One Texas school district alone -- Austin ISD -- is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year.
Texas House Speaker Joe Straus hinted at theTexas Houses derailed push for more state education aidby asserting that absent fresh action, Austin taxpayers can count on ponying up more than half a billion dollars to schools in other places this year. The San Antonio Republican prefaced his Austin-centric claim by rehashing his view that Texas overly relies on property taxes to fund the schools. Property taxes are going up, and more and more of those dollars are going to school districts in other parts of the state through the Robin Hood system, Straus said in anemail blastdistributed two days before the July 2017 special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott. Straus elaborated: School districts are expected to send away $2 billion through Robin Hood in the upcoming year. One district alone -- Austin ISD -- is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. Is that accurate? Straus was referring to the Robin Hood or recapture facet of state law designed for equalization purposes so districts with rich tax bases share revenue with less property-wealthy districts. In July 2017,  before Straus made his claim, the Texas Education Agencysaid that some $2 billion all told would be redistributedvia the share-the-wealth mechanism in 2017-18. In 2016,we found Truea claim by Travis County state Sen. Kirk Watson that in Austin, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture. That fact-check said the district for 2016-17 would be forwarding more than $400 million for schools elsewhere. Straus cites newspaper Asked how Straus reached the larger $530-million figure, a Straus spokesman, Jason Embry, said by email that Straus relied on a June 19, 2017, Austin American-Statesmannews storyabout the Austin districts board of trustees approving a nearly$1.5 billion budget for 2017-18. The story said the districts recapture payment this year is expected to be $534 million, an increase of 32 percent, or $127.8 million, over 2016-17. It quoted Nicole Conley, the districts chief financial officer, saying the district expects to pay more than $1 billion in recapture payments during the next two years. Austin school districts calculation When we reached out to the district, spokeswoman Cristina Nguyen specified that according to calculations taking into account expected student enrollment and tax collections, Austins estimated payments would total $533,874,730 for the 2017-18 school year. She emailed us the districts calculations,viewable here. Another district spokeswoman, Tiffany Young, sent an email pointing out a May 2017 district chart suggesting its recapture payments could top $800 million by the 2020-21 school year: SOURCE: Document,FY2018 Recommended Budget,Austin Independent School District, May 2017 (web link received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, July 17, 2017) States preliminary analysis We also asked the Texas Education Agency how much the Austin district will be expected to forward in recapture money in 2017-18. By email, Lauren Callahan guided us to an agency estimate, last updated June 21, 2017, of $513,633,317. Thats $20 million less than the districts announced estimate. But Callahan also cautioned that the state figure is preliminary and likely to increase depending on the districts tax rate. Callahan wrote: We use different estimates of local property tax collections as well as different estimates of student counts, both of which affect the estimate of recapture. Our numbers tie together when all final data is reconciled. Our ruling Straus said the Austin district is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. As of May 2017, the Austin district estimated that in 2017-18 it would flow nearly $534 million in local property tax revenue through the states school finance system, nicknamed Robin Hood, to help equalize school funding across the state. We rate this claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
In March 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered free coupons supposedly good for two free Big Mac Meals for a month from outlets of the McDonald's fast food chain:   Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:   After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive.  Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook (including previous examples targeting McDonald's customers), this offer was a common form of scam.  other free merchandise offers targeting We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers When Elon Musk launched the Falcon Heavy rocket (and its payload of a Tesla Roadster) in February 2018, many saw it as a giant step toward commercial space travel and sending a human to Mars. Tesla Roadster Others saw something slightly more cynical, namely a giant advertisement: advertisement Elon Musk pulled off a double marketing coup with the first successful test launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket, the flagship of his private space-flight company SpaceX, and the subsequent debut of its payloada Tesla Roadster driven by a dummy nicknamed