Is This a Photograph of Women 'Screaming Through Their Vaginas' to Protest Trump?
On 27 June 2018 the Facebook page Uncle Sam's Misguided Children shared the photograph reproduced below, purportedly showing women "screaming" at United States President Donald Trump, but somehow through their vaginas: shared photograph   Text on the image read: Not a joke. They gathered to scream at Trump through their vaginas. These are the people who want to control the government and teach your kids. Predictably, no documentary information was presented to support the claim, and Facebook users were both expected to  and did take the explanation on its face. However, a reverse image search indicated that the image had been circulating since at least February 2016, well before President Donald Trump was elected. A number of backstories were previously attributed to the photograph. In February 2018, YouTube videos and blogs claimed that the images showed "a new trend" known as "raising your skirt for diversity": videos blogs claimed I follow a few accounts on Instagram that post hilarious feminist stuff (or, I suppose, anti-feminist stuff), and on one of those accounts today, I came across this: [Image.] Obviously, I had to investigate to see if Raising The Skirt is an Actual Thing, which is what led me to the sourcelink. And you guys, their About page is positively insane. It says, in big bold letters across the top, "Reclaim your c*nt. Reclaim our c*nt." Only without the polite asterisks. The disgusting feminists of the world have officially outdone themselves. They've now launched a new project dubbed "Raising the Skirt," which calls on women to perform a sick act in public. Case in point: Some of the more enthusiastic social justice warriors of the feminist movement have begun a project called "Raising the Skirt," aimed at "celebrating the diversity of vaginas." This is not a drill. There are actual women gathering with the sole purpose of raising their skirts, exposing their most intimate part to complete strangers. And they call it a celebration. At that point, the photograph was at least two years old, and had circulated once again on Reddit in July 2017: old Reddit     Originally reported articles about the "new feminist trend" of skirt-raising dated back to September 2015, but did not include the photograph seen above: articles "Raising the Skirt" by artist Nicola Canavan is exploring [women's relationships with their genitals] in her series of portraits of everyday women, as they share the beauty of their bodies, while exploring their relationships with their vaginas and what they symbolise to them. A photograph labeled as "feminists ... screaming through their vaginas" at President Trump was taken in or earlier than February 2016, and was later attributed to artist Nicola Canavan's "Raising the Skirt" series of portraits. Canavan's work was not a "feminist trend," but rather a photography project undertaken on a relatively small scale. We contacted Canavan, who confirmed that this is one of her images. Further, we found no evidence that either skirt-raising or vagina-screaming had become a popular activity for any reason. Sinclair, Leah.  "This Artist Is Pushing For Recognition Of Vagina Diversity."   Dazed.  15 September 2015. Chicks on the Right.  "Raising Your Skirt To Celebrate Vagina Diversity Is a Thing Now."   20 February 2018. Mad World News.  "Disgusting Feminists Launch 'Raise the Skirt' Project, Want Women To Do SICK Act in Public."   20 February 2018. Raising The Skirt.  "About."   Accessed 27 June 2018.
