Rowan Atkinson Death Hoax
Another celebrity death hoax reared its head in July 2016, then again in March 2017, and yet again in July 2018, as posts circulated on Facebook sharing the news that British actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson, best known for playing the character Mr. Bean on television and in movies, was dead, having committed suicide or died in a traffic accident at age 58:    Clue #1 that the information is false: In the viral graphic, Atkinson's birth year was given as 1995. If true, that would put him in his twenties. Clue #2 that the information is false: In the viral graphic, Atkinson's age was given as 58. In reality, he was 62 at the time (as of 2017), having been born in 1955. Clue #3 that the information is false: Nowhere, in any legitimate media, has it been reported that Rowan Atkinson passed away.    In fact, Atkinson is currently starring in the third installment of the Johnny English comedy film series, to be released in October 2018: starring  The errors and inconsistencies in the hoax reports of his death are attributable to the fact that a virtually identical hoax has circulated before and has been repurposed, with little or no attention to detail, in 2016 and thereafter. The most important thing to know about it is that the hoax is also a "clickjacking" scam. If you click on the blurb expecting to see a video or get more information, what you will find instead is that you have been redirected to another website that will attempt to get you to share your personal info, request access to your Facebook account, demand that you fill out a survey before proceeding, or all of the above.
On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are Claim:  Terrorists are planning to strike the U.S. on 11 June 2004. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] PLEASE STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND READ THIS. WHO KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE, BUT IT IS NOT WORTH TESTING OUT. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. IT WILL TAKE FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PEOPLE'S LIVES FOREVER! THANKS!! Please read the below that was forwarded...it is pretty scary. gloria sent this to me...this was sent to her from a coworker at CNN...i'm not sending this to freak everybody out...but just try to be careful... Hi all I hope everyone is doing well. The reason I am sending out this mass email to everyone is because of something that was brought to my attention the other day that I feel I need to tell as many people aspossible in case it turns out to be true.. One of my colleagues has a good family friend who works in city hall. This friend called my coworker on Friday to tell him about some intelligence the city has gotten regarding a possible terror attack in the city (most likely the subways) planned for this Friday and urged him to avoid the subways if possible. He also told him something about the city placing an order for 2 to 3 thousand extra body bags. Now you have to take these things with a grain of salt because I am sure they get tons of this intelligence that turns out to be nothing. However there are some things that coinside with this Friday that seem to give it a higher probability than usual. The terrorists attacked the WTC on 9/11. They attacked Spain's subways on 3/11. This Friday just happens to be 6/11 (thank GOD I'll be on a plane that day!). Whether that means anything or not who knows. The thing that really has me concerned however is that all of a sudden a lot of things are now closed on Friday due to Reagan's death. The stock market, banks, Mail and all federal buildings are closed. Obviously Reagan's death wasn't planned but the fact they chose Friday as the day to do this big honoring of him strikes me as a little to coincidental (less people going to work = less people on the subway). The question that I get most when I tell people about this is why wouldn't they go on TV and warn people. Well I think the answer to that is simple....they can't.  They would cause mass hysteria and the city would be out of control. Take this information and do with it what you want. I just felt the need to tell as many people as I could. God forbid something does happen this Friday and some people get hurt or die that I know and could have warned about it and didn't, well that would be a tough pill for me to swallow. I hope all this is bull and nothing happens this Friday or anyday for that matter. One thing is for certain though if I have to work on Friday I am taking a cab. Origins:  There's an old joke I've heard used by many a person called upon to deliver yet another generic opening speech at yet another public function, and it goes like this: "I feel like Zsa Zsa Gabor's seventh husband on his wedding night  I know what I'm supposed to do; I just don't know how to make it interesting."  This is an occasion when I can understand the sentiment  how can I write about the umpteenth variation of the same rumor and have anything interesting or informative to say, something that isn't a rehash of stuff I've written several times before?  I'm not sure, so in this case I'm not going to try.  I'll just reiterate the same points we've made elsewhere many times over the last three years:  The "extra body bags have been ordered" claim is a detail that shows up in rumor after rumor about upcoming disasters (usually ones about which the government is supposedly keeping quiet because they "don't want to cause a panic"), as it's a simple yet effective way of creating a striking visual image of death in the minds of readers.  (References to images such hospitals, ambulances, stretchers, and medics are similarly chilling, but they all allow for the possibility of survival, while a body bag signifies nothing other than the finality of death.) If a city government were really ramping up for a terrorist attack, there would be plenty of signs an insider might notice other than an order for "extra body bags": emergency personnel (police, firefighters, EMTs) being put on alert and scheduled for additional shifts, the implementation of extra security equipment and procedures, preparations to limit or close traffic to certain locations, stocking of emergency supplies (food, water, medical kits), maybe even requests to mobilize National Guard or federal troops.  Why is it that the one and only tangible piece of information these anonymous informants ever seem to have is that someone is stocking up on body bags?  Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government has warned us on several occasions about the heightened possibility of additional attacks, even when they had no specific information about when or where those attacks might occur.  That they would say nothing to the public when they did have specific information about the date and location of a possible attack makes no sense, but (as always) anonymous rumormongers conveniently explain away that incongruity by maintaining the government is keeping mum because to do otherwise might cause "mass hysteria." Is there a better recipe for "mass hysteria" than allowing a foreseeable attack to proceed against a completely unprepared and unwarned populace?  It serves no real purpose for terrorists to plan their attacks to fit into recognizable patterns. They might choose a date with symbolic importance (e.g., attacking the U.S. on the 4th of July would send a powerful symbolic message), but planning to strike on particular days simply because the dates make tidy numerical patterns is contrary to their purposes. They want to maximize their chances of success by attacking at times when their plans are least likely to be anticipated, and coordinating their strikes to fit easily recognized patterns is a pointless and poor way of accomplishing their goals.  As noted, President Reagan's death on 5 June 2004 was obviously not a scheduled event, and declaring the day of his funeral (11 June) to be a federal holiday wouldn't stop people from being killed in the event of a terrorist attack.  (The most common version of this message doesn't even identify a city by name  some readers assume it refers to New York, others to Washington, D.C.) Sure, fewer people might be out and about on a federal holiday, but there are plenty of people who aren't employed by the federal government (or financial institutions) and would still have to go to work that day, not to mention all the people in the city who use public transportation even on their days off.  Risking the deaths of, say, 20,000 people in order to avoid alarming 200,000 doesn't sound like much of a worthwhile trade-off. The New York Police Department has denied this rumor while (questionably) identifying it as a "part of a computer virus": denied THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED NO CREDIBLE THREAT INFORMATION CONCERNING A WIDELY-CIRCULATED EMAIL MESSAGE THAT DISCUSSES A PURPORTED SUBWAY ATTACK ALLEGEDLY PLANNED FOR FRIDAY, JUNE 11TH. IN ADDITION, THE EMAIL IS PART OF A COMPUTER VIRUS WHICH ATTACKS THE ADDRESS BOOKS OF ITS RECIPIENTS AND SPREADS BY USING THOSE ADDRESSES. COMPUTER USERS ARE REMINDED NOT TO OPEN MESSAGES OF FROM SUSPECT OR UNFAMILIAR SENDERS. (It's possible this message has been re-sent by some recipients whose PCs were already infected by viruses, but we haven't seen any evidence that the message itself was deliberately circulated as a way of spreading malevolent code.) June 11 came and went without incident; no terrorist attacks took place, and there was no news of any having been thwarted. The essence of this message was the same as countless other similar rumors we've traced since September 11: the world is a scary place, especially when you're dealing with hidden foes who might strike anywhere, at any time.  Asserting that the enemy will follow a predictable pattern allows us to regain a sense of direction, to feel that we have control of our futures, to believe that we can take active steps to avoid becoming victims rather than passively awaiting our fates.  What we fear most is the unknown, and these types of rumors provide us with the comfort of knowing something, even if that something proves to be bogus.  Whether this sort of comfort is worth the price of the false fears that usually accompany it is up to the individual to decide. Last updated:  14 March 2008    Sources:  Reuters.  "New York Police Say E-Mail on Subway Attack Is Hoax."  9 June 2004. Claim:  E-mail chronicles various ways scammers might obtain your credit card numbers. POSSIBLE, BUT NOT COMMON Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good Information  This was just passed on to me. Seems to make a lot of sense. IT COULD CERTAINLY HAPPEN TO ME EASILY ENOUGH......   SCENE 1:  A friend went to the local gym and placed his belongings in the locker. After the workout and a shower, he came out, saw the locker open, and thought to himself, "Funny, I thought I locked the locker. Hmmmmm."  