McAfee Phishing Scam Email Claims 'Device at Risk'
On July 27, 2022, we reviewed a scam email that claimed to come from "McAfee Support," presumably the tech troubleshooting arm of the company that's best known for providing antivirus software. The message had an unofficial email address as its sender, and the body of the message read, "Device at risk, hurry up and update your license." The bottom of the email displayed the words, "Click here to remove yourself from our emails list." All of the links in the message, including the one for unsubscribing, led to the same web page. Clearly, this email did not really come from McAfee. We ran the link to the web page through two malicious website scanners. According to IPQualityScore, the URL was part of a phishing scam. Email Veritas' URL Checker also dubbed the link unsafe. IPQualityScore Email Veritas' URL Checker  official correspondence We strongly advise readers to never click links in suspicious emails and texts, as they can possibly lead to phishing. The same goes with phone numbers that appear in these kinds of messages, as they often will link you directly with scammers. phishing scammers The scammers' goal with sending these kinds of emails and texts is likely to compromise users' online accounts, personal and financial information, credit and debit card numbers, Social Security numbers, and, perhaps, other sensitive data. AgingCare.com published tips for users who accidentally click phishing links. According to the article, it's best to disconnect your device from the internet, back up your files, scan your device for malware, change your passwords, and set up fraud alerts. article malware We notified McAfee of the above-displayed phishing email and asked if the company had additional information regarding the scammers' motives. This story will be updated if we receive further details. McAfee EmailVeritas. URL Checker. https://www.emailveritas.com/url-checker. Fraud Prevention. IP Quality Score, https://www.ipqualityscore.com. Kerskie, Carrie. 5 Steps to Take After Clicking on a Phishing Link. AgingCare.com, 24 Sept. 2021, https://www.agingcare.com/articles/5-steps-to-take-after-clicking-on-a-phishing-link-178044.htm. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Phishing. Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/technology/phishing. You Get Fake Emails from Scammers Posing as McAfee. McAfee KB, https://www.mcafee.com/support/?articleId=TS103285&page=shell&shell=article-view.
In July 2020, a rumor started to circulate on social media in an apparent attempt to link 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in August 2019. This rumor held that former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden owned an island right next to "Little St. James," the island at the center of Epstein's alleged pedophile ring:   Biden does not own an island in the Caribbean. (Side note: The above-displayed tweet claims that Biden owns the "biggest mansion" in Delaware. That's also false. You can read more about that claim here.) here Those spreading the rumor that the former vice president owns an island in the Caribbean across from Epstein's island appear to be confusing Joe Biden for his brother, James Biden. And while it's true that James Biden (not Joe) owns property in the Caribbean, details about this property purchase were distorted as they spread online.  For instance, James Biden does not own an island. He owns a small piece of property on Water Island, an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Water Island is approximately 500 acres and in 2005 James Biden purchased a single acre of land on it. The following year, James Biden sold a portion of this land to lobbyist Scott Green. When Politico reported on this deal in January 2020, the story focused on how James Biden may have gotten a favorable price for the plot due to Green's lobbying connections: reported In 2005, Joe Bidens brother bought an acre of land with excellent ocean views on a remote island in the Caribbean for $150,000. He divided it into three parcels, and the next year a lobbyist close to the Delaware senator bought one of the parcels for what had been the cost of the entire property. Later, the lobbyist gave Bidens brother a mortgage loan on the remaining parcels. The Virgin Islands land deal, reported here for the first time, furthers a pattern in which members of the Biden family have engaged in financial dealings with people with an interest in influencing the former vice president. Politico did not report that Joe Biden owned this island or that he was even aware of this land deal. When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Joe Biden told Politico: "Joe Biden was wrong. Politico does have a sense of humor. Because this story is an absolute joke." Biden does not list any properties in the Caribbean on his financial disclosure forms that are available on his presidential campaign website. Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, told the AFP that Biden "does not and never has" owned property in the U.S. Virgin Islands.  financial disclosure AFP It should also be noted that describing the island where James Biden owns land as being "right across from Epstein island" is misleading. Little St. James, the island that was owned by Epstein and reportedly the site of many of his crimes, is in close proximity to several other populated islands, such as St. Thomas, Thatch Cay, Greater St. James, Water Island, and the Virgin Islands National Park. Owning property in this area does not make you (or your relatives) complicit in Epstein's crimes:     To sum up: Former Vice President Joe Biden does not own an island in the Caribbean. Joe Biden's brother, James Biden, owns a small piece of property on Water Island.  Schreckinger, Ben.  "Lobbyist Bought Tropical Land From Bidens Brother."