Did U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who characterizes himself as a champion of the middle class, vote for a $525-billion tax increase on that group?That's one assertion in atelevision adby Republican challenger Barry Hinckley.After raising an allegation about insider trading, which Whitehouse has strongly denied, the commercial says Whitehouse voted to raise taxes on middle-class families. The phrase $525 billion tax increase on the middle class flashes on the screen.The commercial offers no further information about what Hinckley is talking about, so we asked the Hinckley campaign for its backup.Campaign manager Patrick Sweeney said the ad refers to the Affordable Care Act, the health care plan often known as Obamacare, which Whitehouse supported. PolitiFact has examined similar claims, including one in which Hinckley declared that the law will add trillions of dollars in debt, a claimwe ruled False.The government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the legislation, designed to expand health coverage, will generate $525 billion in revenue. A lower estimate by Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation predicted it will bring in more than $437.8 billion. Sweeney said the ad is using the CBO estimate.But there are a few significant facts the ad doesn't mention.First, that's not money raised over one year. It'sover 10 years, from 2010 through 2019 for legislation that is being gradually phased in. In 2019, annual revenue is expected to have risen to $88.2 billion.Second, most of the money won't be coming from the middle class, as the ad states.For example, a huge chunk of the revenue, $210 billion of the $437.8 billion in the Joint Committee estimate, comes from both a higher Medicare payroll tax to be paid by individuals earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for couples filing jointly) and from a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income if your income is already high.Those take effect in 2013 and are taxes that middle class families will not see.Other taxes aren't geared to the middle class either, although all taxpayers may have to foot the bill indirectly as the extra costs are factored into the goods and services they buy.They include a fee for pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers (which will raise an estimated $27 billion); an excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices ($20 billion); and a fee on health insurance providers ($60.1 billion).In addition, there's the excise tax on indoor tanning services (expected to raise $2.7 billion) and the stricter limit on deducting medical expenses on tax returns, which is expected to raise $15.2 billion. Both will have a more direct effect on the well-tanned or very-ill middle class.One other element of the law that will affect the middle class is the provision of Obamacare known as theindividual mandate. It requires people to pay an annual penalty if they don't buy health insurance. It takes effect in 2014, starting off at a minimum of $95 for an individual and rising to $695 per year in 2016. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that controversial provision by characterizing it as a tax, not a penalty.Is this a tax/penalty on the middle class?The CBO, the source used by the Hinckley campaign, has estimated that by 2016, 55 percent of the money collected via the individual mandate will come from people with incomes in the top 20 percent, which is a family of four making roughly $120,000 or more.So less than half the money will be coming from middle class Americans.How much money is involved?About $4 billion in 2016. The amount coming from the middle class and lower class: roughly $1.8 billion.To put that in perspective, $1.8 billion is 3 percent of the $57 billion or so Obamacare will be raising from everyone in 2016.Our rulingBarry Hinckley said Sheldon Whitehouse voted for a $525 billion tax increase on the middle class.The ad doesn't say that it's really talking about Obamacare, and that the money is designed to help pay for health coverage for the uninsured, many of whom are in the middle class.It also doesn't point out that the $525 billion is spread out over 10 years, through 2019. Most of it doesn't come from the middle class.And of the $4 billion the government expects to collect each year from people who choose not to purchase health insurance, less than half will come from the middle class.The claim in the Hinckley ad is so ridiculously off base, we rate itPants on Fire! (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) In August 2020, readers asked us to examine the accuracy of claims that before he took office, U.S. President Donald Trump had made donations to a previous election campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., whom presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden named as his vice-presidential running mate.  Shortly after Biden named Harris as his running mate on Aug. 11, the president's reelection campaign denounced her as "phony Kamala," claiming she was willing to "abandon her own morals, as well as try to bury her record as a prosecutor, in order to appease the anti-police extremists controlling the Democrat party." named denounced In an email sent to supporters, the Trump campaign also labeled Harris "a corrupt former California Attorney General":   Paul Begala, a former advisor to former President Bill Clinton, alluded to a degree of irony in this allegation, claiming in a tweet that "Trump donated to Kamala Harris when she was [attorney general]." claiming In widely shared tweets, NBC News correspondent Tom Winter claimed that Trump had twice contributed to Harris' election campaign, in 2011 and 2013, donating a total of $6,000. Winter also said that Trump's daughter and advisor Ivanka Trump had herself donated $2,000 to Harris' campaign in 2014: claimed   Those claims were accurate. Records available through the campaign finance database on the website of the California secretary of state show that Trump made two contributions to Harris' 2014 campaign for reelection as California attorney general: a $5,000 donation on Sep. 26, 2011, and a $1,000 donation on Feb. 20, 2013. Harris first took office in January 2011, which means Trump contributed to her reelection when she had already been in office for eight months, and two years, respectively.  database In March 2019, The Sacramento Bee reported that a spokesperson for Harris' presidential primary campaign had said she "donated the $6,000 Trump had contributed to a non-profit that advocates for civil and human rights for Central Americans," with the newspaper adding that Harris' donation of the money took place in 2015.  reported We contacted spokespeople for both Harris and Biden, requesting further details about that claim, including the name of the charity in question, and the date on which Harris purportedly donated $6,000 to the charity. We did not receive a response in time for publication. The campaign finance database also reveals that the future president made several other campaign contributions in California, to both Republicans and Democrats. He donated $2,500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who was ultimately elected to that office in 2019; he gave a total of $3,500 to Democrat Jerry Brown's successful 2006 bid to become California attorney general; he donated a total of $12,000 to committees supportive of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; and gave $25,000 to the state's Republican party, in 2005.   The database also corroborates Winter's claim that in June 2014, Ivanka Trump  adviser to, and daughter of, the president  herself made a $2,000 donation to Harris' successful campaign to be reelected as the state's attorney general. She also contributed $500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Newsom:   Ronayne, Kathleen; Weissert, Will. "Biden Picks Kamala Harris as Running Mate, First Black Woman."