Starmanas the first car in space. While the launch was clearly one of the most dramatic moments of livestreaming in recent memory, its the live YouTube feed of Musks own cherry-red Roadster circling the Earth that will perhaps generate the biggest publicity boost for Musks emerging electric-car company. With a famously nonexistent ad budget, Tesla just secured a place in auto marketing history. In the wake of this monumental achievement of space travel advertising, a photograph purportedly showing a disapproving Carl Sagan holding a "No Billboards in Space" sign started recirculating on the internet:   This image isn't real. This photograph has been circulating online since at least 2010. A Redditor claimed in a 2011 posting of the image that they had created it for a photoshop contest on the web site Fark, but we were unable to locate the original contest.  2010 claimed created Regardless, this has image has been doctored. The original image showed Sagan holding one of the "Pioneer Plaques," not a sign reading "No Billboards in Space."  The Pioneer Plaques were launched into space in the early 1970s aboard the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecrafts. The idea was that the plaques, which contained a pictorial message, would relay some information about the spacecraft's origins in case it was intercepted by an extraterrestrial life form: message   It seemed to us appropriate that this spacecraft, the first man-made object to leave the solar system, should carry some indication of the locale, epoch, and nature of its builders. We do not know the likelihood of the Galaxy being filled with advanced technological societies capable of and interested in intercepting such a spacecraft. It is clear, however, that such interception is a very long term proposition.  Griner, David.  "With a $0 Ad Budget, Tesla Just Pulled Off One of the Greatest Marketing Stunts Ever"
  Adweek.  7 February 2018. Sagan, Carl.  "A Message from Earth."
  Science Magazine.  25 February 1972. You Bet Your Life was the post-World War II vehicle that provided Groucho Marx with a career apart from his brothers and introduced him to a generation of viewers too young to remember him from his stage or film work. The interview-quiz show, featuring the famous $100 bonus paid to any contestant who said the "secret word" (displayed on a cartoonish stuffed duck that dropped from above if a contestant uttered the word of the day) debuted on radio in 1947, aired on both radio and television through 1960, and continued on television only for its final season in 1960-61  all in all, an amazing fourteen-year run for a quiz show with a tiny budget, a plain set, and a small jackpot (even by 1950s standards).   Although You Bet Your Life was structured to make it appear as though every show was completely ad-libbed by Groucho (who issued a steady stream of impromptu questions, off-the-cuff remarks, and cutting put-downs to contestants he had met only moments earlier), a good deal of preparation went into each episode. Potential contestants were selected and interviewed in advance, scripts for each week's show were prepared by writers and reviewed by Groucho, and the comedian used a mechanical teleprompter to read his lines during the recording of the program. (In early telecasts of You Bet Your Life, Groucho can be seen reading off sheets of paper propped up in front of him on something resembling a music stand.) It was true, however, that Groucho didn't actually meet the contestants until they walked onstage, and he certainly had plenty of latitude to depart from the prepared gags and questions (as did the contestants), with the result that much of the show's banter was indeed improvised on the spot. About a hour's worth of material was recorded for each half hour program so that flubs, uninteresting segments, and any troublesome or offensive remarks by Groucho could be edited out. The most notable remark of Groucho's You Bet Your Life years, that one that has gone down in legend as one of pop culture's most notorious comeback quips, supposedly occurred when Grouch was interviewing a Mrs. Story, a contestant with a remarkably large number of children (a number that varies anywhere from 10 to 21 in different tellings of the legend): GROUCHO: "Why do you have so many children? That's a big responsibility and a big burden." MRS. STORY: "Well, because I love my children and I think that's our purpose here on Earth, and I love my husband." GROUCHO: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." But did Groucho really say this, or is it a remark that (like so many other infamous quips) originated elsewhere and was later attributed to the notable figure deemed most likely to have said it?   