  Politico.  28 January 2020. Reuters.  "Fact Check: Joe Biden Does Not Own Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands."
  5 July 2020. Timberlake, Ian.  "Joe Biden Does Not Own Island Next to Sex Offender Jeffrey Epsteins Hideaway."
  AFP.  31 July 2020. Clover Chronicle.  "Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein And Joe Biden: Private Islands, Secret Ports And Submarines."
  5 July 2020. This years primary elections are getting so nasty that Lithonia Congressman Hank Johnson has taken to calling them slimary elections.In an op-ed on liberal website The Huffington Post, Johnson, a Democrat, blamed the viciousness on super PACs, political fundraising organizations that can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and unions alike.In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations, Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.Those are some big bucks, wealthy people, and generous businesses. We wondered if Johnson got his numbers right.Super PACs became legal after a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision. They are an object of ire for those who think they can be used to buy elections and help donors obscure their identities.A Johnson spokesman said the congressman got his data from articles in Politico and Roll Call. The stories, which ran Feb. 8, lay out the findings of Auctioning Democracy: The Rise of Super PACs & the 2012 Election.The report was authored by left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocacy group. It argued that super PACs skew American politics by giving outsize influence to wealthy donors who hold views that do not represent those held by the broader public.Johnsons account matched both news accounts descriptions of the Auctioning Democracy report. One of these descriptions could have been more precise, but they were not unreasonable.From the advent of super PACs to the end of 2011, donors have contributed a total of $181 million in what are called itemized individual contributions to super PACs, the report states. These are contributions from donors who give more than $200. Super PACs must report donor names once their contributions pass this threshold.The report did not tally contributions by small donors, said Adam Lioz, a Demos official and an author of the report.Demos and U.S. PIRG found that 196 people donated $100,000 or more to super PACs, which is just shy of 200 individuals. Calling them super-rich is polarizing, but its reasonable to assume that people who can afford to make a $100,000 donation have unusually high incomes.We used the reports findings to calculate that donations of the super-rich amounted to about 43 percent of total contributions. This is some 7 percentage points lower than the roughly half figure that Johnson used.For-profit businesses contributed 17 percent of itemized donations, the report states. This is just shy of the 20 percent Johnson cited.We checked with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for more transparency in government. It is the source of much of the data used in the report, so we wanted to get the organizations take on the numbers. A spokesman said they found no problems with the conclusions of Auctioning Democracy.But for the sake of due diligence, we compared the reports numbers to data published by the Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps a rolling tally of super PAC contributions on its websiteOpenSecrets.org.The data from the CRP and the Auctioning Democracy report are not easy to compare. They track contributions over different time periods, and the CRP tallies a broader pool of contributions.However, we felt an analysis of the CRP data would give us a rough sense of whether Demos and U.S. PIRG overstated their results to make their case.First, we looked at the CRPs count of total super PAC donations.From 2010 to late February, about $215 million had been donated to super PACs, according to the CRP data. This is about $35 million -- or 20 percent -- more than the data published in Auctioning Democracy, but this difference did not signal major flaws.The CRPs number should be significantly higher than the figures in Auctioning Democracy. The report excludes donations of $200 or less as well as contributions for the 2012 calendar year. The CRP includes them.Next, we looked at whether roughly half of super PAC donations came from 200 super-rich people. The CRP publishes a list of the top 100 super PAC donors for the 2012 election cycle on its website. We found they donated about $74 million so far, or 57 percent of the cycles $130 million total.The count in Auctioning Democracy was lower, which