Pic of 'Unwell' Trump Is Deceptively Edited
In June 2022, an image supposedly showing a particularly old, haggard, and "unwell" former President Donald Trump was circulated on social media:   This photograph was deceptively edited to make Trump look particularly old and haggard. It was created by altering a real photograph of Trump that was posted by Andrew Giuliani, the son of Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, to Twitter on June 15:  The genuine photo was subsequently digitally altered to create the viral version. For example, extra wrinkles were added to Trump's face, his hair was lightened, and the bags under his eyes were enlarged. Here's a comparison between the genuine photo (left) and the doctored one (right):   This isn't the first time that a subtly edited image of Trump has gained traction online. In December 2020, an image went viral that added a few digital inches to Trump's waist. Similar subtle edits were made to an image of Trump's sons Eric and Trump Jr. image went viral that added a few digital inches to Trump's waist image of Trump's sons Eric and Trump Jr. You may also find our full collection of Trump photo fakery of interest. Trump photo fakery
[green-label]Claim:[/green-label] President Obama has issued an executive ordergranting a $2,350 dollar tax rebateto every American who filed a tax return for 2014. [dot-false][/dot-false] [green-label]Example:[/green-label] [green-small][Collected via e-mail,November2015][/green-small] Some women at work were discussing the following: Apparently they saw on Facebook that, as an executive order by PresidentObama, the government is giving everyone who filed 2014 taxes a $2,350.00rebate/refund to be mailed out this month (November 12, 2015). I have lookedeverywhere (on the Internet) that I can think of. The only place I can findit is on a site called "United Media Publishing". Also, the only referenceto this that I can find on Facebook sends a person to this same article fromUnited Media Publishing. Is this true??? [green-label]Origins:[/green-label] On 14 August 2015 the web site United Media Publishing (UMP) issued an article titled "Obama Orders 2350 Dollar Tax Rebate In November" which reported that: The Obama administration has directed IRS director John Koskinen to have the agency prepare for one of the largest cash refund/rebate hand-outs in the history of the organization. The President has authorized by way of anexecutive order that a 2350 dollar tax rebate be issued to every American who filed a tax return in the 2014 fiscal year, irrespective of whether they paid tax or not. Update: A representative for the IRS confirms that the first tax rebate checks will go into the mail November 12th. WhileUnited Media Publishing's initial claim didn't attract much attention on social media, the highlighted portion in the above-reproduced excerpt breathed new life into the hoaxin early November 2015. Unfortunately for readers (hopeful that anunexpected $2,350 windfall was headed their way atChristmastime),United Media Publishing is nothing more than a fake news site, one that doesn't feature a disclaimer notice identifying its content as fake news. Prior fabricationsspread by UMP included aCharles Mansondeath hoax and a story aboutthousands of Christian couples filing for divorceinprotest of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. Charles Manson divorce  [article-meta] [green-label]Last updated:[/green-label] 11 November 2015 [green-label]Originally published:[/green-label] 11 November 2015 On 6 April 2016, the Facebook page "Worldwide Infidels United" published the above-reproduced meme, along with the following text: published This is Sajid Muhammed, a Muslim man living in the UK. In 2002 he set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwitch and only got 2 year in prison! He was released early to appease the local Muslims protesting against his arrest! SHARE if you think he should be hung! The text included a photograph of theactor Ian Hart, who portrayed Professor Quirinus Quirrell in the film adaptation ofHarry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Professor Quirinus Quirrell    The meme achieved tens of thousands of shares; alarge number of those sharing were in on the joke, but not all of them.Some were outraged: I'm not sure on the death penalty but he should served his sentence then been deported n not allowed a passport again pure evil the system over here stinks It's unbelievable what these Muslims get away with in our country what is our government trying to do .God Help Us Others were offended for different reasons: Whoever put up this post should be prosecuted for using a misleading image from Harry Potter and The Philosophers stone to promote racist comment whoever you are you should be ashamed of yourself! And you need to apologise to the Muslim community for peddling such lies! Incitement to hatred is a criminal offence! Putting asideany individual reader or commenter's interpretation, "World Infidels United" was not ananti-Muslim page, nor was its content meant to be taken literally. Additional content on the page clarifiedits satirical nature:  Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016  Please share to help spread the word! Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016 The meme's maker was mocking British people who shared similar (but serious) anti-Muslim memes on Facebook, and wasn't literally claiming that Professor Quirrell set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwich. 