoing obligations. Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors: Volokh The fact that someone who doesn't actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you're not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he's a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer  as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field  even if he is no longer a member of the bar. The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is "Voluntarily inactive." This is even more common for lawyers who don't need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don't appear in court or counsel clients other than [their] employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it's pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that. The following passage included the erroneous implication that Barack Obama also gave up his law license to avoid disciplinary action: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This passage was similarly incorrect: Barack Obama did not "surrender" his law license. Like his wife, Barack Obama had no need for an active law license for the work in which he was engaged, so in February 2007 (after announcing his candidacy for the presidency) he chose to have his law license placed on voluntarily inactive status, and after becoming president he opted to change his status to voluntarily retired. Neither of the Obamas was irrevocably stripped of a law license through the action of "surrendering" it. James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings," and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to list Barack and Michelle Obama as Honorary Members of that organization. list Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. The above passage was also not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama's licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings, and the elapsed time for searches we performed on their information was comparable to that for searches on information about other names in the Illinois ARDC database.   (The "Malpractice Insurance" section of Michelle Obama's license information which included a notation about her being on "court ordered inactive status" was not, as commonly misinterpreted, an indication of any wrongdoing on her part. That terminology was used simply because prior to the end of 1999, the Illinois ARDC rules required "a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.") rules So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law.  This was hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas held a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady was a position that required one. This statement was also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the "first Lawyer President and First Lady," as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former's election to the presidency. Now that were living in a federal government shutdown, whats the hit to the economy? U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz wagged her calculator at the GOP and cited a whopping figure on Twitter. $10 billion in costs to the economy per week and this is what the R's had to say?tweetedWasserman Schultz, D-Weston, who also serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee. We wanted to check her number: How much will the shutdown cost the economy? Predictions about economic shutdown Wasserman Schultzs numbers are the same as those from theWhite House. A White House spokesman said the $10 billion figure came from an August report from the investment groupGoldman Sachs. We also found similar estimates fromMoodysandIHS. These financial firms agree that the impact depends on how long the shutdown goes on. The impact gets worse the longer a closure lasts. A brief shutdown would delay, not cancel, most spending, said the Goldman Sachs report. In a brief shutdown, it is likely that only federal employee compensation would be lost  most of the other activity would just be delayed and made up later. A longer shutdown  the longest shutdown on record in late 1995 and early 1996 lasted about three weeks  would affect a greater share of federal activities. The report includes three scenarios based on a two-day, one-week and three-week shutdown. It predicts a $2.6 billion economic loss for a two-day shutdown, $10.4 billion for a week and $36.8 billion for three weeks. Moodys found that a shutdown lasting three to four weeks would cost $55 billion, with costs accelerating as time goes on. Moodys takes into account the losses from federal workers not getting paid, the delay of housing and small business loans, the hit to tourism spending and the interruptions for contractors. To be clear, these are rough estimates of what we think impacts will be, Moodys analyst Brian Kessler told PolitiFact. There is just a ridiculously large number of moving parts. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moodys,testifiedbefore the Joint Economic Committee about the shutdown in September. A shutdown that lasts only three or four days would have modest economic consequences, costing the economy approximately 0.2 percentage point of annualized real GDP growth in the fourth quarter. ... However, shutting the government down for three or four weeks would do significant economic damage, reducing real GDP by 1.4 percentage points in the fourth quarter. And this likely understates the economic fallout, as it does not fully account for the impact of such a lengthy shutdown on consumer, business and investor psychology. IHScalculated a loss of $1.6 billion for one week as a result of furloughs, with the impact increasing for a longer shutdown. The spending habits of government employees probably would not change if the shutdown was short-lived, particularly if they believed that they would receive back wages, as in 1995, states the September IHS report. Any uncertainty about compensation, however, could increase the impact on consumer spending. Meanwhile, incomes would be maintained for Social Security beneficiaries. Medicare payments would also continue, so spending on health care services would not be harmed and hospitals and doctors would receive payments. Other experts weighing in on the estimates We also readstudiesaboutprevious shutdowns andmediareportsanalyzingthe potential hit to the economy. We interviewed Tad DeHaven, budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute; Jason Peuquet, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research. Our experts generally agreed on one key point: The economic hit will depend on how long the shutdown lasts. Jason Peuquet of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us that it extremely difficult to quantify the impact