 The Associated Press. 11 August 2020. Cadei, Emily. "Big-Dollar Donors, Including Donald Trump, Fueled Kamala Harris' Political Rise in California."
 The Sacramento Bee. 4 March 2019. Revelations came to light in fall 2019 that U.S. President Donald Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate current Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden and his son. In response, the presidents defenders have highlighted a May 4, 2018, letter signed by three Democratic senators to Yuriy Lutsenko, the prosecutor general of Ukraine (a similar role to the U.S. attorney general), as evidence that claims of improper behavior are misplaced. The letter was notably described by Washington Post columnist Marc Theisen as betraying a double standard. have highlighted letter notably described This sentiment was amplified by several media outlets, as well as a viral tweet (retweeted by Donald Trump Jr.) from the Twitter account Comfortably Smug, which according to BuzzFeed News is run by a Republican political consultant and deliberate spreader of false information: retweeted run by   Several reasons exist why the above tweet and associated sentiment are incorrect and misleading. At the top of that list is the fact that the letter in question did not concern a request to investigate Trump, nor did it request the opening of any investigation. letter Instead, it requested information on why Ukrainian special prosecutor Serhiy Horbatyuk (who serves in a special prosecutor role charged with investigating corruption cases linked to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich) had been prohibited from issuing subpoenas for evidence or interviewing witnesses in four existing investigations into former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort. Manafort, prior to joining the Trump campaign, had worked as a political consultant for Yanukovich and his political party. The four investigations involved money that flowed either to Manafort for this consulting work or to a law firm working with Manafort and others to improve Yanukovichs image in the West. They did not involve Trump. consultant law firm The three Democratic senators  then-Foreign Affairs Committee members Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy  were responding to a May 2, 2018, New York Times report that the four Manafort investigations in Ukraine were specifically singled out from a docket of nearly 3,000 corruption cases in Horbatyuks portfolio to be blocked from issuing subpoenas and interviewing witnesses. U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his charge to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, was investigating Manafort in part because of concerns that he owed substantial funds to Russian oligarchs as a result of this consulting work, potentially giving them leverage over him as he ran Trump's campaign. The reason Ukrainian officials impeded the investigation was no secret, according to the Times  it was to placate the Trump administration, which opposed the Mueller probe: report as a result according Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Parliament who is an ally of [now former] President Petro O. Poroshenko, readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manaforts activities in the long-term box. In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials, Mr. Ariev said in an interview. We shouldnt spoil relations with the administration. These discussions came at a complicated time for Ukraine, a country that has been fighting Russian aggression and that had been in the process of securing arms from the United States. The decision to halt the investigations by an anti-corruption prosecutor was handed down as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins, the Times reported. reported Far from requesting an investigation, the senators requested answers to three specific questions from a specific Ukrainian government official: specific questions Manafort broadly admitted to involvement in activities related to those four Ukrainian probes via a September 2018 guilty plea. admitted Even ignoring the allegedly implied quid pro quo in the Trump-Zelensky call, a comparison between the senators request for information from the chief Ukrainian law enforcement official and Trumps requests of Zelensky is problematic. As senators on the Committee on Foreign Relations, which not only provides oversight for arms deals but also general oversight of Americas relationships with its allies, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy were acting within their constitutional rights and obligations as official representatives of the U.S. government with oversight responsibility over the executive branch. for arms deals constitutional rights Conversely, in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky, Trump explicitly requested that the Ukrainian president meet with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani  an unelected private citizen without a security clearance or oversight from anyone but Trump  to initiate investigations into a disparate set of claims whose sole unifying feature is that they concern Trumps political rivals: the Democratic National Committee and the Biden family. disparate set of claims Because the letter at issue did not actually demand an investigation into Trump or even compel initiation of any investigation, we rank the claim that Democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump in 2018 as false. DailyWire.com.  Double Standard: Senate Democrats Asked Ukraine To Help Them Investigate Trump.