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 the spring of 2020, as debate raged over the timeliness and effectiveness of U.S. President Donald Trump's response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, some critics pointed to an article dating from shortly before Trump's January 2017 inauguration, in which Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), seemingly warned that the incoming president would "no doubt" be faced with a "surprise infectious disease outbreak":  This image did reflect a genuine article, published on Jan. 11, 2017 (nine days before Trump's inauguration), headlined "Fauci: No doubt Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak." That article read (in part): published Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is no doubt Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency. Fauci has led the NIAID for more than 3 decades, advising the past five United States presidents on global health threats from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through to the current Zika virus outbreak. During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak. The history of the last 32 years that I have been the director of the NIAID will tell the next administration that there is no doubt they will be faced with the challenges their predecessors were faced with, he said. As noted above, Dr. Fauci's comments were made during a Georgetown University forum on pandemic preparedness, at which Fauci delivered the keynote address on the subject of "Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration," which he opened with the following statement: "I thought I would bring that perspective [of my experience in five administrations] to the topic today, [which] is the issue of pandemic preparedness. And if there's one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience ... [it] is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming [Trump] administration in the arena of infectious diseases ... both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease ... but also there will be a surprise outbreak, and I hope by the end my relatively short presentation you will understand why history, the history of the last 32 years that I've been the director of the NAIAD, will tell the next administration that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with." https://youtu.be/DNXGAxGJgQI Dr. Fauci did not literally warn in January 2017 that the Trump administration would certainly face a deadly pandemic affecting the U.S., but he said more generally (while speaking on the subject of pandemic preparedness) there was "no question" that a "surprise outbreak" of infectious disease would occur. The outgoing (Obama) administration had already faced multiple such events, including the 2009 swine flu (H1N1) pandemic, the 20152016 Zika virus epidemic, and the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa: swine flu Zika virus Ebola outbreak Fauci and others noted some of the disease outbreaks that recent administrations have faced, including current President Barack Obama, whose administration was tested early on with an H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009. More recently, the administration was forced to repurpose almost $600 million in federal funds set aside for the Ebola outbreak when Republicans rejected Obamas request for $1.9 billion to fund the nations Zika response.   Healio  "Fauci: No Doubt Trump Will Face Surprise Infectious Disease Outbreak."
  11 January 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Zika Virus Spreads to New Areas  Region of the Americas, May 2015  January 2016."
  29 January 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa."
  Accessed 14 May 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 Virus)."
  Accessed 14 May 2020. Seventeen-year-old Alyssa Carson has garnered media attention for her determination to be part of a space mission to Mars. But although her desire has been recognized by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), she is not officially in training with that organization to become an astronaut or to take part the first human mission to Mars.  Carson first began generating media attention when she was 12, at which point she had already attended three different space shuttle launches and taken part in NASA space camps in three different countries. She was also the first person to complete the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex's "Passport to Explore Space" program, which requires visiting each of 14 NASA visitor centers across nine different states in the U.S. The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, though, is managed by a NASA contractor and is not funded by the agency itself. attention complete contractor Completing the "Passport to Explore Space" program also led to Carson's being a panelist at an event hosted by NASA and the Smithsonian, marking ten years of exploration by the Mars Exploration Rovers. As well, Carson has her own call sign," Blueberry." panelist Blueberry However, a NASA spokesperson confirmed to us that Carson is not currently training with or being "prepped" by that agency, as some reports have suggested. Also contrary to some reports, NASA's Astronaut Candidate Program has no age requirement for applications, although according to the agency "astronaut candidates selected in the past have ranged between the ages of 26 and 46, with the average age being 34."  prepped reports age requirement In December 2017, President Donald Trump signed White House Space Policy Directive 1, which his administration said would "lay the foundation" for a mission to Mars. Carson's father, Bert, told Teen Vogue magazine that private companies have "considered" sending her on missions into space  although not to Mars. signed told "If we can find a mission for her in the next two years, she will be the first kid in the world to go to space," he said. "If we can get it together before she's 20, she'll be the first teenager." One private group, Mars One, has already selected Carson to be one of their ambassadors. Carson  wrote on that group's website about her interest in visiting the Red Planet: wrote I would love to go to Mars because it is a planet that no one has been before. It's about the same size as the Earth and there are ice caps at the top and bottom of Mars. That means there is water on Mars. This could possibly be our next Earth. Just think about all the things that are in Space. For example: planets we have never explored, galaxies that we have never heard of, stars that are just babies, black holes that are as wide as the Sun to Pluto multiple times and has the mass of a billion suns, parts of the universe that we have never seen. Just think of all that stuff just floating around. It's more than you can imagine. Quinn, Katra.  "The Making of an Astronaut."