He dressed  and just flipped the wallet to make sure all was in order. Everything looked okay  all cards were in place. A few weeks later his credit card bill came  a whooping bill of $14.000! He called the credit card company and started yelling at them, saying that he did not make the transactions. Customer care personnel verified that there was no mistake in the system and asked if his card had been stolen. "No," he said, but then took out his wallet, pulled out the credit card, and yep, you guessed it, a switch had been made. An expired similar credit card from the same bank was in the wallet. The thief broke into his locker at the gym and switched cards.  Verdict: The credit card issuer said since he did not report the card missing earlier, he would have to pay the amount owed to them. How much did he have to pay for items he did not buy? $9,000! Why were there no calls made to verify the amount swiped? Small amounts rarely trigger a "warning bell" with some credit card companies. It just so happens that all the small amounts added up to big one!   SCENE 2:  A man at a local restaurant paid for his meal with his credit card. The bill for the meal came, he signed it, and the waitress folded the receipt and passed the credit card along. Usually, he would just take it and place it in his wallet or pocket. Funny enough, though, he actually took a look at the card and, lo and behold, it was the expired card of another person. He called the waitress and she looked perplexed. She took it back, apologized, and hurried back to the counter under the watchful eye of the man. All the waitress did while walking to the counter was wave the wrong expired card to the counter cashier, and the counter cashier immediately looked down and took out the real card. No exchange of words  nothing! She took it and came back to the man with an apology.  Verdict: Make sure the credit cards in your wallet are yours. Check the name on the card every time you sign for something and/or the card is taken away for even a short period of time. Many people just take back the credit card without even looking at it, thinking that it has to be theirs.   FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, DEVELOP THE HABIT OF CHECKING YOUR CREDIT CARD EACH TIME IT IS RETURNED TO YOU AFTER A TRANSACTION!   SCENE 3:  Yesterday I went into a pizza restaurant to pick up an order that I had called in. I paid by using my Visa Check Card which, of course, is linked directly to my checking account. The young man behind the counter took my card, swiped it, then laid it flat on the counter as he waited for the approval, which is pretty standard procedure. While he waited, he picked up his cell phone and started dialing. I noticed the phone because it is the same model I have, but nothing seemed out of the ordinary.  Then I heard a click that sounded like my phone sounds when I take a picture. He then gave me back my card but kept the phone in his hand as if he was still pressing buttons. Meanwhile, I'm thinking: I wonder what he is taking a picture of, oblivious to what was really going on. It then dawned on me: the only thing there was as my credit card, so now I'm paying close attention to what he is doing.   He set his phone on the counter, leaving it open. About five seconds later, I heard the chime that tells you that the picture has been saved. Now I'm standing there struggling with the fact that this boy just took a picture of my credit card. Yes, he played it off well, because had we not had the same kind of phone, I probably would never have known what happened. Needless to say, I immediately canceled that card as I was walking out of the pizza parlor.  All I am saying is, be aware of your surroundings at all times. Whenever you are using your credit cards, take caution and don't be careless. Notice who is standing near you and what they are doing when you use your card. Be aware of phones because many have a camera phone these days. When you are in a restaurant and the waiter/waitress brings your card and receipt for you to sign, make sure you scratch the number off.  Some restaurants are using only the last four digits, but a lot of them are still putting the whole thing on there. I have already been a victim of credit card fraud and, believe me, it is not fun. The truth is that they can get you even when you are careful, so don't make it easy for them.  FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN THINK OF.  LET'S GET THE WORD OUT! Origins:  The   item quoted above is another example of a "crime warning" message that is difficult to classify as either true or false.  The scenarios it describes are possible, and someone, somewhere, might very well have been victimized by them, but on the other hand the message provides no details of time, place, or person, to use in verifying these tales, and the scenarios proffered are generally too implausible to be of much legitimate concern to the average person. The first two entries describe scammers who supposedly switch expired credit cards for valid credit cards, thereby enabling them to run up thousands of dollars in charges before the victims realize their cards are missing.  This isn't a scheme likely to be successful in most cases, for a number of reasons:  Not all credit cards look alike.  Common credit cards such as VISA and MasterCard vary quite widely in appearance, featuring different logos (based upon the issuing financial institutions), different colors of plastic, and even different (customer-selected) background designs.  