on the economy of a shutdown. Sure, analysts can calculate the direct costs of furloughing federal employees, Peuquet told PolitiFact in an email. But once you factor in the impacts on thousands of federal contractors, the time and resources lost preparing for and implementing the shutdown, the added economic uncertainty of how lawmakers will resolve this, how the Federal Reserve may respond if the shutdown continues for an extended period, and then the ensuing economic reverberations of these changes, it is a very imprecise exercise. DeHaven of Cato emphasized that these analyses from economists are just estimates and that the actual impact on the economy could be different. If you go back and look at previous shutdowns, there was no long-term effect..., DeHaven said. For Wasserman Schultz or the White House to tweet out this going to cost X amount of money to me is nonsense. You could talk about the cost associated due to government creating uncertainty in the economy for a lot of things Washington is doing. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the cost of shutdowns in fiscal year 1996 was$1.4 billion-- most of that was for back pay to furloughed workers, according to University of Maryland political science professorRoy Meyers. In 1995, the government first closed from Nov. 14-19 and then again from Dec. 16-Jan.6. But Peuquet and Meyers told us that there are some factors that could make the shutdown economic hit different today, which means we cant simply add an inflation factor to the mid 1990s shutdowns. Back then, several appropriations bills had already been enacted -- allowing spending in several areas of the federal government. This time, those bills havent been enacted. The federal government also relies more heavily on contractors than it did in the 1990s, and they are unlikely to get back pay. We are still learning a lot of this as we go, Peuquet said. Another factor to consider: The economy is much worse now than it was in the mid 1990s. This one is going to be bigger in terms of daily costs..., Meyers told PolitiFact. The economy is weaker. It cant handle as much of a shock as it could handle in 95-96. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said the shutdown is projected to result in $10 billion in costs to the economy per week. That number comes from an investment report from Goldman Sachs. We found other estimates from financial firms that were slightly larger and slightly smaller than the $10 billion figure, but they were in the same ballpark. A key point here, though, is that these are estimates. Experts agree that caution and caveats are needed: There is much uncertainty about the economic impact, including the timing and length of the shutdown. For instance, if the shutdown is short and workers get paid back wages, the impact could ultimately be modest. If the shutdown continues for several weeks, the price tag could escalate exponentially. Overall, we rate this statement Mostly True. 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 late May 2020, social media users shared a meme that contained a misleading claim about the state of California. The meme said the state had announced it would give undocumented residents a stimulus payment on the same day it said it would lay off first responders due to diminished state funds resulting from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, implying the two events are causally linked.   California Gov. Gavin Newsom on April 15, 2020, acknowledged undocumented residents paid $2.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2019. He then announced the state would draw up a total of $125 million sourced from charitable donations and taxpayer funds to provide $500 stimulus payments to those residents. That was because they didn't qualify to receive federal stimulus checks under the CARES Act, a relief package meant to blunt the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. acknowledged CARES Act This announcement was unrelated to another statement Newsom made more than a month later. In the latter, he urged the federal government to provide financial assistance to states and local governments struggling with economic shortfalls to their operating budgets due to forced business closures during the pandemic. In an interview on CNN on May 21, Newsom stated that without federal help, cities and counties may be forced to lay off first responders. interview "The next time they want to salute our heroes, our first responders, our police officers and firefighters, consider the fact that they are the first ones to be laid off by cities and counties," Newsom said when asked by CNN host Jake Tapper what would happen if the federal government failed to bail out states and local governments. "The folks who are out there, the true heroes of this pandemic, are health care workers and nurses. Those county health systems have been ravaged, their budgets have been devastated and depleted, the budget accounts depleted since this pandemic." Budgets that deal with first responders like police, firefighters, and paramedics are generally administered by local governments, meaning it would be cities and counties in California, not the state itself, that would have discretion over whether or when to cut those services. Furthermore, Newsom didn't "announce" such layoffs would take place; he simply suggested cuts may occur in the absence of intervention from the federal government to financially shore up local governments. As of late May, California was facing a $54 billion budget shortfall resulting from economic fallout of stay-at-home orders that forced shuttering of most commerce beginning in mid-March, in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 disease. The state one year earlier had a surplus of $21 billion. $54 billion In sum, Newsom didn't "announce" layoffs for first responders but instead projected that layoffs at the local level were a looming possibility. He also didn't make the statement on the same day that he announced California would commit $125 million ($75 million of which would come from taxpayers) to give undocumented state residents $500 stimulus payments. The two events are unrelated, although the meme attempted to link them causally. We therefore rate this claim  Lightman, David."Fact Check: Gavin Newsom Warns of Layoffs for Police, Firefighters. Is He Exaggerating?"
Sacramento Bee.21 May 2020. CNN."Newsom Warns of Police, Fire Layoffs in California."
21 May 2020. Associated Press."California Announces $125 Million Fund for Undocumented Immigrants Impacted by Coronavirus."
15 April 2020. Associated Press."California Faces a Staggering $54 Billion Budget Deficit Due to Economic Devastation from Coronavirus."