  Astronaut.com.  6 February 2014. Astronaut.com.  "First Person to Complete NASA's Passport Program Is Astronaut.Com's Friend Alyssa Carson."
  26 November 2013. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  "NASA, Smithsonian Host 10-Year Mars Rover Events."
  6 January 2014. NASA.gov. "New Space Policy Directive Calls for Human Expansion Across Solar System."
  11 December 2017. Krueger, Alyson. "17-Year-Old Alyssa Carson Wants to Be the First Person on Mars."
  Teen Vogue.  21 March 2018. In mid-November 2015, a photograph purportedly showing what resemble common ladybugs and Japanese beetles embedded on the roof of a dog's mouth began circulating via Facebook:   Most of the users who shared the above-displayed image on Facebook included a variation of the following message: SOMEBODY ASKED ME TO PASS THIS ALONG .... Japanese Beetles and Lady Bugs can attach to the roof of your dog's mouth, and make him/HER become ill. Symptoms include excessive drooling. Check your dog's mouth and remove any insects. While we haven't been able to identify who the "Somebody" is in the above-quoted Facebook post, a message posted by the Hands & Paws group did provide some information about the image's origin: provide This posted photograph is recent  posted by a vet tech and when I saw the photo started doing research - because I too thought there was no way the photo could be real. There is no photoshop  there is no hidden agenda. It's just me. The Founder of a tiny little dog rescue in Florida finding the photo and the facts behind the photo amazing, astonishing and wanted to share the information with my fellow dog lovers. We reached out to Hands & Paws for more information about the image without results, but multiple incidents are on record of beetles embedding in dogs' mouths, such as this one from November 2016: this one Frances Jiriks brought her pooch Bailey into Hoisington Veterinary Hospital after he refused to eat, she told KAKE. He was also foaming at the mouth and a bit lethargic, the dog owner said. When they arrived at the animal clinic, Dr. Lindsay Mitchell discovered between 30 and 40 lady beetles clinging to the roof of Baileys mouth. The beetles look nearly identical to ladybugs though they secrete a mucus which allows them to stick, as they did inside Baileys mouth. The bugs were successfully removed from the dogs mouth, but Mitchell warned their presence could pose a variety of health risks to mans best friend. [Video here] Video here In 2008, Lindsey Derek published an article in the journal Toxicon about the subject: article A six-year old mixed-breed dog presented with severe trauma to the oral mucosa suggestive of chemical burn. Sixteen Harmonia axyridis (Coccinellidae) were removed from the oral cavity, which revealed trauma consistent with chemical burn. The beetles had become embedded in mucosa covering the hard palate and required manual removal. A diagnosis of beetle-induced chemical burn was warranted and consistent with the nature of the chemical constituents of H. axyridis hemolymph. That article also included a photograph of the beetles in the dog's mouth, which closely resembled the image circulated in November 2015:   KAKE-TV [Wichita].  "Lady Beetles Causing Problems for Pet Owners."
  19 October 2016. Schladebeck, Jessica.  "Photo of Kansas Dog with Mouth Full of Asian Lady Beetles Illustrates Health Issue for Pups."
  [New York] Daily News.  4 November 2016. Stocks, Ian C. and Derek E.Lindsey  "Acute Corrosion of the Oral Mucosa in a Dog Due to Ingestion of Multicolored Asian Lady Beetles."