Since You Bet Your Life was taped in advance, heavily edited, and not aired live, this remark (if it truly occurred) would certainly have been cut from the finished program as too offensive for the standards of the times; so we can state definitively that (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) nobody ever actually heard it broadcast. If Groucho had really made this quip, the only people who would have heard it would have been the people present during the recording of the program (i.e., the cast, crew, contestants, and studio audience). So, did Groucho in fact utter this risqu remark, even if his bon mot never made it onto the airwaves? The one person who would undoubtedly know the truth is Groucho himself, and he maintained in a 1972 interview with Roger Ebert for Esquire magazine that he never said it: I got $25 from Reader's Digest last week for something I never said. I get credit all the time for things I never said. You know that line in You Bet Your Life? The guy says he has seventeen kids and I say: "I smoke a cigar, but I take it out of my mouth occasionally"? I never said that. This debate really should end here, based on a complete lack of evidence that Groucho ever said any such thing, coupled with his unequivocal statement affirming that he did not (and Groucho had no motive to disclaim one of the most famous lines associated with his celebrity if he really had said it). Instead, the legend persists in large part because misinformation about it is propagated over and over. Take, for example, the following account, presented as a first-person telling in a 1976 book often touted as a Groucho Marx autobiography, The Secret Word Is Groucho: Wherever I go, people ask me about a remark I purportedly made to Mrs. Story. Folklore about the encounter has been so broadly disseminated that it has been variously described as occurring with a mother having any number from ten to thirty children. The story, however, is not apocryphal. It did happen. "Why do you have so many children?" I asked Mrs. Story. "That's a big responsibility and a big burden." "Well," she replied, "because I love children, and I think that's our purpose here on earth, and I love my husband." "I love my cigar too," I shot back, "but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." That kind of remark can have one of two reactions. It will either cause a sharp intake of breath at having crossed some forbidden frontier or it will bring the house down. The studio audience loved it, but the people out there in Radioland never got a chance to react. The exchange was clipped out by Dwan, the house censor. But even though Groucho is credited as the primary author of The Secret Word Is Groucho, it isn't really an "autobiography." The book was actually put together in the waning years of the comedian's life by freelance writer Hector Arce, who ostensibly obtained input from Groucho; and it's unlikely that Groucho's declining health and memory allowed him to contribute much (if anything) to the finished work, leaving Arce to rely on secondary sources. Arce consulted various personnel associated with You Bet Your Life in producing the book; almost certainly one (or more) of those people proffered the "cigar" story as true to Arce, who rewrote it in Groucho's voice and inserted it into the book, unaware that his subject had denied it just a few years previously. Arce's account doesn't sound like Groucho's speaking or writing style at all, and it presents a Groucho who has suddenly "remembered" details he was previously unfamiliar with in his Esquire few years earlier (i.e., he's corrected the gender of the person he was addressing from male to female, he now recalls the contestant's name, and he's fixed the wording of the remark from "I smoke a cigar, but I take it out of my mouth occasionally" to the pithier "I love my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while"). While the 1972 Esquire interview in which Groucho discussed this quip unideniably contained Groucho's own words, the same can't be said for what was presented in Arce's book.  The Secret Word Is Groucho account quoted above also has Groucho asserting that the purported exchange with Mrs. Story was "clipped out by Dwan, the house censor." Groucho of course would have known that Robert Dwan was not a "house censor"; he was one of the producers who worked on You Bet Your Life for its entire run, staging the weekly performances and supervising the editing of each episode for broadcast. In his own book about the program (As Long As They're Laughing: Groucho Marx and You Bet Your Life), Dwan wrote: Last summer in Maine, a respectable New York dealer in rare books sidled up to me and said, conspiratorially, "Is it true Groucho made that crack about his cigar?" I knew immediately what he meant. For a long time, I, too, believed it was a figment of the mass libido. But, after discussions with my late partner, Bernie Smith, I am convinced that it did happen. I now believe that Groucho said it, but that he didn't mean what the dirty joke collectors think he meant. That remark, taken at its burlesque show level, was simply not his style. But outside of that studio audience and the 200 people who laughed that night, no one else ever heard that joke, because the exchange was never broadcast. It was never heard beyond the confines of NBC Studio C in Hollywood, and yet the story has spread to become an underground legend. This account is even more curious: Robert Dwan, the man who was onstage for every performance of You Bet Your Life and who supervised the editing of the show, didn't remember