7 May 2020. Two-and-a-half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters, yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year: polls As smoke clears from weeks of political bombardment, White House watchers are convinced the only questions now are how big Hillary Clintons win will be and whether the Democrats can take Congress, too. Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong  that in barely two weeks time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit. Donald Trump We will win, he told a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday. We will shock the world. This is going to be Brexit-plus. Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls like the image macro below: groping drive   The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.) poll victory To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign: says Reagan's late-breaking surge that year is generally attributed to the only presidential debate between Carter and Reagan  held one week before the election, on Oct. 28  which seemed to move voter preferences in Reagan's direction, as well as the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which reached its one-year anniversary on Election Day. After trailing Carter by 8 points among registered voters (and by 3 points among likely voters) right before their debate, Reagan moved into a 3-point lead among likely voters immediately afterward, and he won the Nov. 4 election by 10 points. By contrast, in 2016 the two major party candidates have already faced off in three head-to-head debates, all held well before Election Day, that have resulted in little or no improvement in Trump's underdog position in the polls.  And among the many issues and challenges facing America, none of them looms in the forefront the way the Iranian hostage crisis (and the Iranian Revolution in general) did throughout the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, as Jonathan Chait noted back in 2012 when Republican challenger Mitt Romney found himself in a similar underdog position against incumbent president Barack Obama in that year's campaign home stretch: [In 1980] the economy cratered (nothing remotely comparable has occurred this year) and then the Iranian hostage crisis, after an initial rally-around-the-flag blip, steadily corroded Carters popularity. No equivalent of those factors can be seen yet today, and pinning your hopes on a scenario where your campaign suddenly picks up ten points in the final month seems to be either an act of self-delusion or a ploy to keep anxious conservatives at bay. John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception:  observed ... 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons.  One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. But there is another apparent misconception in the Romney campaign, which Nate Silver rightly picked up on: Carter didnt lead Reagan for much of the campaign.  The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carters poll standing throughout 1980.  Indeed, Reagan didnt need his convention bump  which he certainly got  to put him in the lead.  The Democratic convention helped erode Reagans lead but it never closed it altogether. At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead.  His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign: "On Friday of that week the final economic indicator of the campaign showed inflation still seriously on the rise. And on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Jimmy Carter immediately abandoned campaigning and appeared on national television in the early evening to repeat much of what the public had been hearing all day. It was a week, in effect, with much that could affect the choices made by voters." Carters pollster, Patrick Caddell, believed that Irans rebuff doomed Carter, saying It was all related to the hostages and events overseas. Harry Enten of the statistical analysis web site FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results: confirmed In most years, the early-October polls [since 1952] were pretty close to the mark, with a correlation of +0.96 between the polls and the final result. Ten of the 16 elections featured errors of 3 percentage points or less, and in all but three campaigns, the polls were within 5 percentage points of the final outcome. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney closed his deficit against President Obama after the first debate, the polls at this point still showed Obama leading. At this point in the election cycle, the average error of polls for all elections is just 3.3 percentage points (much lower than the 4.7-point error we found for just after the conventions), and every candidate whos been ahead in the popular vote in mid-October went on to win the election. Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls?  polls "Its possible," he wrote. "But it would be basically unprecedented." Is that an excuse for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to turn out to vote? No, it is not. Blanton, Dana."Fox News Poll: Clinton Tops Trump by 6 Points."
Fox News.18 October 2016. Enten, Harry."Is There Any Precedent for a Trump Comeback?"
FiveThirtyEight.12 October 2016. Harwood, John."History Suggests McCain Faces an Uphill Battle."
The New York Times.12 October 2008. Jones, Daryl."3 Unlikely Ways Donald Trump Could Win."
Forbes.17 October 2016. Roberts, Dan and Chalabi, Mona."Brexit Times Five: Could Trump Really Win Despite Polls Favoring Clinton?"
The Guardian.22 October 2016. Saad, Lydia."Late Upsets Are Rare, But Have Happened."
Gallup.27 October 2008. RealClearPolitics."General Election: Trump vs. Clinton."