  Toxicon.  10 May 2008. Elizabeth Warren pins a lot of hopes on her ultra-millionaire tax. The Democratic presidential candidate would like to put a 2% levy on assets over the $50 million mark, and 3% on those over $1 billion. The revenues would pay for her plans to pay for universal child care, student debt forgiveness and other programs she has in mind. In a Fox News op-ed, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation noted that a wealth tax isnt a new idea. Joel Griffith said many European nations have tried it. And scrapped it. Of the 14 wealthy (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it, Griffith wroteApril 28. We found different numbers, but there has been a turn away from wealth taxes. And with Warrens plan on the table, the European experience is worth exploring. Griffith got his numbers from an article on the website of theTax Foundation, a group that is concerned about the ways that taxes distort business decisions. The foundations analysis drew on data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based international body that has its roots in the post-war recovery of Europe. The OECD datashows 13 countries collected revenues from net wealth taxes in 1996, measured in local currency. But it shows 14 when measured as a percentage of GDP. We cant account for the difference. Theres another twist. One of those countries is Austria, but Austria ended its wealth tax in 1994. So the actual count that year was either 12 or 13. (Its only slightly off from what Griffith wrote, but we care about these details.) Tallying the countries that have a wealth tax today is even trickier, largely because definitions vary. We found room for debate over what constitutes a wealth tax. All wealth taxes tax things that are owned, not money earned, but they vary in a couple of key respects. They might target the wealthy (Norways tax, for example, affects net worth above 1.48 million Norwegian Kroner) or a broader swath of residents. And some tax all assets, while others  such as Belgium with stocks and bonds, or France with real estate  focus only on specific assets. A 2018 report from the respected German-based think tankIfo Institute for Economic Researchcounted just three countries with a wealth tax: Switzerland, Norway and Spain. But the authors noted that Italy and the Netherlands also tax wealth in limited ways, and France swapped a broad wealth tax for a narrow one on real estate wealth that kicks in on property worth at least 1.3 million Euros. The international accounting firmErnst and Youngaffirmed that Italy does have a wealth tax. Another accounting firmKPMG reported in 2018 that Belgiumadded a wealth tax when it imposed a tax on securities, such as stocks and bonds. To make things even more complicated, some OECD countries dropped, added, or changed their wealth taxes since 1996. The Tax Foundation article Griffith relied on said that today, six OECD countries had wealth taxes in one form or another. (One of its charts showed four, but that stopped counting in 2017.) How to sort this out? By the strictest definition, today only three wealthy OECD countries have a wealth tax. With a looser standard, as many as seven do. (Some tallies include Hungary, but it might not count as a wealthy country, as the claim says.) The general reason European countries dropped their wealth taxes was they were more trouble than they were worth. In Germany, the tax was found unconstitutional, but it wasnt raising that much money anyway. Areview of the wealth tax optionby the European Commission said that in the past, determining the value of assets was challenging and cheating was easier. Opportunities of avoidance and evasion reduce the capacity of wealth taxes to generate revenue, and they contribute to the perception that wealth taxes produce little net benefit, the report said. Decisions to repeal net wealth taxes have often been justified by efficiency and administrative concerns, OECD analystswrote in a 2018 report. The revenues collected from net wealth taxes have also, with a few exceptions, been very low. Switzerland reaps far more than other nations, taking in revenues equal to 1% of GDP. But Norway brings in 0.4% and Spain 0.2%. Of the countries that did away with a wealth tax, Denmark was typical. In 1996, the tax brought in just 0.1% of GDP. The earlier taxes also tended to reach down into the middle class, not just the uber-rich. Getting rid of them was politically popular. For some, the European experience casts a deep shadow over Warrens proposal. Wojciech Kopczuk, an economist at Columbia University, warned that no matter what, valuing assets is tough. (Warrens) plan would apply only to the very rich, Kopczuk said. That does not at all resolve administrative problems. Those are as daunting in the United State as in Europe. On the other hand, Kopczuk added that a tax that starts at $50 million could hold popular support. Theres also a difference in overall tax regimes. The OECD analysts said that the arguments for and against a wealth tax depend on all the other tax laws in a given country. In that light, Reuven Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan Law School, said Europe is not at all like America. Income tax rates and sometime inheritance taxes are higher in Europe, Avi-Yonah said. This means there is less need to tax the rich through a wealth tax. Weve looked before at the debatewhether Warrens plan would raise as much as she