For this scenario to work, the putative thieves would have to carry around a plethora of different styles of cards and hope to hit a long shot by coincidentally matching one of their cards to a victim's particular style card.   The deception would be obvious the next time the victim used (or, presumably, even looked at) his card, which wouldn't give the scammers much time to try to run up a huge charge on the stolen card via many small purchases.  Contrary to the claim made above, most credit card issuers will flag as suspect thousands of dollars' worth of charges made on a credit card within a short period of time, even if none of those charges are for large amounts.  Also contrary to a claim made above, a credit card customer could not be held liable for $9,000 worth of charges made to a stolen credit card, whether he reported the card stolen or not.  According to the Federal Trade Commission, under federal law a credit card holder's maximum liability for any unauthorized credit card use is $50. (If the cardholder reports the loss before the credit card is used, he cannot be held responsible for any unauthorized charges at all.) If the loss involves the credit card number, but not the card itself, the cardholder also has no liability for unauthorized use.  liability  Frankly, if you're habitually leaving your wallet unattended in an easily-opened locker, you've got a lot more to be concerned about than potential visits from card-swapping scammers. The third scenario covers a situation we've already written an article about, that of identity thieves supposedly snapping pictures of credit cards with cell phone cameras.  This scheme too is possible but implausible, since: article  It's still quite difficult (given the quality of cell phone cameras, the reflectiveness of plastic credit cards, and the usual lack of contrast between the colors of a card's imprinted numbers and its background) to quickly snap off a clear photo of a credit card.  Taking a picture of the front of a credit card won't capture the CVC2 or CVV2 security code required for most CNP (i.e., "card not present") purchases. (American Express, however, is an exception to this, as their security codes are printed on the cardfaces.) security code CNP  Retail clerks and others who typically handle customers' credit cards in the course of business transactions have many, many ways of recording card numbers that are better and easier (and less obtrusive) than literally pointing a camera at a card and taking a picture of it. The admonition to "take caution and don't be careless" with your credit cards is generally sound, but then again, it's also rather obvious advice that applies to just about every aspect of life. Last updated:  22 July 2011 In early 2022, folk-rock legend Neil Young found himself the target of a laughable conspiracy theory after he spoke out against COVID-19-related misinformation. On Jan. 24, Young wrote that he wanted his music removed from the streaming platform Spotify, unless the company ended its agreement to host Joe Rogan's podcast, which has on several occasions provided a forum for potentially harmful misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. In response, Spotify removed Young's back catalog from its library, rather than cutting ties with Rogan.  wrote misinformation removed In the midst of that controversy, vaccine skeptics and COVID-19 conspiracy theorists shared a ludicrous conspiracy theory claiming that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer  which produces a widely-used COVID-19 vaccine  either owned the rights to Young's music catalog or, through a chain of connections, held sway over the rock star and influenced, or even ordered, his pro-vaccination stance.  For example, some social media users posted a meme with the text, "When you realize Neil Young's music catalogue is owned by Pfizer": posted meme   Others did not explicitly claim that Pfizer itself owned some or all of Young's catalog, but did suggest that the company held sway over him, by way of a series of connections, and that therefore Young's opposition to Rogan and his criticism of vaccine misinformation should be dismissed as the result of corruption and self-compromise, rather than a principled stance.  did suggest series connections On social media, a conspiracy theorist who uses the moniker An0maly outlined the theory in helpful detail, starting with the observation that in January 2021, Young reportedly sold half of his catalog to a U.K.-based investment fund called Hipgnosis, for around $150 million. An0maly continued: outlined the theory So, 50% to UK investment fund Hipgnosis. In October of 2021, Blackstone and Hipgnosis Song Management launched [a] "$1 billion partnership to invest in songs, recorded music, music IP and royalties." Interesting. Blackstone is "an American alternative investment management company" who, interestingly enough, in 2020 announced the appointment of "Jeffrey B. Kindler, former chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as [a] senior adviser." Now I don't know the answer to this, but did Neil Young independently make the decision to try and blackball Joe Rogan for questioning big pharma and the government narrative? Or was it a team decision with a multi-billion-dollar investment firm who also owns a big chunk of his music? The first point to note here is that, even among those promulgating the Young-Pfizer theory, it is not seriously suggested that Pfizer itself  which is, after all, a pharmaceutical company  owns the rights to any of Young's music. That claim can be dismissed.  