22 October 2016. Reuters."Donald Trump Still Trails Hillary Clinton in National Polls.
22 October 2016. People sometimes search for proofs of their darkest imaginings everywhere, including on the shelves of grocery stores. One example of this phenomenon is that packages bearing marks whose meanings aren't readily apparent to the average shopper have been interpreted by those always on the sniff for a Jewish conspiracy as signs that Big Business is in league with the Jews: The "Kosher Nostra Scam" on the American Consumer  By Ernesto CienfuegosLa Voz de Aztlan  Los Angeles, Alta California  (ACN) La Voz de Aztlan receives quite a few "news tips" per week from our many subscribers and readers. Some we dismiss immediately but a very few catch our attention. Last week we receive an e-mail asking us if we knew the significance of the small encircled letter "U" or letter "K" that can be found printed on many food cans, food packages and on other kitchen products. The message gave us some clues and suggested that we do some research into the subject. What we found certainly was "news" to us and it both shocked and angered us.  On arriving at my residence, I immediately went to the pantry to verify that what I had just learned was actually true. Sure enough, most of the packaged and canned foods from major companies, like Proctor & Gamble and others, did have the (U), the (K) or other similar markings. The Arrowhead water bottle, the instant Folgers Coffee, the Kelloggs box, the Jiff Peanut Butter, the Pepper container, the Trader Joe's tea box and even the Glads plastic sandwich bags carton had the (U) or (K) mark on them.  We needed a little more verification so we called two major companies to asked some questions. We chose Proctor & Gamble that markets the Folgers Coffee and the Clorox Company that manufactures the Glads plastic zip lock sandwich bags. Each of the two companies, as well as most others, have 1-800 telephone numbers printed on their packages for consumers to call in case they have any questions about their products. When we asked the Proctor & Gamble representative what the (U) meant on their Folgers Coffee container, she asked us to wait until she consulted with her supervisor. She came back and informed us that the mark meant that the coffee was " certified kosher". We than asked her how and who certified the coffee to be "kosher" and whether it cost any money to do so. She refused to answer these and other questions. She suggested that we write to their Corporate Public Affairs Department. We than called the Clorox Corporation to ask what the (U) meant on the package of their Glads plastic sandwich bags and she also said that the (U) meant that the plastic bags were "kosher" but refused to answer questions concerning payments the Clorox Corporation has to make in order to be able to print the (U) on their products.  What we learned next, pretty much floored me personally. I learned that major food companies throughout America actually pay a Jewish Tax amounting to hundreds of million of dollars per year in order to receive protection. This hidden tax gets passed, of course, to all non-Jewish consumers of the products. The scam is to coerce the companies to pay up or suffer the consequences of a Jewish boycott. Jewish consumers have learned not to buy any kitchen product that does not have the (U) the (K) and other similar markings.  Another shocker was learning who is actually behind these sophisticated "Kosher Nostra Scams." It turns out that the perpetrators of these elaborate extortion schemes are actually Rabbinical Councils that are set up, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries as well. For example, the largest payola operation in the U.S. is run by those who license the (U) symbol. The (U) symbol provides protection for many products sold here in Aztlan and in the United States. This symbol is managed by the The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations with headquarters at 333 Seventh Avenue in New York City.  The scam works like a well oiled machine and is now generating vast amounts of funds, some of which are being utilized by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis to support the Ariel Sharon Zionist government in Israel. The website of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations is full of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian propaganda.  The "Kosher Nostra" protection racket starts when an Orthodox Rabbi approaches a company to warn the owners that unless their product is certified as kosher, or "fit for a Jew to eat", they will face a boycott by every Jew in America. Most, if not all of the food companies, succumb to the blackmail because of fear of the Jewish dominated media and a boycott that may eventually culminate in bankruptcy. Also, the food companies know that the cost can be passed on to the consumer anyway. The food companies have kept secret from the general consumer the meaning of the (U) and the amount of money they have to pay the Jewish Rabbis.  It is estimated that the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, which manages the (U) symbol protection racket, controls about 85% of the "Kosher Nostra "certification business. They now employ about 1200 Rabbi agents that are spread through out the U.S. Food companies must first pay an exorbitant application fee and than a large annual fee for the use of the (U) copyright symbol. Secondly, the companies must pay separate fees each time a team of Rabbis shows up to "inspect" the company's operations. Certain food companies are required to hire Rabbis full time at very lucrative salaries.  The amount of money that the non-Jewish consumer has paid the food companies to make up for the hidden Jewish Tax is unknown, but it is estimated to be in the billions since the scam first started. The Orthodox Jewish Councils as well as the food companies keep the amount of the fees very secret. The Jewish owned Wall Street Journal wrote about the problem many years ago, but they have stopped writing about it now.  