hopes. Warrens campaign staff told us that they have learned the lessons from Europe. They argue that focusing on the 76,000 wealthiest people and taxing all assets with no complicating exceptions would lighten the administrative burden. Theres also a hint that Europe is taking a second look at wealth taxes. Both the OECD and the European Commission wrote of a renewed interest in wealth taxation. Griffith said that of the 14 wealthy OECD countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it. We found there are different ways to consider wealth taxes, and Griffith used the strictest one based on dated information. We found that either 12 or 13 countries had a wealth tax in 1996, and nine ended their taxes since then. Today, six or seven European nations have some form of a wealth taxes, either broad ones or narrow ones. The meaning of the European experience from two decades ago is debatable, but thats not the basis for our ruling. We looked only at the countries and their tax laws. The numbers in the statement are off. European countries did move away from the wealth taxes, but not quite to the extent stated in the op-ed. We rate this claim Mostly True. We advise all readers, as well as their friends and family, to beware of Facebook ads that promise a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners in the amount of $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar dollar figure. The posts featured pictures of U.S. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and members of Congress, among others. Some ads also mentioned the term, "mortgage refinance stimulus."  Examples of some of the Facebook ads.  The ads gave the appearance that Biden and the U.S. government voted through a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar amount of money as a "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text perhaps looked and felt similar to the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. economic impact payments child tax credit payments However, there is no federal plan to distribute $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" checks to homeowners. Facebook users who clicked on the ads were led to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also asked for a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address. GovHomePrograms.com We filled out the forms and were then led to one or more lenders that could help future homeowners to buy a house or current homeowners to refinance a mortgage. There was no evidence that the Facebook ads led to a way for homeowners to obtain a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" payment from the government. According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation. terms of service privacy policy RateMarketplace.com One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com. EnhancedRefiNow.com As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. American Savings Tips Wise American Solution Clever American Choices New American Community US Relief StraightFix Homeowners of America Our Best American Life spent In other words, at least millions of Facebook users had been served the ads from these pages on Facebook or Instagram.  The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly showed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600.  The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Helpers Today Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations. advertising information advertising violations After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE." at the bottom We also found a list of "disclaimers" in small print spaced far below the end of most of the body of the page that was meant "for Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers." One of the lines attempted to clarify why words like "government" and "Biden" were used in the copy: 5. "Government" , "Biden" , "New Administration" , "Relief" - assume multiple citations below from the following article: "Biden's $10 billion in financial assistance is expected to be available in 2022." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html It's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund that's meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being given out by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to hint at. Homeowners Assistance Fund still being given out One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" read A seemingly endless number of Facebook users then submitted their ZIP codes in the comments under the ads instead of on the resulting website, perhaps believing this would lead to them being contacted to receive a $3,600 check.  Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress.  Aside from the ZIP code comments, the remarks with the most likes caught our eye. For example, a user named Jackie said: "This was featured in CNN yesterday so I guess I could try it since my neighbors already got theirs." Other ads mentioned C-SPAN. We found no record of CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN recently broadcasting news of a specific $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Also, no one's "neighbors already got" a $3,600 stimulus check payment, because they don't exist.  These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information.  