  25 September 2019. Pollack, Joel B.  Democrats Wrote to Ukraine in May 2018, Demanding It Investigate Trump.
  Breitbart News. &nbsp 24 September 2019. foreign.senate.gov.  Letter to Yuriy Lutsenko.
  4 May 2018. Thiessen, Marc A.  Democrats Double Standard on Ukraine.
  The Washington Post. 24 September 2019. Stuef, Jack.  The Man Behind @ComfortablySmug, Hurricane Sandy's Worst Twitter Villain.
  BuzzFeed News.  30 October 2012. Kramer, Andrew E.  Ukraine, Seeking U.S. Missiles, Halted Cooperation With Mueller Investigation.
  The New York Times. 2 May 2018. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  1:17:cr-00201-ABJ #423 Statement of the Offenses and Other Acts.
  14 September 2018. WhiteHouse.gov.  Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: President Zelenskyy of Spain
  24 September 2019. Congressional Research Service.  Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process.
  Updated 14 August 2019. Graham, David, A..  Trumps Incriminating Conversation With the Ukrainian President.
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2019. Vogel, Kenneth and Matthew Goldstein.  How Skadden, the Giant Law Firm, Got Entangled in the Mueller Investigation.
  The New York Times. 24 February 2019. Republican candidates continue to attack Donald Trump onhispastpositions,claiming he is not the conservative he says he is today. Jeb Bush picked up the attack by taking on Trump over tax policy. I cut taxes every year, Bush said at an Aug. 20 rally in New Hampshire. Hes proposed the largest tax increase in mankinds history, not just our own countrys history. The next day Bush repeated the basic claim in afundraising email: Trump proposed enacting the largest tax increase in American history. Seems like something worth fact-checking. Trumps tax plan in 1999 A spokesman for Bush told us that the former Florida governor was referring to Trumps1999 proposaltoraise taxeson the rich. Trump, who at the time was considering a run for president under the Reform Party, proposed a one-time tax on individuals and trusts with a worth of $10 million or more. Trump said the one-time tax of 14.25 percent would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt. Trump said if the rich were having trouble liquidating their assets they could pay off their tax over 10 years. TheNew York Daily Newsfeatured a photograph of Trump with the words, SOAK THE RICH. Experts at the time bashed Trumps plan as economically and politically unviable. I don't think the plan makes much economic sense, said Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute told theNew York Timesin 1999. The fact is that most people's wealth that has been built up over 10, 20 or 50 years is wealth that has already been taxed. Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in 1999 said of Trumps plan at the time, The lunacy of this idea is almost indescribable. He raised concerns about the economic consequences including that households would shift assets overseas to try to avoid confiscation. Trump calculated that 1 percent of Americans would pay the Trump tax. He proposed that half the savings would go toward middle-class tax cuts and the other half for Social Security. A spokeswoman for Trumps2016 presidential campaign, Hope Hicks, wouldnt tell us if Trump still supports that plan and said that he will release his current tax plan later in September. But in 2011, talk show host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he still supported that tax, and Trump said it was no longer viable. Well, at a time, it would have paid off the deficit. I mean, you wouldn't have a deficit, at that time, Trump said (though he confuseddebt and deficit). Unfortunately, the world has changed, today you can't do it. Today, and I'm very strongly against tax increases. And the reason I'm- So, you're no longer for that tax? Stephanopoulos asked. No, no. I'm no longer for that tax, no, Trump said. Would Trumps tax have broken records? Many tax experts told us that indeed Trumps plan would have been record-breaking in terms of revenue, but they said it was never going to happen and lacked major details. It certainly would have been the biggest ever simply because of its sheer size -- it was trillions of dollars, said Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center. However, its a totally crazy idea. ... I don't think anybody was taking it seriously -- it was Donald Trump being Donald Trump. The United States gross domestic product in 1999 was $9.7 trillion, so if Trumps tax had raised $5.7 trillion, that would have been 59 percent of GDP, said Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute. Federal tax hikes