hearing Groucho make such a remark, yet he came to "believe" the legend was real because someone else told him so many years after the fact. And although Dwan noted that he consulted "20 volumes of the original scripts" and a "collection of acetate recordings of the unedited performances and tapes of the edited broadcasts" and four reels of 16mm film consisting of "the funniest and most audacious of the sequences which we were required to delete from the broadcasts as being unsuitable for viewing in the 1950s" in the preparation of his book, he made nary a mention of turning up anything supporting the "cigar" story. Steve Stoliar, who worked as a secretary in Groucho's household during the last few years of the comedian's life, also made an affirmative case for this legend in his 1996 book, Raised Eyebrows: My Years Inside Groucho's House: You may have heard about a legendary line concerning a certain cigar that Groucho was alleged to have uttered during one program. Some say it never happened; others swear they've seen it on TV. As it turns out, the truth is somewhere inbetween. One of the unexpected pleasures of spending time with the people behind the scenes was getting to the bottom of this infamous incident. For the record, it was [You Bet Your Life head writer] Bernie Smith who provided us with the details. To our amazement, Bernie had kept a chart throughout the life of the show, in which he had meticulously recorded the names of the contestants, what the secret word was and how much they ended up winning. There was, it seems, a sign painter named Mr. Story who lived in Bakersfield, California. He and his wife had what was reputed to be the largest family in America. Originally there were twenty-two children, but three had died. During the first season of "You Bet Your Life," when it was broadcast on radio only, the Story family was bused in from Bakersfield to be contestants on the show. After a bit of small talk, the conversation went like this: Groucho: "How many children do you have?" Mrs. Story: "Nineteen, Groucho." Groucho: "Nineteen?! Why do you have so many children? It must be a terrible responsibility and a burden." Mrs. Story: "Well, because I love my children  and I think that's our purpose here on Earth  and I love my husband." Groucho: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while!" The studio audience went wild, but director Bob Dwan ordered the exchange deleted before it could be aired because it was obviously too racy for 1947 sensibilities. So the Story story is true, but anyone who claims to have seen that program is either mistaken or lying because it occurred three years before the show's 1950 television debut and it was edited out of the radio show before anyone but the studio audience had a chance to hear it. Unfortunately, no copies of that legendary outtake are known to have survived. Although the imagined dialogue between Groucho and the female contestant is lifted directly from The Secret Word Is Groucho, this account does at least introduce some detail to the story (e.g., a specific number of children, the hometown of the contestants, the father's occupation, the year of the interview) indicating actual research rather than mere repetition of legend. As we'll see shortly, however, some of this detail is inaccurate. The most recent presentation of the "cigar" legend we're aware of is the background booklet enclosed with the 2003 DVD release You Bet Your Life: The Lost Episodes (a collection of some of the show's preserved TV episodes), which contained the following information about an audio bonus feature included on one of the discs: In December 1950 DeSoto distributed a twelve inch 78rpm recording featuring highlights from You Bet Your Life and a holiday message from Groucho to their dealers. The nine minute recording includes an excerpt from Groucho's November 17, 1947 radio interview with Mr. and Mrs. Story of Bakersfield, California, the parents of twenty children. This interview has become legendary for a portion of it that never aired. Groucho: "Why do you have so many children? It must be a terrible responsibility and a burden." Mrs. Story: "Well, because I love my children and I think that's our purpose here on Earth, and I love my husband." Groucho: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." Considering how many people have claimed to have seen or heard that exchange over the years it would seem likely that it must exist somewhere. But of the ninety-nine radio episodes of You Bet Your Life that aired prior to the show's television debut, fewer than half of them survive. And the show with Mr. and Mrs. Story is not among them. The famous exchange would certainly have been edited out anyway. The brief clip from Season's Greetings from DeSoto  Laughs with Groucho is all that remains of this episode. And the only people who witnessed that legendary moment were in the studio audience that fateful night in 1947. (Note that the imagined dialogue between Groucho and Mrs. Story is lifted directly from the book The Secret Word Is Groucho, another indication that it came from someone associated with the You Bet Your Life program and not Groucho