Ben commented: "Wow! I've never seen anything like this before! Thank god that I saw it today so I can signup." Matt remarked: "Heard about this program form [sic] my neighbor. They got the check yesterday so I tried it and received a notification that my check will be here this week!" We also saw the same names making the same comments in multiple ads. It's unclear if these people worked for the websites or companies that were affiliated with the posts. We reached out to the Better Business Bureau and AARP for comment on these ads and websites. The BBB responded and told us that this is what they would refer to as a classic "government imposter scam." A BBB spokesperson told us: "Without further research, its hard to tell if this is just a way to get homeowners to apply for refinancing, or if the motive is fraud. Consumers are being asked to share personally identifiable information (PII), and thats a huge red flag because it is everything needed for identity theft. The fact that the domains are new is another red flag. BBB advises consumers never to share personal information with someone who has solicited them, whether through email, social media ad, text, etc., but to carefully vet any new company that needs PII." In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks. study government grant scams a scam alert about stimulus checks We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes youll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friends Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." AARP In sum, the Facebook ads that promised a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners simply appeared to be a way to route future homeowners to lenders or to show current homeowners where they could refinance their mortgages. With guidance from the BBB and AARP on identifying this as a "government imposter scam" or "government grant scam," we have rated this story accordingly with the "Scam" rating. The rating for this fact check was changed from "False" to "Scam" after we received guidance in a response from the Better Business Bureau and AARP. We also added several more Facebook pages and updated the advertising dollar figure to be around $200,000. Five days after Scott Walker won re-election by a five-point margin, inciting speculation about whether hell run for president in 2016, the Republican governor appeared on NBCs Meet the Press. Several minutes into the Nov. 9, 2014show, Walker was asked by host Chuck Todd about Wisconsins economic record and whether it is something that translates nationally. Walker responded with statistics about how jobs have increased during his first term and unemployment has decreased. (He also went on tomake a number of claimsthat weve previously fact-checked). Todd interjected by returning to the national perspectiveand making a claim of his own. But Ive got to show you, he told Walker, as agraphic with figuresappeared on the screen, compared to the national average, when it comes to wage growth, it's below the national average, Wisconsin is. When it comes to job growth, it's below the national average. How Wisconsin's economy compares nationally could bear on Walkers viability as a presidential contender, a prospecthe has readily encouraged. So lets check both sets of figures. Federal statistics The graphic that flashed on the screen cited figures from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages report, which compared March 2013 to March 2014. On job growth, the Meet the Press graphic said Wisconsins rate from increased 1 percent, less than the national average of 1.7 percent. The so-called QCEW numbers are considered the most accurate source for jobs numbers, but lag behind real time by six to nine months. The graphic quoted the figures accurately, according to anews releasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Walkers office didnt dispute this part of Todds claim, but said most states had job growth during the period that was at or below the national average. The graphic also accurately cited the average changes in wage growth from March 2013 to March 2014 -- 2.9 percent in Wisconsin, which was behind the national average of 3.8 percent. It doesnt affect the accuracy of Todds statement, but we decided to use theBureau of Labor Statistics databaseto take a longer view on both job and wage growth to see how Wisconsin and the United States have compared during Walkers nearly four years as governor. The quarterly time frames dont match up precisely with Walkers time in office because, as we noted, there is a lag of several months in reporting the figures. But when compared March 2011 to March 2014, and December 2010 to December 2013, the results were essentially the same: Wisconsin has lagged the national average on job growth, but was slightly higher on wage growth. Our rating Citing statistics for the most recent year, Todd said Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth. The latest federal figures, comparing March 2013 to March 2014, show Wisconsins job growth rate at 1 percent, below the national average of 1.7 percent, and its wage growth rate at 2.9 percent, behind the national average of 3.8 percent. We rate Todds statement True. Divorce can be anything from an amicable parting of spouses who realize their partnership just isn't working, to a vicious, protracted fight between two embittered people determined to wreak as much physical, emotional, and economic damage on the other as possible.  