typically are no more than 1 percent of GDP, Edwards said. The Bush 1990 hike and Clinton 1993 hike were less than 1 percent of GDP over 5 years   whereas Trumps tax would have been 59 percent one time in one year, Edwards said. PolitiFact previously has lookedinto the largest tax increases as a percentage of GDP. Topping the list from 1940-2006 was the Revenue Act of 1942, which was about 5 percent of GDP. Richard Phillips, an expert at the Citizens for Tax Justice research group, which aims to require the wealthy to pay their fair share, said that Trumps one-time tax proposal cant be compared to conventional tax reform, which typically refers to taxes collected annually. His estimate was based on a back of the envelope calculation of total wealth of individuals with over $10 million in assets multiplied by the 14.25 percent rate, he said. There are very real questions as to whether you could plausibly tax all forms of wealth and whether wealthy individuals would be able to take action to shield large swaths of their wealth from taxation. Additionally, Trump proposed repealing the estate tax and enacting other tax cuts using the revenue that the federal government would save by no longer paying interest on the national debt. Its not clear how much those tax cuts would have cost and how much of the tax they would offset over time, Phillips said. Our ruling Bush said, Trump proposed enacting the largest tax increase in American history. Yes, in 1999, Trump proposed a historically large one-time tax increase. Trump said the tax would have raised $5.7 trillion and wiped out the national debt. It would have applied only to the wealthiest Americans. This claim rates True. In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True. In the days after Kobe Bryant's death in January 2020, the internet was flooded with tributes, memorial videos, and, of course, a fair share of misinformation. One video that drew a skeptical eye supposedly showed the NBA icon playing Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" or "Piano Sonata No. 14": share misinformation  This is a video from a 2013 advertisement for Lenovo technology company. In the final seconds of the above-displayed video, the logo for "Lenovo" appears on the screen. This video, which features Bryant and the Loring String Quartet playing the "Moonlight Sonata," won a Bronze Telly Award.  Bronze Telly Award While commercials often stretch the truth in order to draw in viewers (we've covered several commercials that were later circulated as genuine videos), Bryant was truly capable of playing the "Moonlight Sonata." In fact, the above-displayed commercial was reportedly inspired by a brief video Bryant posted to Facebook in 2013 with the message: "Just got to Miami, felt like the Sonata. Thanks to my lil bro Darius for taking video." several commercials circulated genuine reportedly inspired  Bryant shared another social media post a few months earlier that showed him sitting at a piano. That image was captioned, "Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata calms me down when I reach my breaking point."  post   Reporter Ramona Shelburne told the story of Bryant's love for the "Moonlight Sonata" in a 2016 article published by ESPN. Shelburne explained that Bryant first learned to play it as a gift for his wife Vanessa in 2011. The two were heading for a divorce and Bryant wanted make a grand gesture to keep her. And if playing the composition wasn't enough, Bryant learned this classic piece by ear.  Here's an excerpt from Shelburne's report: report "I wanted to play something nice for Vanessa," he says. They'd been fighting again. Vanessa filed divorce papers in 2011. Kobe was desperate to hold on to her. He wanted a grand gesture. "Sitting down and taking lessons would be too easy," he says. "So I taught myself by ear." It was harder than he thought. His fingers have been broken and jammed so many times over the years that they don't really bend anymore. [...] Taking lessons would be easier, yes. They'd also be a way of learning to read sheet music so he could play other songs besides "Moonlight Sonata." But Kobe had to teach himself how to play to prove his love to Vanessa and reinforce his own sense of exceptionalism. "That's the song I wanted to learn," he says. "There's so much beauty and agony. If you watch Muse, we use the chords from 'Moonlight Sonata.'" Yuscavage, Chris.  "Kobe Bryant Taught Himself How to Play Piano to Stop His Wife Vanessa From Divorcing Him."
  Complex.  19 April 2016. Kiefaber, David.  "Kobe Bryant Brings His Mad Beethoven-Playing Piano Skills to Lenovo Ad."
  Adweek.  28 August 2013. Shelburne, Ramona.  "Mamba Out."