Only public awareness concerning the "Kosher Nostra Scam" will eventually help stop this swindle of the American consumer. Public education of the scam may lead to an eventual non-Jewish boycott of all products with the (U), (K) or other Jewish protection symbols. I certainly do not need to pay extra for "kosher water", "kosher coffee" or "kosher plastic sandwich bags". In fact, I demand my money back for all the money I had to pay over the years for the hidden and illegal Jewish Tax. Are there any bright attorneys out there that could bring a class action suit against the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations on behalf of the citizens of Aztlan and other non-Jewish people? The rumor that the presence of those mysterious markings signifies that the manufacturers of those products have paid a secret tax to the Jews of America has been afoot for decades, and the e-mail quoted above is merely a more recent manifestation of this age-old canard. The claim is wholly false, and we wonder at the twisted minds that would advance such a slander. No "Jewish Secret Tax" exists, or ever has. The markings pointed to in the rumor are real; however, their purpose is entirely different from the one asserted by the rumormongers. They do not signal that a secret tax has been paid or that corporations have succumbed to blackmail; they are there to indicate to members of a particular faith that such items have been vetted as having met the strictures their religion imposes. (If the notion of a religion imposing dietary requirements upon its followers sounds like an outlandish proposition, keep in mind that only in recent times have Catholics taken to eating meat on Fridays, and that Muslims still eschew pork.) As to what those markings mean:  The letter "K" simply means "Kosher." Kosher, in Hebrew, means fit or proper, and is generally used to describe foods that are prepared in accordance with special Jewish dietary laws. These laws are stringent and almost incomprehensible to those not versed in them.  The small "u" in a circle or ("OU") stands for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and shows that the food underwent rabbinical supervision in its preparation. (An "OUD" marking shows that the package contains dairy products, while an "OUM" indicates the presence of meat.)  "Parve" (also "pareve") is Yiddish for "neutral." The presence of this word on packaging signifies that the contents of the package contain neither milk nor meat and thus can be combined with other ingredients in recipes. (Jewish dietary law forbids the mixing of meat and dairy, thus a packaged food that contained cheese could not be combined with, say, hamburger.) This variety of markings used on packaged foods alert consumers that items contained therein either meet the strict dietary constraints imposed by Judaism on its followers or that the contents of the package can be mixed with other foods or can touch them. Not all Jews keep kosher, nor even among those who do are the strictures always adhered to rigorously, but those determined upon being truly pious are aided in this endeavor by the presence of those markings. The devout go so far as to maintain two separate sets of utensils, cookware, and cutting surfaces so that meat and dairy never encounter one another in their kitchens. It is for their benefit that otherwise puzzling kosher certifications on non-foodstuff items are there (e.g., certifications are placed upon dishwashing liquid because dishes used for dairy cannot be washed using a soap made from animal fats). Less observant Jews do not bother themselves overly much about the kosherness of everyday items; they avoid the out-and-out no-nos such as pork and shellfish but don't lose much sleep over the animal fat content of their washing-up liquid, nor do they fret that cold cuts might now be resting upon a plate that had months earlier been used to serve cheese. The proponents of the "Jewish Secret Tax" slander often assert that a sub rosa Jewish cabal forces large companies to comply via the threat of a nationwide boycott, backed by the underlying presumption that all Jews can be marshalled into turning their backs on products that fail to display kosher certification marks. That is not the case  Jews buy and use non-kosher items too, so although lack of kosher certification keeps the ultra-conservative crowd from buying certain products, it doesn't prevent the less stringent from making such purchases, nor would a "don't buy that because it's not kosher" directive have much effect even if there were a secret Jewish cabal to issue it. Those seeking kosher certification for their products have to adhere to kosher practices through the manufacturing process, use only kosher ingredients, and have their facilities regularly vetted by qualified inspectors. Kosher certification companies do charge for this service, which is the backbone of the "secret tax" claim  it costs money to obtain and maintain kosher certification, thus this is an extra expense a manufacturer must bear if he's determined upon having that certification. Where the rumor and reality part ways, however, is where the money goes. Fees paid to kosher certification companies go to keeping those businesses afloat with the profits siphoned off by those companies' owners; they do not flow off into some special Jewish fund used to advance Zionist causes. These are businesses, not charities, and those who run them do so with every expectation of making a living, in the same manner that someone who owns a hardware store does so with the notion of making  enough from the endeavor to support himself and his family. Does certification add to the price of a product? Certainly, but the amount is miniscule, especially compared to the advertising,  packaging, shipping, research, testing, admin and finance-related costs, and a myriad of other components that contribute to the process of bringing a product to market or making it better appeal to consumers. One might as well rail against the costs associated with selecting the ink colors and style of lettering used on a package  it's all legitimate business expense, even though no one ever rails against the "Secret Red Ink Conspiracy" or rants about the "Helvetica Font Tax." <!--      A Kosher Primer  (Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America)-->   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 106-107).

 Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. More Rumor! With unemployment remaining stubbornly high, U.S. Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs.The suburban Milwaukee congressman, who was first elected to the House in 1979, didnt hesitate in replying.Weve got to address the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, Sensenbrenner told the editorial board of theMilwaukee Journal Sentinelon Sept. 29, 2011. Its 35 percent.Sensenbrenner argued that if corporate taxes in the U.S. were lower than they are in other parts of the world, more U.S.-based multinational companies would repatriate their profits back to America, creating more jobs here.Its Sensenbrenners opinion that lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate would create jobs. We cant check an opinion.But we can check whether the rate is 35 percent and if it is the highest in the world.Sensenbrenners district director, Loni Hagerup, pointed to a 2011reportfrom theOrganization for Economic Corporation and Development, a Paris-based group of 34 large, industrialized democracies.The widely quoted report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, tops among the member countries.Next in line were France and Belgium (both 34 percent), and then Australia, Japan, Spain and Mexico (each 30 percent).Seems pretty straightforward. Sensenbrenner is right, right?Lets first look at two points:1. Combined corporate tax rateSome analysts, when comparing countries, use the Paris groups report but cite a different figure -- the combined corporate tax rate, rather than merely the corporate tax rate. The combined rate includes not only federal but also state tax rates for corporations. The combined corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.2 percent, which ranks second behind Japans 39.5 percent.But Sensenbrenner was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs, so the corporate tax rate -- not the combined rate -- is relevant here.2. Limitations of the corporate rateWe consulted experts at two Washington, D.C. research organizations --TaxFoundationpresidentScottHodgeandRoberton Williams, senior fellow at theTax Policy Center. Both said Sensenbrenner is correct in stating that the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and that the rate is the highest in the world, but they added some context to the discussion.Williams said the corporate tax rate is not a good measure of the taxes that corporations actually pay. While some corporations might pay the full 35 percent rate, many pay considerably less, depending on the types of investments they make, depreciation they take and other factors that reduce taxable income, he said.Hodge agreed. He added, however, that the effective federal tax rate (after deductions) that corporations pay is about 26 percent -- and that also is among the highest rates of all industrialized nations.Our conclusionAsked what the federal government could do to create jobs, Sensenbrenner said lower the corporate tax rate, which he said was 35 percent and the highest in the world. A widely quoted annual report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and is highest among 34 large, industrialized countries. Two experts agreed with the rate and the ranking.We rate Sensenbrenners claim True. Since at least July 2021, online advertisements have displayed a picture of the cardboard from an empty toilet paper roll or a paper cup propping up a toilet seat. The ads appeared to promise a handy bathroom trick. For example, this ad appeared next to an article on the New York Post website. New York Post  This ad was hosted by the Outbrain advertising network and was perhaps displayed on a large number of websites.  The ad read: "[Pics] Always Place a Toilet Paper Roll Under the Toilet Seat at Night, Here's Why." A variation of the same ad said: "[Pics] Put A Toilet Paper Roll Under Public Toilet Seat, Here's Why." They were sponsored by the Maternity Week and Definition.org websites. Yet another variation of the ad said: "40 Brilliant Life Hacks Nobody Told You About." We also saw one that used a red cup instead of an empty toilet paper roll. "Always Place A Red Cup Under The Toilet Seat At Your Hotel, Here's Why."  Some social media commenters said it might be to warn others that there's no more toilet paper.  Clicking on one of the ads led to a 41-page slideshow article and a headline that read: "These 40 Brilliant Tricks Will Make Even The Hardest Items To Clean Sparkle." The story's first page read as follows: article Ever looked forward to cleaning the house? We didnt think so! But when it absolutely, positively has to be done  when your bathrooms looking a little grubby, for instance  were here to help. These 40 incredible hacks will make sprucing up your home an absolute breeze. And you just wont believe what you can do with a cardboard bathroom tissue roll... On that first page, the story once again teased some grand trick with a cardboard toilet paper roll, perhaps involving a toilet seat and nighttime. The web address (URL) even mentioned the toilet paper trick for what is known as UTM tracking. This meant that the website's creator was tracking whether the ad was successfully getting clicks and bringing in readers. After all, someone was apparently paying to run the ads on the Outbrain advertising network, so it's typically important to figure out if they're worth the investment. The article contained several odd household tricks. One claimed it would be good to put hairbrushes in the dishwasher. Another advised about pouring various liquids down the drain, which we covered in two previous fact checks about dish soap and salt. We also found a questionable oven cleaning tip, plus purported bread uses, which we also covered in the past. hairbrushes in the dishwasher advised dish soap salt oven cleaning tip bread uses covered