Unfortunately, the end of singer Marvin Gaye's first marriage came closer to the latter than the former. Marvin Gaye's Divorce In 1962, a 22-year-old Marvin Gaye wed Anna Ruby Gordy, a woman seventeen years his senior and the sister of Motown Record Corporation founder Berry Gordy, Jr. (a marriage, some cynics suggested, calculated to further the fledgling career of Gaye, who recorded for Motown).  By the time Anna filed for divorce thirteen years later, the couple had been separated for over two years, and each had accused the other of infidelities.  (Marvin's infidelity was hardly a matter of debate, as he was living with a teenage girl seventeen years his junior who was pregnant with his child.  Moreover, the son Marvin and Anna Gaye had claimed as their own was actually a child Marvin Gaye had fathered by his wife's fifteen-year-old niece.)  The divorce proceedings dragged out over two years as Marvin continually failed to show up for court dates, refused to pay court-ordered support for Anna and their son, and claimed his expenses exceeded his income even as he continued to spend money recklessly, purchasing luxury automobiles, boats, and beachfront properties.  By the time Marvin's day of financial reckoning arrived, he had little cash and was well in arrears for a large amount of back taxes, so his attorney worked out a settlement under which Anna would be paid off from the royalties earned by Gaye's next album.    Here, My Dear That next album turned out to be Here, My Dear, a harrowing "concept album of divorce" which chronicled the turmoil of Anna and Marvin's relationship.  The record's symbolism was hardly subtle: Featuring songs with titles such as "You Can Leave, But It's Going to Cost You," the album bore an inner sleeve which depicted a Monopoly-like board game emblazoned with the word JUDGMENT, across which a male hand passed a broken record to a female hand.  On the man's side of the board were only a piano and some recording equipment, while the female's side of the board included money, a house, a Mercedes, and a diamond ring:  Although Marvin and Anna's divorce settlement was indeed tied to the royalties generated by Here, My Dear, the common legend surrounding the record -- that Marvin Gaye was ordered by a judge to hand over all his royalties from the album to Anna, and that Marvin was in a position to spitefully deprive Anna of those royalties by intentionally recording an album so bad it would not sell -- is largely untrue.  Debunking the Legend First off, the payment-through-royalties scheme was a settlement worked out through mutual agreement, not one devised and mandated by a judge.  Second, rarely does a competent attorney accept (or a responsible judge impose) a dissolution of partnership settlement under which the amount of compensation received by one party is completely dependent upon a future endeavor of the other party, precisely because such a settlement could allow one side to cheat the other by deliberately underperforming.  (A similar legend about producer Phil Spector is based on this premise.) Phil Spector The circumstances in Marvin Gaye's case were that he agreed to pay Anna a total of $600,000, the first $307,000 coming from the advance against royalties he was guaranteed for his next album, and the remaining $293,000 to be paid out of any royalties earned beyond the advance.  But Anna would lose nothing if Gaye's next record sold poorly, because the agreement specified that if the album failed to earn $293,000 within two years, Gaye was obligated to pay Anna the difference himself, and thus he had nothing to gain by tanking the sessions and purposely turning out substandard product.  In fact, Gaye was in a position to lose a great deal by deliberately turning out a substandard effort, both because he was entitled to keep any royalties earned after the first $600,000 and because he stood to earn additional monies through publishing rights (rather than record sales) that were not payable to Anna. It is true that Gaye initially considered giving the album less than his best effort, but he soon found that he was incapable of recording with anything less than a complete commitment to his art, and if he had any intent to "get" his ex-wife, it was through the album's lyrics and not its sales: At first, I figured I'd just do a quickie record  nothing heavy, nothing even good.  Why should I break my neck when Anna was going to wind up with the money anyway?  But the more I lived with the notion, the more it fascinated me. Besides, I owed the public my best effort. I'll give her my next album but it'll be something she won't want to play and it'll be something she won't want the world to hear because I'm gonna tell the truth. Critical Reception Although the album was not a smashing commercial success, it was admired in many quarters for its artistic qualities: Despite Marvin's efforts, Here, My Dear was a commercial failure, not because it lacked ideas and sophisticated music, but, perhaps, because it possessed them in abundance. I think Here, My Dear was simply too sophisticated, too boldly honest, too remarkably insightful  and too close to the emotional quick to succeed commercially. On "I Met a Little Girl," Gaye appeals to his past: musically, through sweet fifties harmonies, and personally as he narrates meeting Anna, falling in love with her, and the relationship's demise. On "When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You," which appears again as an instrumental and a reprise, Marvin uses a Latin-tinged mellow groove to probe for