  ESPN.  19 April 2016. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took some heat from CNNs Jake Tapper during anApril 3 interview. The topic: The degree of public transparency Sanders has provided for his tax returns. Tapper brought up the topic: Im kind of surprised that you havent gone further on transparency. You released the summary page of your 2014 tax returns. Hillary Clinton has posted on her website the last eight years of her personal returns, all of the returns. Before the New York primary, will you match her? Will you post your full returns for the last eight years? Sanders responded, You know who does our tax returns? My wife does our tax returns. Weve been a little bit busy lately. So we will get out as much information as we can. There aint going to be very much exciting in that. I get a salary from the United States Senate, you know, theres not going to be anything new in it that people havent seen for the last many years, but we will get it out as soon as we can. Tapper wasnt satisfied. But nobody has seen them at all, I guess, is the point, and whether or not theres anything exciting in them.... At this point, Sanders interjected, No, that is not true. That is not true. Of course, we have released them in the past. Our financial situation, to the best of my knowledge, has not changed very much, but we will get out all of that information as soon as we can. How transparent has Sanders been with his tax past returns? Not very, compared with others in the 2016 presidential field. Heres a closer look. As our friends at theWashington PostFact Checkerhave noted, Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy, has been collecting publicly available tax returns of presidential candidates and other top officials for itsTax History Project. This archive goes back as far as the 1913 tax returns of future president Franklin D. Roosevelt. Heres a look at what theircurrent archiveof the 2016 candidates looks like:   In other words, among the candidates still in the race, Sanders releases are less extensive than anybodys but Donald Trump. (Trump, too, hasfaced criticismfor refusing to share his returns.) And Sanders shortcomings are actually bigger than the screenshot above would suggest. The2014 filings Sanders releasedconsist of just the first two summary pages of his Form 1040 and the equivalent summary pages from his home-state Vermont tax form. Why does this matter? Unlike most of the other candidates, Sanders has not released the succeeding pages -- the nitty gritty detail of things like charitable donations and other types of itemized deductions. For instance,Clintons release for tax year 2014is 44 pages long, or more than 10 times the length of Sanders for the same year. Its worth noting that Sanders, as a member of Congress, filesannual financial disclosures, which are accessible online back to 2012. And as a presidential candidate, he also filesfinancial disclosure documentsto the Federal Election Commission. But tax returns are much more detailed. And despite what Sanders said in the exchange with Tapper, his campaign did not provide PolitiFact with any earlier, publicly available tax forms. The campaign told thePostthat it has not released any other tax returns prior to 2014. (The campaign did tell PolitiFact that they would release his 2015 returns once they are filed.) Tax and disclosure experts we contacted agreed that Sanders current disclosures are weak by historical standards. If I filed the first two pages of my return with the IRS, it would not take long for them to ding me, said Kenneth A. Gross of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and a specialist in political disclosure and ethics. There is a lot of information on the pages following the cover pages. Joseph J. Thorndike, the Tax Analysts official who heads the Tax History Project, agreed. Sanders has not, in fact, released his most recent tax return, Thorndike said. He has released a portion of that return. The IRS would not accept a Form 1040 as a complete return and neither should voters. Also, its worth noting that Sanders has not released any portion of his older returns. If Mitt Romney had tried to release an incomplete return in 2012, the media would never have accepted it. Our ruling Sanders told Tapper that his campaign has released his past tax returns. Sanders said his 2015 return is forthcoming, and he has made other types of disclosures in the past, including congressional and presidential-candidate filings. But his releases of prior-year tax forms -- the specific documents Tapper asked about -- have been limited in several ways. Hes only released information for one year, which pales compared to most other recent presidential candidates, and even that years release only includes a summary page, not the full return. We rate his claim False. UPDATE: As he had promised, Sandersreleasedhisfull 2014 tax returnon April 15, 2016. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ba140e0d-4c11-436d-ad29-15e562ba5a98 This piece about an upcoming "gay Jesus film" is one of those examples that demonstrates a good petition never goes away, even when the issue it addresses has long since been settled (or was never really an issue in the first place).  The "gay Jesus film" petition first hit the fan in 1984, and by the end of 1985 more than a million Christians had written protest letters in an attempt to have the non-existent movie it referenced banned. Yes, non-existent. There never was such a film in production, but petitions likes these were circulated anyway: Modern People News has revealed plans for the filming of a movie based  on the SEX LIFE OF JESUS in which Jesus is portrayed as a swinging HOMOSEXUAL. This film will be shot in the U.S.A. this year unless the public outcry is great. Already a French Prostitute has been named to play the part of Mary Magdalene, with who Christ has a blatant affair. We CANNOT AFFORD to standby and DO NOTHING about this disgrace. We must not allow this perveted world to drag our Lord through the dirt. PLEASE HELP us to get this film banned from the U.S.A. as it has been in Europe.  