Before assessing the logic behind the theory, and its coherence, it's worth briefly evaluating the accuracy of each of its components. First, it appears to be true that, in January 2021, Young sold half of his songs to Hipgnosis. In a news release, Hipgnosis wrote: "...The Company has acquired 50% of Neil Youngs worldwide copyright and income interests in his entire song catalogue comprising 1,180 songs." news release Secondly, it is also true that in October 2021, Blackstone bought an ownership stake in Hipgnosis, as demonstrated in news releases published by both companies. Finally, it is also true that in August 2020, Blackstone hired Jeff Kindler as a senior advisor, and that Kindler used to be the chairman and CEO of Pfizer.  both companies hired Jeff Kindler used to be However, rather than having uncovered a web of corruption, those pushing the Young-Pfizer story were engaging in the classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy of finding whatever possible connection they can between two separate entities (in this case, Young and Pfizer) without first testing the logical or chronological basis of that putative link. In other words, "connecting the dots" by whatever means available, rather than uncovering an actual, organic conspiracy.  Let's look at the sequence of events. Kindler left Pfizer in 2010  a full decade before he joined Blackstone, and before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Pfizer to develop a vaccine along with its German partner BioNTech. left Pfizer in 2010 Blackstone is a publicly traded company, meaning it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and Kindler, in turn, has a professional obligation to provide sound business and strategic advice to Blackstone. Aside from presenting no concrete evidence whatsoever, those pushing the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory appear to be asking readers to believe, despite these circumstances, one of two explanations: publicly traded company As outlandish as these scenarios are, they are premised on even shakier assumptions: for example, that Kindler was even consulted on the Blackstone-Hipgnosis deal; or that if he was, he was in favor of it; and that Young has any remaining financial or commercial obligations to Hipgnosis and/or Blackstone after the sale of half his music  after all, if that deal is already done, what is the supposed basis of Hipgnosis or Blackstone's putative leverage over Young? It's not necessary to list, in excruciating detail, each of the known factual and logical flaws associated with the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory. The claim that the pharmaceutical company "owned Young's music catalog" was patently false, and the theory of a fantastical web of corruption, with Kindler at its centre, was presented without any concrete evidence and, perhaps more importantly, made no sense whatsoever. One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.  Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!   A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:  The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan.  "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees."
  The New Yorker.  13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld.  "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low."
  The New York Times.  17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta.  "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber.  "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2015. The New York Times.  "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees."
  19 September 2017. On Jan. 14, 2023, media personality Megyn Kelly posted a meme to her Twitter account about Prince Harry and King Charles III that was originally created as a joke, but some onlookers appeared to take it seriously. posted Prince Harry and King Charles III  (Screenshot, @megynkelly Twitter page) The tweet contained an image of Harry and a fake quote about his father, Charles, supposedly from his memoir, "Spare," which published in January 2023. "When I was a child my father grabbed my nose then pulled away with his thumb between his fingers saying 'I've got you're [sic] nose' I thought I had been badly disfigured, the torment I suffered haunts me to this day," the fake quote says. Author Sherry Morris appeared to take the tweet at face value, and the meme appeared in Snopes' inbox of tips from readers for fact-checking: appeared to take the tweet Snopes' inbox of tips  "My dad did that. It was funny. I understood he didn't really have my nose. Good grief I hope his father didn't ask him to pull his finger," Morris tweeted. A couple of things point to the quote being fake and not having come from a published book, namely the misspelling of "your" and the bad punctuation. The image also contains a watermark that says "Belfast Mafia," which is a Facebook account that posts satirical and humorous memes. The account first shared the meme on Jan. 10. Facebook account shared the meme on Jan. 10 It wasn't the only meme of its kind by Belfast Mafia. Using the same image of Harry, the page made asimilarpiece of satirewith a fake quote about him supposedly being traumatized by his older brother William reaching behind him and tapping him on the shoulder. similar [See also on Snopes:Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?] Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal? Palma, Bethania. "Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?" Snopes, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-the-bbc-describe-prince-harrys-book-as-weirdest-book-written-by-a-royal/. "Prince Harry's Spare Becomes Fastest-Selling Non-Fiction Book Ever." Guinness World Records, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/1/prince-harrys-spare-becomes-fastest-selling-non-fiction-book-ever-732915. A single tweet posted on Aug. 25, 2019 caused a significant social media headache for the Olive Garden chain of casual dining Italian-themed restaurants by positing that the business was "funding Trump's re-election in 2020" and suggesting that viewers share the message and promote a boycott:  That Tweet prompted the creation and use of the #BoycottOliveGarden hashtag, as numerous social media users advocated boycotting the restaurant chain over its alleged part in financing of President Trump's re-election campaign: Olive Garden is supporting Trump's bigotry, climate change denial, deregulation, tax cuts for the top 1%. Its okay for rich & corporations to get Gov assistance, meanwhile the average worker never had help from the Gov cuz of this corruption. This must stop. #BoycottOliveGarden pic.twitter.com/1HNT9tryMd #BoycottOliveGarden pic.twitter.com/1HNT9tryMd  Joe Negan (@mynameisNegan) August 26, 2019 August 26, 2019  Olive Garden responded to complaints on social media by quickly and repeatedly disclaiming having made any donations to presidential candidates: We dont know where this information came from, but it is incorrect. Our company does not donate to presidential candidates.  Olive Garden (@olivegarden) August 26, 2019 August 26, 2019  Corporations are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and their committees, so corporate-related donations typically come from a "[company's] PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate family members." prohibited Olive Garden's parent company is Darden, a corporation that also owns several other chain restaurant brands, including LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. Darden Open Secrets, a website operated by the Center for Responsive Politics that tracks "money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy" bears out Olive Garden's claim, showing no Darden-related donations to President Trump's campaign for the 2020 election cycle to date. donations For the previous election cycle, as Open Secrets observed, "all contributions to candidates from Darden Restaurants came from individuals," and contributions to Donald Trump from those individuals totaled a paltry $886 in 2016 and $250 in 2018, hardly enough to merit a claim that the company was "funding" Trump's election or re-election. (Hillary Clinton received nearly ten times as much in Darden-related campaign contributions in 2016 than Donald Trump did.) 2016 2018 Darden does not appear to be operating any political action committees (PACs), and all in all, Darden-related political contributions in 2018 were about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The top three donation recipients were GOPAC, (a Republican state and local political training organization), Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, and the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association. 2018 O'Kane, Caitlin.  "Olive Garden Disputes Claim That It Donated to Trump's Reelection Campaign."
  CBS News.  26 August 2019. Goforth, Claire.  "A Made-Up Tweet About Olive Garden Supporting Trump Sparked a Boycott."
  The Daily Dot.  26 August 2019. Carman, Tim.  "Olive Garden: Unlimited Breadsticks, Yes. Trump Campaign Donations, No."
  The Washington Post.  26 August 2019. 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 On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats: posted   This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is a doctored image that was created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo on it and 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo.  Ice Cube shared the original photograph to his Twitter page in July 2020 along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent:  Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: caption LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson attend the BIG3 three on three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images) Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Twitter Although this image is fake, both of these musicians have truly aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube said that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." work with said 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year: Instagram WHAT THE FUCK! (VOTE For TRUMP) IM OUT. FUCK NEW YORK The KNICKS never win anyway. I dont care Trump doesnt like Black people 62% are you out of ya fucking mind."   This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at rate of more than 62%. Here's a video of Frank on another CNBC show, "Squawk Box," talking about Biden's tax plan: aired explained  Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign in order to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, said he didn't care that "Trump doesnt like Black" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Asmelash, Leah.  "From N.W.A. to MAGA: Ice Cube Takes Some Heat For Working With the Trump Administration."
  CNN.  16 October 2020. Reilly, Nick.  "50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump for President Even Though He 'Doesnt Like Black People."
  NME.  20 October 2020. CNBC.  "Bidens Tax Plan Could Lead to Combined Rate of 62% For High Earners."