On page 41, which was the last page, a toilet paper roll trick was finally revealed. However, it had nothing to do with placing it under a toilet seat at night. It simply advised to attach a cardboard roll to a vacuum cleaner hose to reach crevices. page 41 reach crevices  Courtesy: beeanchor/Imgur.com  The 41-page article never mentioned a word about why to always place a toilet paper roll under a toilet seat at night. It was nothing but clickbait. We clicked "next page" 40 times so you don't have to. We looked to home improvement websites such as BobVila.com to see if there was perhaps a legitimate purpose for the toilet paper roll or a red cup going under the seat. However, we found no such tips, tricks, or "life hacks." BobVila.com After this story was published, a reader sent in a tip that said an empty toilet paper roll propping up the seat might be a helpful warning to the next person to enter the stall that there's no toilet paper. We've clicked through thousands of pages in these kinds of strange slideshow articles that come from scammy ads. The subjects have included Tom Selleck, Disneyland, Costco, Alex Trebek's net worth, and around 100 other topics. Check out our entire collection. Each of our stories is presented on a single page. Tom Selleck Disneyland Costco Alex Trebek's net worth our entire collection Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us On Aug. 23, 2019, conservative radio personality Mark Simone posted a message on Twitter asserting that that former U.S. Vice President (and 2020 presidential candidate) Joe Biden owned the largest mansion in his state: posted   Since Simone's tweet, near verbatim copies of this message  "Joe Biden lives in the biggest mansion in his state and just bought another mansion in DC, Bernie Sanders has 4 hours, Obama just got his 3rd mansion. All of this money was made from lecturing you on income inequality!"  have been reposted by a several additional Twitter accounts. This message was also turned into a meme that has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook: reposted several additional Twitter accounts meme shared   While Simone's post mentioned politicians Bernie Sanders and former President Barack Obama, for the purposes of this article we'll be focusing on the real estate rumors concerning Biden. It's unclear which state this meme is referring to by "his state." Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, but he represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate for more than 30 years between 1973 and 2009. As Biden doesn't own any property in Pennsylvania (and therefore couldn't own the largest mansion in that state), we'll assume that this meme references Delaware, where Biden owns two properties. The Washington Post reported in June 2019 that Biden owned two homes in Delaware: his primary residence, a 7,000-square-foot lakeside home in Wilmington, and a 4,800-square-foot vacation house in Rehoboth Beach. While these are both sizable and expensive properties (the beach house was purchased for $2.7 million), neither of them would be considered the "biggest mansion" in the state of Delaware. reported By one measure, the Winterthur Estate could be considered Delaware's largest mansion. The house was originally built in 1839 but has been enlarged considerably over the years. Henry Francis du Pont renovated the building between 1929 and 1931, resulting in a 175-room mansion sitting on 2,500 acres. This estate was turned into a museum in 1951, however, so some may not consider it to be the "largest mansion" in Delaware. Winterthur Estate The Du Pont family built another massive property in Delaware in the early 1900s. While the Nemours Mansion dwarfs the properties owned by Biden at 47,000 sq. ft. (compared to 7,000), this property, too, no longer serves as a single-family residence and therefore may not be an applicable comparison. Nemours Mansion Still, Biden's Delaware homes are not the biggest in the state. We were able to find several articles concerning homes with more square footage than Biden's residence in Wilmington. The image below shows a 17,588-square-foot estate in Wilmington, for instance, according to Homes of the Rich: Homes of the Rich   The most expensive home in Delaware, according to Delaware Online, is a $14.9 million, 7,800-square-foot oceanfront home. Redfin.com also lists properties in excess of 7,000-square-feet, including this 9,957-square-foot property in Dewey Beach, and this 12,000-square-foot home in Wilmington. Delaware Online Dewey Beach Wilmington While Biden's Delaware homes are certainly large, they are not the biggest mansions in the state. The Washington Post's June 2019 article about Biden's finances also mentioned that he had started renting a large home in McLean, Virginia, after leaving the White House: The Georgian-style home  from the front a brick version of the White House  once belonged to Alexander Haig, the former secretary of state. Nestled on a wooded lot in McLean, the nearly 12,000-square-foot residence has five bedrooms and 10 bathrooms, marble fireplaces, a gym and a sauna. While the McLean property is larger than both of Biden's Delaware properties, it is not the biggest mansion in Virginia. For instance, a $62.95 million, 48,900-square-foot residence dubbed The Falls went up for sale in McLean in 2018. for sale Zap, Claudine.  "Oceanfront Opulence: $14.9M Shell House Is Delaware's Most Expensive Home."
  Realtor.com.  5 February 2019. Gerhardt, Nick.  "The Biggest Home in Each State That Will Stun You."
  Family Handyman.  Retrieved 22 October 2019. Viser, Matt.  "Once the Poorest Senator, 'Middle Class Joe Biden Has Reaped Millions in Income Since Leaving the Vice Presidency."
  The Washington Post.  25 June 2019. Polus, Sarah.  "A New Listing Sets the Record for the Most Expensive Home to Ever Hit the D.C. Area Market."