himself.) It is true that Marion and Charlotte Story of Bakersfield, California, the parents of twenty children, were once featured as contestants on You Bet Your Life. According to announcer George Fenneman's introduction, Mr. and Mrs. Story were selected to participate because the producers thought it would be interesting to go through the audience and find the couple with the largest number of offspring for Groucho to interview, and as the parents of twenty children (not nineteen, as stated in Raised Eyebrows), Mr. and Mrs. Story qualified for that honor. (Since You Bet Your Life was a well-planned show that interviewed and prepped its contestants in advance, Mr. and Mrs. Story likely appeared on the program by invitation and were not merely present in the audience by happenstance, with George Fenneman's introduction of them probably stretching the truth a little to create an exaggerated sense of spontaneity for the listening audience.) It is also true that this interview took place during You Bet Your Life's days as a radio-only program (it didn't begin airing on television in addition to radio until October 1950); so even if the "cigar" quip had sprung from this encounter, anyone who now claims to have seen Groucho make the remark on television is clearly mistaken.   As usual, however, the DVD booklet's account is rife with misinformation. A complete audio recording of (the broadcast portions of) Marion and Charlotte Story's appearance on You Bet Your Life does indeed exist (and is linked below). Moreover, that recording couldn't possibly date from 17 November 1947, as claimed, because Groucho can be heard making promotional references to DeSoto-Plymouth, who did not become sponsors of You Bet Your Life until partway through the 1949-50 season. (External evidence indicates this recording actually dates from the broadcast of 11 January 1950, the first show aired after DeSoto-Plymouth took over sponsorship of You Bet Your Life from Elgin-American.)  What do we find in this recording? It does not include anything like the infamous "cigar" quip, Groucho's only mention of stogies coming when he inquires of Mr. Story, "With each new kid, do you go around passing out cigars?" ("I stopped at about a dozen," Mr. Story responds.) And for those who would claim that the "cigar" remark was indeed uttered by Groucho but excised from the aired version of the show, we note that none of the claimed dialogue ancillary to that remark is present in the recording, either: Groucho does not ask Charlotte Story why she has so many children, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Story professes to thinking that having children is "our purpose here on Earth," nor does Mrs. Story proclaim that she loves her husband. As we touched on earlier in this article, it's a common phenomenon of urban legendry that amusing stories involving clever repartee often retroactively place words into the mouths of the famous people deemed most likely to have said them. Sometimes, however, the designated mouths don't really match up with the words assigned to them. Johnny Carson's image has long been saddled with the claim that he made a risqu remark to a cat-carrying starlet on the Tonight Show, even though he was never known for employing that sort of crude sexual humor in his TV talk show host role. Likewise, although it might seem that no one would fit a sexual double entendre involving a cigar better than Groucho Marx, even You Bet Your Life producer Robert Dwan acknowledged (as quoted above) that it was too burlesque and not really Groucho's style. It was the kind of dirty put-down Groucho might blurt out in private, but not to a kindly couple on a national radio program. Groucho's style on You Bet Your Life was typically much gentler, as exemplified by the following exchange made under similar circumstances (i.e., when he questioned a female contestant who came from a family of seventeen children): remark Groucho: How does your father feel about this rather startling turn of events? Is he happy or just dazed? Daughter: Oh, my daddy loves children. Groucho: Well, I like pancakes, but I haven't got closetsful of them ... It's not inconceivable that the infamous "cigar" quip might have originated with this very exchange, when someone later misremembered or deliberately "naughtied up" the dialogue to better fit Groucho's public image and changed "pancakes" to "cigar." NOTE: Various "blooper" records purport to offer an "actual recording" of Groucho's remark. However, those record makers typically employed recordings they made themselves using sound-alikes in order to "re-create" events for which no actual recording existed (in most cases because the events were apocryphal ones that never took place). blooper  Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows.
New York: Ballatine Books, 1999. ISBN 0-345-42923-0 (p. 1138-1139). Dunning, John. On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. ISBN 0-19-507678-8 (pp. 732-734). Dwan, Robert. As Long As They're Laughing: Groucho Marx and You Bet Your Life.
Baltimore: Midnight Marquee, 2000. ISBN 01-887664-36-X (p. 129). Ebert, Roger. "A Living Legend, Rated R." 