suggests that Demos and U.S. PIRG did not overstate the significance of donations from the super-rich.We had difficulty using the CRPs data to check corporate or business donations. The CRPs Web page lists too few organizations, and does not distinguish between for-profit businesses and groups such as labor unions or advocacy organizations.Our rulingJohnson wrote that [i]n the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations.On balance, Johnsons claim reflects the findings of a report by two advocacy groups that are critical of super PACs. The statistics Johnson uses also make sense in light of data published by a separate group.We give Johnson a True. In April 2020, a coupon purporting to offer $250 in merchandise from the Kohl's department store circulated in Facebook posts directing viewers to click on a survey question:    This was a scam. Such efforts that trick viewers by offering free goods or money are long-standing. Kohl's is also a frequent target of such scams, but this fraud can target any business, from airlines to beer makers. A good rule of thumb to follow: If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. also frequent any airlines beer makers 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. Despite the latest coupon scam above, Kohl's was indeed celebrating its 57th year as a department store, as of September 2019. It opened its first store in Brookfield, Wisconsin, according to company literature. In 2016, a variation of the same type of scam circulated, offering viewers $75 off purchases. literature variation The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers WHP.  "Scam Alert: Kohl's $75 Off Coupon Is Too Good to Be True."
  24 May 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook."
  14 April 2017. The introduction of new EMV (Europay, MasterCard, and Visa) technology has enhanced the security of debit and credit card transactions by replacing standard cards with ones embedded with small computer chips  thats extremely hard to counterfeit.  The addition of the chips makes the cards much harder to counterfeit and provides for additional authentication and security during point-of-sale transactions. The manner in which EMV cards are physically handled during a sales transaction is somewhat different than with older cards, however.  Rather than being swiped through a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, EMV cards are inserted (or "dipped") into the terminal and left in place for the entire transaction so that the reader and card can talk back and forth. EMV cards can be either swiped or dipped (since not all merchants are yet set up with EMV-compliant card readers), and that duality has led to some confusion among consumers about whether liability for fraudulent transactions shifts depending upon how an EMV card is processed.  Specifically, some consumers have heard rumors that swiping an EMV card rather than dipping it leaves them (rather than the merchant or card issuer) liable for any ensuing fraudulent use of the card. The issue of fraud liability has evolved with the introduction of EMV cards, but that liability has not been passed back onto cardholders.  According to CreditCards.com, that evolution solely concerns determining whether the merchant or the card issuer is the party bears liability for fraud in any given case  cardholders themselves remain protected from liability, regardless of whether their EMV cards are swiped or dipped: CreditCards.com Cardholders may be adjusting to "dipping" their chip cards instead of swiping them, but they won't have to adjust to fraud liability changes. If an authorized transaction occurs against a consumer's credit account, they will continue to be reimbursed by their card issuer for the charges per the major networks' (Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover) zero-liability policies. If the issuer finds that the fraud occurred at a non-EMV compliant merchant, it can request a refund for the chargeback transaction, but the consumer is not involved. Consumers will not be responsible for fraud charges that result from a merchant not being prepared to properly accept EMV cards or because their card issuer has not yet sent them a chip-embedded card. What the new rules govern is whether merchants or card issuers (i.e., banks and credit unions) are liable in cases of credit card fraud, with responsibility now falling upon whichever party was least EMV-compliant: Today, if an in-store transaction is conducted using a counterfeit, stolen or otherwise compromised card, consumer losses from that transaction fall back on the payment processor or issuing bank, depending