more than six minutes the philosophical question of love's origin and its end, both passing imperceptibly into existence, and into each other, as Marvin's multiple falsettos lash at the song's rhythms, and Anna: "You said bad things and you lied." On "Anger," Marvin mounts a funky shuffle of percussion and bass to declare the defining vices of a fundamental human passion: "Anger ... can make you old ... can make you sick ... destroys your soul." The songs cross every genre  "Anna's Song" is a rhythmically complex patterning of soul-jazz that conjures Coltrane's ballads, while "Funky Space Reincarnation" is disco-funk that dreams of a raceless musical universe. And "Here, My Dear" is a poignant doo-wop love fugue transposed to detail Marvin's sorrowful joys and sad nostalgia in the aftermath of their breakup. Anna Gaye didn't take lightly some of the revelations Marvin expressed through his music on Here, My Dear (especially accusations that she was preventing him from seeing their son and that she had lied to God by breaking their marriage vows), and upon its release she told People magazine that she was considering filing a $5 million invasion of privacy lawsuit, although nothing ever came of her threat.  Critical reaction to Here, My Dear was mixed.  As Gaye biographer Steve Turner wrote, "Reviewers didn't seem to know whether the double album was a huge joke at the expense of Anna Gaye and Motown, or a work of genius."  The record was not a hit, failing to sell well enough to even recoup the advance against royalties paid by Motown, so Marvin Gaye (who was by then officially bankrupt) was obligated to begin making monthly payments to Anna to cover the shortfall.  However, Gaye was killed in 1984 still owing Anna the additional $293,000 due her, and monies earned by his estate after his death went to paying off the IRS rather than benefiting his ex-wives and children -- thereby proving the maxim about life's only two certainties.   Dyson, Michael Eric.  Mercy, Mercy Me: The Art, Loves & Demons of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2004.  ISBN 0-465-01769-X.

 Mercy, Mercy Me: The Art, Loves & Demons of Marvin Gaye Ritz, David.  Divided Soul: The Life of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: Da Capo Press, 1985.  ISBN 0-306-80443-2.

 Divided Soul: The Life of Marvin Gaye Turner, Steve.  Trouble Man: The Life and Death of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: HarperCollins, 1998.  ISBN 0-06-019821-4. Trouble Man: The Life and Death of Marvin Gaye Public debate aroundtransgender individuals and bathroomusehit a fever pitch in April 2016, largely due to the controversial passage of HB 2(otherwise known as the "bathroom bill") in North Carolina. On 19 April 2016, Target released a statement confirming a new policy abouttransgender customers and bathrooms: bathroom HB 2 bathroom bill statement Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity Recent debate around proposed laws in several states has reignited a national conversation around inclusivity. So earlier this week, we reiterated with our team members where Target stands and how our beliefs are brought to life in how we serve our guests. Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. Its something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day. We believe that everyoneevery team member, every guest, and every communitydeserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination. In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.   Bathroomcontroversies weren't new in April 2016, but HB2, which was by far the highest profilelegislation of that nature,provoked a huge response across the country.Target was not thefirst large and well-known entity to clarify its policy abouttransgender bathroom use, and the brand responded to some feedback on Twitter: controversies first @Kusau Everyone is welcome at Target.  @Kusau  Target (@Target) April 20, 2016 April 20, 2016  Not all of the public's response was positive. Target's Facebook page was flooded with critical responses similar to the (heavilysatirized) commentsthat appeared when the chain announced gender-neutral toy aisles: satirized gender-neutral toy       Some misinformation also circulated about the development. The web site The Political Insider reportedthat the retailer released the statement under pressure from the President and LGBT groups: reported Target just caved to pressure from the Obama administration and liberal activists. They have announced that any transgendered person can use the bathroom in their stores, according to the gender they associate with. Now in Target stores, men are allowed to use the restroom next to your daughter. Once called perverted, this is now a civil right. No information we could find substantiated the claim that Target was pressured to institute the chain-wide policy, and no retailers of a similar size and scope have reported any organized pushto enact similar policies.While HB2 isan enforceable law, Target's bathroom policy issimply a brand's policy decision based on its own ethics andbelief structure. It istrue that Target announced on 19 April 2016 that transgender shoppers and staffers werewelcome to use the bathroom that best matchedtheir gender identities. However, neither President Obama nor any groups appeared to have forced the retailer's hand in issuing the policy, and no "transgender bathrooms" were included in the details of the announcement.