Esquire. July 1972 (p. 143). Kaltenbach, Chris. "Also 20 Years Dead: Groucho."
The Baltimore Sun. 19 August 1997 (p. E1). Kanfer, Stefan. Groucho.
New York: Vintage Books, 2000. ISBN 0-375-70207-5. Marx, Groucho and Hector Arce. The Secret Word Is Groucho.
New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976. ISBN 0-399-11690-7 (pp. 43-44). Stoliar, Steve. Raised Eyebrows: My Years Inside Groucho's House.
Los Angeles: General Publishing, 1996. ISBN 1-881649-73-3 (pp. 124-125). Just when we thought we'd had our fill of debate-related conspiracies, a new one came along, this one in the form of a video purportedly documenting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt had colluded to rig the first presidential debate through a system of secret hand signals: Scratching ones face is one of the oldest signals in the book. You can be sure if this was a blackjack table and the house noticed a player making similar signals to a dealer theyd be investigated.  When the alt-right web site True Pundit shared the video, they did so along with the additional claim that Clinton had never made similar gestures in previous debates, campaign appearances, or speeches: Before critics view this video and scream Conspiracy, True Pundit cross referenced Clintons speeches, campaign appearances and her 2008 debate performances against President Obama. According to that analysis, Clinton never previously used these hand motions to supposedly scratch her face. In fact, she rarely touches her face at all. (So, you haters can save the trouble of instructing people to remove their tin-foil hats.) The above-displayed video does not provide any evidence that Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt communicated via hand signals so that Clinton could indicate to Holt when she wanted him to call on her so she could get in a "zinger." The creator of the video simply strung together several unrelated events  Clinton scratching her face, Holt making a comment, Clinton replying to Trump  and then claimed that they were somehow connected to a furtive signaling plot without providing any proof. But before we dig deeper into the video, let's look at the accompanying claims about it from True Pundit and Infowars. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for decades. She was the First Lady of Arkansas in 1983, the First Lady of the United States in 1993, a U.S. Senator in 2001, a presidential candidate in 2008, Secretary of State in 2009, and and a presidential candidate again in 2016. It is simply ridiculous to claim that Clinton never once touched her face during a speech, campaign rally, or debate:  Clinton touched her face during speech   It should be noted that Hillary Clinton was not the only one making these gestures during the first presidential debate:   It should also be noted that (as shown in the image at the head of this page) the two candidates were physically separated on the stage, and therefore in order to catch the supposed "signals" from Hillary Clinton, moderator Lester Holt  who didn't have the advantage of the split-screen shot presented to television viewers  would had to have been rather obviously watching her even when she was not speaking. If Donald Trump truly "dominated the early part of the debate" but then lost his advantage, the more logical explanation is that his opponent's strategy to throw him off his game simply worked as expected: strategy The quiet Mr. Trump took the first shift, presenting a general-election version of his forceful campaign persona minus the bluster, insults and defenses of his anatomy. He pushed his case firmly, hitting his campaigns focal points on the economy and trade. defenses of his anatomy But it didnt take long for Mrs. Clinton to find the other Mr. Trump under that thin second skin. Her needling began immediately. She referred to her opponent as Donald, where he pointedly called her Secretary Clinton. (Yes, is that O.K.? he asked at his first reference to her.) She referred to his starting a business with a $14 million loan from his father, which Mr. Trump preferred to call a very small loan. The digs targeted Mr. Trumps status and founding mythos, triggering his image-protection reflex. He became combative and rattled, letting his opponent lead him down rhetorical detours (at one point he revived an old feud with Rosie ODonnell) knowing that he would follow his ingrained ABCs: always be counterpunching. It was Tony Soprano vs. Dr. Melfi, TVs biggest antihero blustering against the woman who had gotten inside his head. This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator  as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often. three times Virus:  FDIC notice of bank failure. REAL VIRUS Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] FDIC has officially named your bank a failed bank You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insuredbank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your accountwith as a failed bank, thus, taking control of its assets. You need to visit the official FDIC website and perform the followingsteps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage:  Visit FDIC website: https://www.fdic.gov/  https://www.fdic.gov/  Download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage Origins:  In October 2009, Internet users began receiving e-mails purporting to have come from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the agency that insures deposits in U.S. bank accounts.  These messages claimed that the recipients were holders of FDIC-insured bank accounts in failed banks and instructed them to click on a link to the FDIC web site in order download a file which would allow them to check their "Deposit Insurance Coverage."   