on the card's terms and conditions. Following an Oct. 1, 2015 deadline created by major U.S. credit card issuers MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express, the liability for card-present fraud shifted to whichever party is the least EMV-compliant in a fraudulent transaction. Consider the example of a financial institution that issues a chip card used at a merchant that has not changed its system to accept chip technology. This allows a counterfeit card to be successfully used. "The cost of the fraud will fall back on the merchant," [chip card service company president Martin] Ferenczi says. The change is intended to help bring the entire payment industry on board with EMV by encouraging compliance to avoid liability costs. A separate article on that web site illustrated the liability shifts with a chart: illustrated  Many consumers have noticed that although some merchants have seemingly upgraded to EMV-compliant POS terminals, the card slots on those terminals are puzzlingly non-operational (and thus require that customers swipe their chipped cards).  As the New York Times noted  in March 2016, that situation is the result of merchants' having to wait for certification of their terminals: noted  Avi Kaner, a co-owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain in New York, has spent about $700,000 to update the payment terminals at his stores. Trouble is, he cannot turn them on. The new terminals can accept credit and debit cards with embedded digital chips, a security feature intended to reduce the number of fraudulent purchases. But before the payment systems can work, they must be certified, a process that Mr. Kaner and many retailers around the country are waiting to happen. In the case of Morton Williams, the holdup has lasted several months. The cost of waiting, retailers say, is piling up. Until recently, banks covered much of the cost of fraudulent purchases. Since Oct. 1, though, merchants that cannot accept chip cards have had to shoulder the cost of fraud, and banks have not been shy about passing along the bill. For years, retailers have argued that the technology, commonly referred to as E.M.V., which stands for Europay, MasterCard and Visa, the technologys early advocates, mainly protected banks. Mr. Peterson estimated that only 40 to 50 percent of retailers are capable of accepting chip cards. Kaner told the newspaper he believed consumers were taking advantage of the interim period to file suspicious chargebacks due to the shift in liability: Mr. Kaner worries that some customers may be using the Oct. 1 liability shift to get out of paying for legitimate purchases. The number of chargebacks, he said, has risen sharply. It started out as a trickle, and now its turning into a flood, he said. In the first couple months, it might have been a few hundred dollars a month. Now, its thousands a month. Terry Crowley, CEO of processor TranSend, told KrebsonSecurity that consumer dishonesty was a larger issue than consumer liability during the transition period: told Crowley predicts that plenty of smaller merchants could soon get hit with a wave of chargebacks from unscrupulous people abusing the liability shift at merchants that still dont offer the chip dip. Theres an invisible hand at work that is about to kick everyone in the pants and accelerate U.S. dipping into EMV slots, Crowley said. If you use a chip card at a point of sale that says swipe   and you later say that wasnt me  theres very little a merchant can do to dispute that charge. Its going to happen because what people arent thinking about is the friendly fraud. When people are made aware that if I swipe and I have a chip card, that lunch can be free if Im a bad consumer. It's possible cardholders have confused information intended for merchants as being directed at them.Processor Square published a short instructional guide for the EMV card liability shift that might have caused such confusion among consumers who didn't realize the pronoun "you" referred to merchants and not cardholders: instructional guide  But, in short, consumers don't have to adjust to fraud liability changes with EMV cards.  That's an issue for merchants and card issuers to sort out between them. Abrams, Rachel.  "Chip-Card Payment System Delays Frustrate Retailers."
  The New York Times.  22 March 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "7 Merchant Tips to Understanding EMV Fraud Liability Shift."
  CreditCards.com.  21 June 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "8 FAQs About EMV Credit Cards."
  CreditCards.com.  17 June 2016. KrebsonSecurity.  "The Great EMV Fake-Out: No Chip for You!"