  The Washington Post.  29 May 2018. Claim:  Bill Cosby bought up the rights to The Little Rascals (or Our Gang) comedies in order to keep them off television because they depict racial stereotypes.   . Origins:  Spanky. Alfalfa. Buckwheat. Darla.  Just a few of the easily recognizable names that were a fond part of the childhoods of generations of kids: beloved characters from the 221 Our Gang comedy   shorts that Hal Roach produced between 1922 and 1944.  Roach's approach was to make films featuring kids being kids, full of fun and spontaneity, not films full of precocious children acting like adults. With the advent of television, the Our Gang shorts (shown under the name The Little Rascals became standard after-school viewing fare for generation after generation of youngsters. The depiction of black characters in these films was generally standard for its time.  Buckwheat, in particular, spoke and acted in a manner considered stereotypical of blacks, and in time the Our Gang comedies joined a long list of film works considered "racist" by some for containing such portrayals.  When CBS brought the long-running and immensely popular radio program Amos 'N' Andy to television in 1951, the series lasted only two seasons, due in part to pressure from groups (primarily the NAACP) who objected to its portrayals of blacks.  Nonetheless, old episodes of Amos 'N' Andy continued to run successfully in syndication for many years until another round of protests during the height of the civil rights movement in the 1960s finally prompted CBS to permanently withdraw it from syndication (and attempt to destroy the negatives) in 1966. Around 1989, the rumor began circulating that entertainer Bill Cosby had bought up the rights to  The Little Rascals episodes for the express purpose of keeping them off of television because of their demeaning portrayal of blacks.  This rumor has nothing to it, of course:  King World Productions has owned and licensed the rights to The Little Rascals for over thirty years.  The series has been syndicated to television many times and the video rights to some episodes were licensed to Cabin Fever Entertainment in 1997, but Bill Cosby has never owned any part of the rights to The Little Rascals.  This rumor is similar to another claim that circulated in the mid-1990s: that Ted Turner had bought up the rights to the TV show The Dukes of Hazzard to keep it off of television because of its demeaning portrayal of Southerners.  (The series is currently syndicated on TNN.)  Neither rumor seems to have been based on anything more than a story concocted to explain the long absence of a favorite series from the TV screen, and perhaps a desire to poke a little fun at the "political correctness" movement.  The connections are obvious: Bill Cosby is black, Ted Turner is from Atlanta; hence their alleged interest in protecting the reputations of the groups these programs supposedly besmirch.  In Bill Cosby's case, the connection is a little stronger: Cosby was one of prominent names who campaigned to pressure CBS into withdrawing Amos 'N' Andy from syndication back in the 1960s. Last updated:  8 August 2007    Sources:  Anderson, John.  "Little Rascals in '90s World"  Newsday.  5 August 1994  (p. B2).    Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh.  The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows.   New York: Ballantine Books, 1999.  ISBN 0-345-42923-0  (pp. 43-44). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows   Feran, Tom.  "'Rascals' Were Beloved in Their Time."  The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  13 December 1992  (p. H9).   Parham, Betty and Gerrie Ferris.  "Q & A on the News"  The Atlanta Journal and Constitution.  18 August 1994  (p. B2).   St. Petersburg Times.  "Ask Monika."   12 March 1989  (TV; p. 45). On Jan. 4, 2021, the Madhouse Magazine website published a story that said film actress Daryl Hannah was pregnant at age 60 with what would be her first child. She married musician Neil Young in 2018. He was 75 years at the time the website published this headline: "Neil Young and Daryl Hannah Expecting Their First Child Together." published married  The Madhouse Magazine website had a disclaimer page that described its stories as satire.  This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that labeled its stories as being satirical in nature. labeled According to the satirical story, Hannah became pregnant at age 60 and made the announcement on social media: A spokesman confirmed that Neil Young's wife, Daryl Hannah, is pregnant. This will be the couple's first child. Young made the announcement on social media as he posted an image holding a "Prego" tomato sauce jar with the caption, "We are Prego!" Hannah, 60, is in good health and is being monitored. It is quite rare to become pregnant after age 50, but she's one of a growing number of older new mothers in the United States  a trend that's bolstered by changing societal norms and new advances in fertility treatments. Several months later, several Twitter users spread the satirical story and described Hannah as becoming pregnant at age 61, not 60, around the time of her birthday, Dec. 3.  This tweet was posted days before Hannah's 61st birthday.  This reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. was about QAnon conspiracy theory supporters who really did believe he was going to come back from the dead. Of course, that was not the case. (Hannah and Kennedy Jr. previously dated before he died in a plane crash in 1999.) reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. really did believe previously dated  A tweet from Dec. 5.   The satirical story appeared to catch on in the middle of December.   We saw various accounts share the satire story on this day.  A snippet from the Madhouse Magazine story was also shared as a screenshot:  A section from the satirical story.  In the snippet, it said: Neil Young, 75, was giddy with excitement as he gushed at the prospect of a new baby. "I understand we are up there in age, but don't let these old grey temples fool ya now. Just because theres snow on the roof don't mean theres no fire in the basement!" Neil then did a few pelvic thrusts to emphasize his virility. "You better stand back" said Neil to the female reporters, "You might get pregnant standing too close to me!" Giving birth at age 60 may be rare, but just last year a 74 year old woman in India gave birth to twins. "I have the Uterus of a 20 year old and the eggs of a teenager", said Hannah. "There was no IVF or anything like that, me and Neil did it the old fashioned way by humping like jackrabbits." The satirical story spread well beyond its Madhouse Magazine origins, including in a Sept. 13, 2021, article on heightzone.com. The headline read: "Daryl Hannah Is Pregnant at the Age of 60 with Husband Neil Young, Couple Expecting a Baby Boy!" We stumbled upon similar stories on celebsaga.com and mixedarticle.com. article on heightzone.com celebsaga.com mixedarticle.com We also found the purported news reposted a seemingly endless number of times on Facebook:  A question with an easy answer: Hannah was not pregnant.   This appeared to be a real photograph from 2018.   It's possible that the misleading story from heightzone.com prompted a surge in new posts around Dec. 14, 2021.   "Wrong" is certainly one way to describe "satire."  In sum, the story about Hannah becoming pregnant was labeled as satire but later spread well beyond its origins. For this reason, we have rated this claim as "Originated As Satire." For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why