However, the link embedded in the e-mail led not to the real FDIC web site, but to a spoof web site.  Attempting to download the proffered file from that site could initiate the installation of malware on the user's computer (presumably to collect sensitive personal information):  The real FDIC  put up an alert to warn consumers about this fraudulent mailing: alert The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has received numerous reports of a fraudulent e-mail that has the appearance of being sent from the FDIC. The subject line of the e-mail states: "check your Bank Deposit Insurance Coverage." The e-mail tells recipients that, "You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insured bank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your account with as a failed bank, thus, taking  control of its assets." The e-mail then asks recipients to "visit the official FDIC website and perform the following steps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage" (a fraudulent link is provided). It then instructs recipients to "download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage." This e-mail and associated Web site are fraudulent. Recipients should consider the intent of this e-mail as an attempt to collect personal or confidential information, some of which may be used to gain unauthorized access to on-line banking services or to conduct identity theft. The FDIC does not issue unsolicited e-mails to consumers. Financial institutions and consumers should NOT follow the link in the fraudulent e-mail. Last updated:  28 October 2009 Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here While tensions mounted over the presidential election results in early November 2020, former U.S. President Donald Trump campaign adviser Steve Bannon called for a second Trump term to kick off with some firings.  During the Nov. 5, 2020, edition of the Breitbart News executives podcast, "War Room Pandemic," Bannon made jabs at National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray and appeared to endorse violence against them when he said the following: Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone -- time to stop playing games. By the following day, the video had been deleted from all of Bannons official platforms, but was still floating around social media, including the below snippet shared on Twitter. Twitter  A longer version of the podcast video was shared by Media Matters, a web-based, not-for-profit research and information center dedicated to monitoring misinformation in the U.S. Media. (The video has been archived here for reference.) Media Matters here A Twitter spokesperson confirmed to Snopes in an email sent Nov. 6 that, "the @WarRoomPandemic account has been permanently suspended for violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our policy on the glorification of violence. The platform went on to add that statements made by Bannon went against policies in place that address clear threats of violence, abuse and harassment, and hateful conduct. @WarRoomPandemic policy on the glorification of violence violence abuse and harassment hateful conduct   As of Nov. 6, Bannons official Facebook page and YouTube channel were both still available online, though it appeared that the video in question had since been deleted. Snopes sent emails to YouTube and Facebook for further comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication. We will update the article accordingly if we hear back. official Facebook page YouTube channel Bannon and some of his followers have been described as Trump loyalists, and it was not uncommon for such groups to go after those whom the president had expressed dislike toward. While testifying in front of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee on Sept. 17, Wray said that the FBI had not seen, to date, a coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election. We have certainly investigated  if I just may finish. Weve certainly have investigated a voter fraud committed by mail. Its typically been at the local level. Trump loyalists Sept. 17, When Wray appeared to question and place doubt in Trumps claims that mail-in ballots would lead to fraud in the 2020 general election, the administration publicly went after the former attorney.  The Washington Post reported on Oct. 21 that Trump and his advisers had repeatedly discussed whether to fire Wray after Election Day because of his inability to produce incriminating evidence against Democratic candidate Joe Biden. In an Oct. 8 interview with Fox News Business, Trump furthered that Wray was disappointing in that he didnt see the voting ballots as a problem. The Washington Post Fox News Business Trump has also publicly expressed dismay at the actions of Fauci, who spearheaded the COVID-19 pandemic response since March. In an editorial published by The Hill, opinion contributor Gregory Wallance wrote that Fauci gets in the way of Trumps economic revival strategy following unprecedented nationwide business closures by telling Americans the truth about the pandemic. Since the onset of the pandemic, Fauci warned that the worst is yet to come, and urged local leaders to continue to heed the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in spite of what the president said. The Hill warned heed the advice During a campaign rally in Arizona in October, Trump made fun of Fauci, adding that he was a wonderful man but a bad arm (around the 15-minute mark). I