  16 February 2016. On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention 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. In November 2021, rumors swirled online in the aftermath of a major incident in Waukesha, Wisconsin, in which an individual driving an SUV appeared to plow into crowds attending a Christmas parade, killing at least five people and injuring dozens. major incident killing at least five people On the evening of Nov. 21, police officers said they had a person of interest in custody. The day after the incident, on Nov. 22, Waukesha Police Chief Daniel Thompson named him as Darrell E. Brooks, 39, a resident of Milwaukee, adding that authorities intended to charge him with five counts of first-degree intentional homicide.  police officers said named him In the hours after the incident, social media platforms were already rife with various claims about the background and past convictions of Brooks. Below, we analyze a selection of the most significant and widely shared rumors about the alleged Christmas parade assailant, in the 24 hours after the fatal incident. This collection may be updated, if and when further significant claims or conspiracies emerge.  True An example of posts making this claim can be found here. In May 2006, prosecutors in Washoe County, Nevada, charged Brooks with one count of statutory sexual seduction, a felony defined in Nevada law as sexual intercourse or penetration "committed by a person 18 years of age or older with a person under the age of 16 years." here charged defined in Nevada law The details of the case were not immediately available. However, we do know that it was elevated to the 2nd Judicial District Court, where Brooks went on to plead guilty as part of a plea agreement, in November 2006.  plead guilty as part of a plea agreement NVSexOffenders.gov  an official Nevada Department of Public Safety database  lists Brooks as a "non-compliant" sex offender, a term for sex offenders who "fail to initially register, fail to comply with verification or fail to update personal information; i.e., residential address, employment information, school information": lists Brooks non-compliant   In 2016, Washoe County prosecutors charged Brooks with violating Chapter 179.D.550 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which requires convicted sex offenders to properly register with local law enforcement agencies, and to inform them of address changes. charged Brooks Chapter 179.D.550 True Examples of that claim can be found here and here. On Nov. 5, prosecutors in Milwaukee County charged Brooks with several counts, including domestic abuse, battery, jumping bail, and resisting an officer: here here charged   According to court records, Brooks had pleaded not guilty to those charges, and on Nov. 19, he posted his $1,000 bail bond. The next scheduled hearing in that case was set for Dec. 20, 2021. Therefore, it was accurate to state that Brooks was out on bail on unrelated charges, in Milwaukee County, at the time of the parade incident in nearby Waukesha.  on Nov. 19, he posted his $1,000 bail bond Unproven In the hours following the parade incident, the possible motivations of the individual driving the SUV in Waukesha were the subject of intensive online speculation, with some positing that the incident must have been an "act of terrorism." However, several outlets indicated otherwise. For example, CNN reported that: positing CNN There are indications the Waukesha suspect was fleeing another incident when he drove into the parade route, according to multiple law enforcement sources familiar with preliminary investigation findings. Similarly, NBC News reported that: NBC News Four senior law enforcement officials had said that a person of interest who may have a significant criminal history was being questioned overnight, with investigators probing the possibility that the driver had been fleeing an earlier incident involving a knife fight. And on Nov. 22, The Washington Post wrote: Washington Post A law enforcement official told The Washington Post that suspect Darrell Brooks, 39, was at the scene of a reported knife fight, then sped away in the red SUV when police arrived at that scene. Brooks was allegedly behind the wheel when it drove into the parade route...The law enforcement official told The Post that Brooks has a number of prior criminal arrests, but investigators have not yet found anything tying the vehicular violence to any sort of terrorism or ideology. So far, it appears his main intent was to escape the police at the prior incident, the official said. At a follow-up news conference on Nov. 22, Waukesha Police Chief Thompson said Brooks was involved in a "domestic disturbance" "just prior" to the parade incident, and insisted there was "no evidence this is a terrorist incident," and said his department had no information to suggest that Brooks knew anyone in the parade.  follow-up news conference The early indications from local law enforcement, both on and off the record, strongly suggested that Brooks had indeed been moving quickly away from the scene of an unrelated altercation and/or crime at the time of the Christmas parade incident. However, we have not yet seen underlying evidence linked to this specific claim, so we cannot yet reach a definitive conclusion on it. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven" on the claim for now.  5 Dead, More than 40 Injured after SUV Slams into Wisconsin Christmas Parade. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/20-injured-suv-drives-wisconsin-holiday-parade-route-rcna6292. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021. In its latest print advertisement, placed Oct. 5 in 41 newspapers statewide, the Back to Basics PAC angles to turn Gov. Rick Perry's favorite selling point against him: the Texas economy. Perry often touts job gains on his watch; in a recent TV spot, titled Texas: Open for Business, he says Texas has gained more jobs than all other states combined from January 2001 to June 2010, a statement we recently ratedTrue. Yet the latest Back to Basics ad finds fault, pointing out that Perry fails to acknowledge that lawmakers balanced the latest state budget partly by accepting billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. The ad then lists some economic changes that have occurred since the governor wrote President Barack Obama in February 2009 assuring him that the state would accept the federal dollars. Punch line: Perry won't tell you that the Texas unemployment rate has even grown more than the nations as a whole. Really?On its website, Back to Basics points to statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that the Texas unemployment rate between February 2009 and August 2010 rose from 6.8 percent to 8.3 percent, up 1.5 percentage points. During the same period, the U.S. unemployment rate grew from 8.2 percent to 9.6 percent, up 1.4 percentage points. The number of jobless people in Texas grew by 204,400 during that time  an increase of 26 percent. Meanwhile, the nation as a whole experienced a 17 percent increase. We checked with Cheryl Abbot, a bureau economist in Dallas, who told us that the figures used by Back to Basics were correct. She also told us that there were no statistical or logical problems with comparing the increase in the state's unemployment rate with that of the United States. I would probably phrase (the statement) more correctly as 'the unemployment rate has increased at a faster rate in Texas,' but saying that it's grown more, there's probably nothing wrong with putting it that way, Abbot said. We asked Abbot how best to interpret the 0.1 percentage point gap between the changes in the national and state unemployment rates. She said there is very little difference between 1.5 and 1.4 in this context, noting that one interpretation of the numbers could be that during those 18 months, Texas' job performance was about the same as the nation's. That's part of Back to Basics' point, said Cliff Walker, the group's director. Those numbers show Perry isn't as good as he says he is, he said. Next, we looked into whether changing the time period for comparing unemployment rates also changes the result. We tried five different starting points -- January 2009, December 2008, November 2008, January 2007 and December 2000 -- and in all those cases, the Texas unemployment rate increased by the same number of percentage points as the national rate, or less. (December 2000 was when Perry entered the governor's office, and January 2007 was the beginning of his current term.) When we asked Walker why Back to Basics started its time period of comparison with the month of Perry's letter to Obama, he told us that the group is trying to draw attention to the fact that Perry took federal stimulus dollars  a fact that many Texans, more than a year and a half later, still do not know. Our take: Back to Basics' statement accurately recaps a specific time period  the 18 months following Perry's acceptance of federal stimulus aid for Texas in February 2009  that shows unemployment rising faster in Texas than the nation as a whole. As our analysis shows, though, lengthening the time period often yields a different result, with unemployment in Texas rising more slowly than the nation. We rate the statement Mostly True. Claim:  Actor Sean Penn published a letter to President George W. Bush in The Washington Post. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America Mr. Bush: Good morning sir. Like you, I am a father and an American. Like you, I consider myself a patriot. Like you, I was horrified by the events of this past year, concerned for my family and my country. However,I do not believe in a simplistic and inflammatory view of good and evil. I believe this is a big world full of men, women, and children who struggle  to eat, to love, to work, to protect their families, their beliefs, and their dreams. My father, like yours, was decorated for service in World War II. He raised me with a deep belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they should apply to all Americans who would sacrifice to maintain them and to all human beings as a matter of principle.  Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate ("with us or against us"), marginalization of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim. You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement. Take a close look at your mostvehement media supporters. See the fear in their eyes as their loud voices of support ring out with that historically disastrous undercurrent of rage and panic masked as "straight tough talk." How far have we come from understanding what it is to kill one man, one woman, or one child, much less the "collateral damage" of many hundreds of thousands. Your use of the words, "this is a new kind of war" is often accompanied by an odd smile. It concerns me that what you are asking of us is to abandon all previous lessons of history in favor of following you blindly into the future. It worries me because with all your best intentions, an enormous economic surplus has been squandered. Your administration has virtually dismissed the most fundamental environmental concerns and therefore, by implication, one gets the message that, as you seem to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world, would you also be willing to sacrifice ours. I know this cannot be your aim so, I beg you Mr. President, listen toGershwin, read chapters of Stegner, of Saroyan, the speeches of Martin Luther King. Remind yourself of America. Remember the Iraqi children, our children, and your own.  There can be no justification for the actions of Al Qaeda. Nor acceptance of the criminal viciousness of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Yet, that bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop. However, principles cannot be recklessly or greedily abandoned in the guise of preserving them.  Avoiding war while accomplishing national security is no simple task. But you will recall that we Americans had a little missile problem down in Cuba once. Mr. Kennedy's restraint (and that of the nuclear submarine captain, Arkhipov) is to be aspired to. Weapons of mass destruction areclearly a threat to the entire world in any hands. But as Americans, we must ask ourselves, since the potential for Mr. Hussein to possess them threatens not only our country, (and in fact, his technology to launch is likely not yet at that high a level of sophistication) therefore, many in his own region would have the greatest cause for concern. Why then, is the United States, as led by your administration, in the small minority of the world nations predisposed toward a preemptive military assault on Iraq?  Simply put, sir, let us re-introduce inspection teams, inhibiting offensive capability. We buy time, maintain our principles here and abroad and demand of ourselves the ingenuity to be the strongest diplomatic muscle on the planet, perhaps in the history of the planet. The answers will come. You are a man of faith, but your saber is rattling the faith of many Americans in you.  I do understand what a tremendously daunting task it must be to stand in your shoes at this moment. As a father of two young children who will live their lives in the world as it will be affected by critical choices today, I have no choice but to believe that you can ultimately stand as a great president. History has offered you such a destiny. So again, sir, I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror. Don't destroy our children's future. We will support you. You must support us, your fellow Americans, and indeed, mankind.  Defend us from fundamentalism abroad but don't turn a blind eye to the fundamentalism of a diminished citizenry through loss of civil liberties, of dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress, and of this country's mistaken and pervasive belief that its "manifest destiny" is to police the world. We know that Americans are frightened and angry. However, sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation, may well prove itself a most temporary medicine. On the other hand, should you mine and have faith in the best of this country to support your leadership in representing a strong, thoughtful, and educated United States, you may well triumph for the long haul. Lead us there, Mr. President, and we will standwith you. Sincerely,Sean PennSan Francisco, California  Origins:  The letter quoted above did indeed appear in the pages of The Washington Post as a paid advertisement.  Numerous news stories have reported that it cost actor Sean Penn $56,000 to run the ad, which took up most of a page in the first section of the 18 October 2002 edition of The Washington Post. Is Sean Penn right? It doesn't matter  the point is every American always has opinions about the government, and this condition exists no matter who is in the White House or what he's doing. There are going to be people on both sides of any issue, and at times some of them will be famous and/or wealthy. There's a larger question here: Should the opinions of celebrities or the well-to-do be accorded higher degrees of respect simply because the folks they issue from have the power or money to publicize them? Most folks don't have the requisite $56,000 to ensure their views get printed in The Washington Post and instead have to make do with a 37 stamp and their faith in the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail to the White House. This method, by the way, works well when the sole object of the activity is to relay one citizen's deeply-felt concerns to the President of his country  a stamp places that power to be heard into every person's hands, no matter how humble. Buying space in a newspaper, however, is far less about securing the attention of a President deemed urgently in need of guidance than it is about pontificating to the masses, even if the piece is putatively "addressed" to just one person. It's a soapbox grab and an especially arrogant, self-entitled one in that the podium is gained not by virtue of stunning displays of eloquence or irrefutable logic but by way of its having been rented for the day. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1999 the median income for American households was $41,994. In other words, the wage earners in a statistically typical American family  would have to work at least 16 months just to gross what this Sean Penn paid for a turn on the soapbox.  For many of them, including the millions of families living far below the poverty line, $56,000 is an unimaginable fortune, the likes of which they'll never see unless they hit the lottery. They therefore cannot pay to get their opinions published in a newspaper. $41,994 Barbara "money talks" Mikkelson Additional information:  Last updated:  2 December 2007 OK folks, we don't often get serious but this is important. Little Kyron Horman has been missing and his mother just put up this billboard in WA state.... please share everyone... please! This boy needs to be home with his Momma :(((  As noted on the web site of National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Kyron Richard Horman, then seven years old, went missing from his Portland, Oregon, home back in June 2010: Kyron Richard Horman He was last seen at school on June 4, 2010. Kyron was last seen wearing a black t-shirt with "CSI" in green letters and a handprint graphic. He was also wearing black cargo pants, white socks, and black Sketchers sneakers with orange trim. Kyron may wear glasses. More than two years later, this missing child case was brought to widespread public attention in conjunction with legal maneuvering, in which a $10 million lawsuit was brough by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, which sought to compel Kyron's stepmother, Terri Horman, to either return Kyron or provide information about what had happened to him: More than two-years after 6-year-old Oregon boy Kyron Horman disappeared, the boy's stepmother is asking a judge to delay hearing a civil suit that says she knows the child's location.  The lawsuit was filed against Terri Horman by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, asking the judge to order the stepmother to return Kyron or, if he's dead, say where his remains are located. The lawsuit also seeks $10 million. Terri Horman says in a brief that a criminal investigation is under way, and the civil suit should be stayed two years while it plays out. Investigators have long focused on Terri Horman, although they have not named her as a suspect or filed criminal charges. The lawsuit accuses her of kidnapping Kyron, by herself or with help. The boy was reportedly last seen on the morning of June 4, 2010 at Skyline Elementary School in Portland, where his stepmother had taken him for a science fair. Five years on, Kyron's case was still being actively pursued by law enforcement, friends, and family: As the five-year anniversary of Kyron Horman's disappearance approaches, The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office wants the public to know the search is still active. Friends and family members said they plan to put together another search effort this summer. But Lt. Steve Alexander said the sheriff's office had to date received more than 4,000 tips in the case. And he said the investigation is definitely still active. "A full time sheriff's office detective is primarily assigned to the Kyron Horman missing child investigation, and efforts to locate Kyron," Alexander said. "Additionally, a now-retired FBI Agent with years of experience in the Child Abduction Rapid Deployment teams continues his involvement in this case, reviewing the evidence amassed by investigators." He said tips in the case come in from all over the world nearly every day. Kyron's stepmother Terri Horman, whom a judge described as a prime suspect in her stepson's disappearance, has twice tried to change her name, and in January 2016 she was reported to have moved out of Oregon to California: The stepmother of missing Portland boy Kyron Horman has moved out of Oregon. In October [2015], Terri Horman changed her Oregon driver's license to an address in Sacramento, California. In August 2014, Terri Horman tried to change her name to Claire Stella Sullivan.  During a court hearing, Horman said she wanted a new name to "start over a new life without the stigma of Horman attached to it."  A Douglas County judge denied that request. Four months later, Horman applied for another name change in Lane County.  She wanted to change her name to Claire Kisiel, but later withdrew the request In a 20 January 2016 interview with People magazine, Terri Horman asserted she had nothing to do with Kyron's disappearance: Terri has never been named a suspect or a person of interest in the case surrounding Kyron's disappearance, which officials for the Multnomah County Sheriff's Department say is an "ongoing investigation."  Still, a cloud of suspicion has followed Terri, and she's ready to answer questions that people have wanted to know. Terri [says] she did not harm or kill Kyron and has no idea what happened to him or where he is.  "The answer is what I've said a hundred times  I don't know." A Facebook group has been established to help disseminate information about Kyron and raise funds for ongoing search efforts. Facebook Leibowitz, Barry.  "Kyron Horman's Stepmom Wants Delay in Lawsuit."
  CBSNews.com  25 July 2012.