  15 October 2020. Frank, Robert.  "Biden Tax Plan Gives $620 Tax Cut to Middle Class, New Study Says."
  CNBC.  15 October 2020. For years, comedian Adam Sandler has been the target of fictional online reports supposedly informing the world of his death. For example, on January 13, 2017, LinkBeef published an item asserting that Sandler had been found dead of an apparent suicide: LinkBeef dead US actor and comedian Adam Sandler has been found dead, aged 49, in an apparent suicide. Marin County Police in California said he was pronounced dead at his home shortly after officials responded to an emergency call around noon local time ... His publicist said he had been battling severe depression. The local Sheriffs office said Sandler was found unconscious and not breathing at his home near Tiburon, north of San Francisco. At this time, the Sheriffs Office Coroner Division suspects the death to be a suicide due to asphyxia, but a comprehensive investigation must be completed before a final determination is made, police said in a statement. In a statement, Adams wife, Jackie Sandler, said she was utterly heartbroken and asked that he be remembered for the joy he brought to the world. That report was nothing more than another celebrity death hoax from fake news purveyor LinkBeef, whose previously published falsehoods include claims that a gang member died after gold plating his genitals, that a "lab-grown" baby had been born, that the pilot of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was found alive in Taiwan, and that a wealthy man attempted to recruit many women to be the prospective mothers of his children. genitals baby Malaysia Airlines prospective mothers Like many long-running fake news outfits, the page renders first as "LinkBeef" before reloading to display "Interesting Things Daily." Then, in late 2020, a TikTok user revived the false rumor by posting a video with the text, "Adam Sandler has now been pronounced dead after drowning." video   Again, this was not a factual retelling of events. Sandler was alive and in the public's eye at the time, promoting recent projects, such as "Hubie Halloween." Hubie Halloween The rumor surfaced again in January 2022, and tabloids such as The Sun featured the above-mentioned TikTok in articles compiling social media users' reaction to the false rumor. The Sun Meanwhile, the phrase "Adam Sandler dead" filled Twitter, and pieces such as the below-transcribed excerpt from a Nigerian junk news website were circulating: Adam Sandler dead pieces Adam Sandler Death  Obituary: On January 12th, 2022 learned about the death of Adam Sandler through a Social Media post. He was an American-based actor, comedian and producer Billy Madison, Big Daddy, The Longest Yard are some of the best comedic roles throughout his career. The cause of his death is car accident. But they left behind a legacy of lovable memories, and those who knew him will miss him greatly. [...] Im sorry to share this sad news about the passing of Adam Sandler. His family and friends are in a state of shock after the unexpected death of him. This was untrue. Sandler, 55, was not dead and the alleged story about a vehicle crash appeared to be made up out of whole cloth. In fact, Sandler was engaging with fans publicly in January 2022, including via the below-displayed tweet to honor Bob Saget after his death (that was real) on Jan. 9. Jan. 9   This report was updated to include information about the death hoax in early 2022. In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a "slush fund" to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers. Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a "slush fund" which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees. Unlike a "slush fund" which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports  for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under "Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance." In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97. here   Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to "Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances," then click on the report for the Legislative Branch). viewed here Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type: compilation A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act], such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA. In at least one of the high-profile cases, that of accusations of harassment leveled against Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), settlement money was paid by his congressional office budget, not the Treasury fund overseen by OOC. The meme is false  the money isn't paid from an illegal "slush fund." It's unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements. However, allegations of sexual abuse and harassment against powerful men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. Conyers and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), NBC News anchor Matt Lauer and in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump, have raised awareness of how rampant the problem is and how secretive and bureaucratically-cumbersome the process is for handling complaints against legislators -- at the expense of taxpayers. This has prompted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Callifornia) to draft legislation to make the OOC's process more transparent and user-friendly for victims of harassment. (A spokesperson for Speier said the way the system currently works "is obviously created to protect the institution over the victims.") As it stands, people seeking to file complaints of harassment on Capitol Hill have to wait a minimum of 90 days after filing their initial incident report with OOC, during which time they must receive mandatory counseling and mediation, then wait an additional 30 days in a "cooling off" period. According to documents provided by Speier's office, the bill (dubbed "Me Too" after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements. Me Too some men Schor, Elana."Congress Sexual Harassment System, Decoded."
Politico.21 November 2017. Hartmann, Margaret."Representative John Conyers Settled Sexual-Harassment Complaint Using Taxpayer Money: Report."
New York Magazine.21 November 2017. Lee, MJ, et al."Congress Paid Out $17 Million in Settlements. Here's Why We Know So Little About That Money."
CNN.16 November 2017. Bennett, Jessica."The #MeToo Moment."
The New York Times.30 November 2017.