saved thousands of lives. He admitted that two months later. Two months later. And Dr. Fauci said, Dont put on masks. You see the thing. And now, he says put on masks, and they say hes a wonderful guy, and he is a wonderful guy. I like him. He just happens to have a very bad arm. He has a bad arm, but hes a good guy. He is a good guy. A lot of our people dont like him. I like him. You have to understand him. Hes a promoter. What can he do? And its a choice between the American dream or a totally socialist nightmare. Thats what youll have. Youll be a socialist country. And I said, Our country will never be a socialist country. Were not going to let it happen. Itll be destroyed. https://www.c-span.org/video/?477078-1/president-trump-campaign-rally-prescott-arizona On 29 February 2016, an image purportedly showing a newly hatched baby dragon was shared on Facebook:    News Flash.....  Dragons to be reintroduced to Wales after an absence of more than a 1000 years , local conservation groups say they are pleased by the move that will put a large preditor back in the food chain ....  There have been concern shown by the farming community due to the risk of predation to livestock but the Welsh assembly say they are willing to pay compesation to farmers who can prove loss, the other danger with the dragons eating habits of taking virgins is not thought to be a problem as they went extinct in Wales may years ago anyway...... shared   The above-displayed photo does not, of course, show a real baby dragon. This image was created for a 2008Photoshop contest on the web siteWorth 1000.Worth1000.com,which has since moved toDesignCrowd.com,asked digital artists to create their ownversion of the mythical creature:Dragons. Small and cuddly or big and nasty, Chinese or European, furry or scaly, slick or rough, feathered wings or bat wings, fire breathing or smoke snorting, reptile head or lion head, intelligent or instinctual, ancient or modern, living or robotic. Never has there been a fantasy creature so revered and yet so reviled. contest DesignCrowd.com The rules are thus: create a dragon of your own making. No illustrations, no modifying some else's dragon. You may not use sources from fantasy art. You may use photos of dinosaur models, but (as always) the standard copyright rules apply.   In addition to the image's source (a site dedicated to digital artcontests) and the fact that dragons don't exist, the creator of the digital baby dragon provided the source images used:  This is not the first time that rumors thatdragons actually arereal (complete with "photo proof")haveswirled around the internet. In March 2015, images of a dragon sculpture were shared as authentic, and in June 2015, a digital artist added wings to a picture of a Satanic Leaf-Tailed Geckoand thenpassed it off as a photo of a real dragon. images picture Claim:  During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.'  Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly.  As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism.  Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record.  It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans.  Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless.   Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins:  This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he  said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've  got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates  corporate tax rates  on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.  I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things  fair distribution and robust economic growth  are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated:  17 August 2008    Sources:   Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax."   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008  (P. A1).    Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'"   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008. Claim: The Powerball and Mega Million lottery games are giving away $1 million topeople who share a message on Facebook.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] Powerball and mega million to give away 1 million dollars online. Is this true? Origins: In mid-October 2015, social media postings began touting that the Mega Millions and Powerball lottery games were giving away $1 million to people who shared a Facebook message:     These posts were nothing more than variants of the long-running sweepstakes scam, which has previously targeted customers of such entities as Walmart, Home Depot, and Publix. Each of these scams exhibits slight variations, but they all seek to reach a larger audience by requiring people to share thescam with their friends on Facebook. While these charlatans promise that sharing, liking, or commenting on a given Facebook post will make a person a millionaire, what Facebook users who fall for the come-ons are really doing is spreading a malicious scam to more and more potential victims: Walmart Home Depot Publix requiring Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Several state lotteries have warned their players against Facebook scams:    If you want to win the Mega Millions or Powerball lottery games, your best method for achieving that goal is to actually go out and buy a ticket. Of course, some might consider that approach scarcely better than doing nothing, since the odds of winning $1 million in Powerball are less than1 in 11 million. odds   Last updated:15 October 2015 Originally published: 15 October 2015 Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True.