Let us show how we feel. Detach and mail the form below to the address shown. Make a few copies and give them to your friends.  Only one name per copy. -------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Scott,301 South Second Street,SpringfieldILLINOIS  62606 Dear Attorney General Scott, I would like to protest, in the strongest terms possible, the production, filming, and showing of any movie that supposedly depicts the sex life of JESUS CHRIST by MODERN PEOPLE NEWS, 11030 West Addison Street, Franklin Park, Illinois 60181. Such a movie would be blasphemous and would be an outrage and contrary to the truth.  We urge you to take proper action against this moral corruption. NAME:...................................................ADDRESS:.............................................CITY:.....................................................STATE:..............................CODE:.......... In the early incarnations of this call to arms, people were asked to fill out an attached form letter of protest and mail it to the Attorney General of Alabama.  The message often contained the following postscript: Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart recently reported that the above mentioned movie HAS BEEN COMPLETED!!! According to Brother Swaggart, the movie company has released word that the movie is scheduled to be shown in various locations around the country during the Christmas Season. So, the time is short to put a stop to it. We sincerely hope that all spiritually and morally minded people will band together and keep this UNGODLY type of filth out of Alabama. Many readers fell for it, including a radio station that happily passed the story along to their listeners and later had to retract it, according to folklorist Jan Brunvand: By later the same day the radio station [in Gadsen, Alabama] personnel had attempted to contact Modern People News and had been in touch with the Alabama Attorney General's office. Following these efforts at verification, a statement was read on the air saying that although the attorney general had received between two and three thousand letters over a period of several weeks concerning the supposed gay-Jesus movie, no evidence could be found that such a project ever existed. Modern People News, it was stated, seemed to have either gone out of business or changed their name. In January 1985 Ann Landers published a letter from the Attorney General's office of Illinois which tried to set the record straight. By then it was Modern Film News (not Modern People News) who supposedly had offices in Illinois, which is how that state got dragged into this issue).  People were exhorted to write to Attorney General William J. Scott . . . a man who had last held that office four years earlier: Dear Ann Landers:  The office of the Attorney General of the State of Illnois respectfully requests your assistance in combating an international chain letter that is distressing hundreds and thousands of Christians and those of other faiths as well. The chain letter is a plea to protest "in the strongest possible language" the making of a movie in which Jesus Christ could be depicted as a swinging homosexual. Both this office and the Associated Press have chased down every possible clue and cannot find a shred of truth in the story that such a film was ever in production. Modern Film News, which reported the film plans, has been out of business for more than two years. Moreover, 90 percent of the protest mail that has been overwhelming our staff is addressed to the former attorney general, William J. Scott, who has been out of office longer than four years. Despite our efforts to get the word to the public that the chain letter is a hoax, we continue to receive approximately 1,000 protests every week and at least a dozen phone inquiries each working day. The inquiries and protests have come from 41 states, Canada, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Spain, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India, the Philippines, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Portugal. We have concluded that the "Jesus movie" rumor originated in 1977 when a suburban Chicago publication, Modern People News, reported that certain interests in Europe were planning such a film and requested that readers express their opinion of the purported project. The result was the chain-letter protest, which, for some unknown reason, has been revived and is again sweeping the world. We are appealing to you, Ann Landers, to help us get the word out. The scope of your readership and impact on millions of newspaper readers around the world cannot be overestimated. The postage and phone calls, not to mention the valuable time of employees, run into a great deal of money that could be used for so many worthwhile purposes. Will you please help us?   Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of Illnois Dear Attorney General Hartigan: Hoaxes die hard and the zanier the hoax, the more difficult it is to convince people that it is not true.  If any of you, my readers, receive a copy of that wacky chain letter, take my word for the fact that there is not an iota of truth in it. And please tell friends that chain letters are illegal and should be tossed into the handiest wastebasket or fed to the nearest goat. The only such movie that seems to have been planned or made when this petition originally began circulating decades ago was the 1974 film Him, described briefly in Harry and Michael Medved's 1980 book, The Golden Turkey Awards, as an "everything you ever wanted to know about bad movies, but were afraid to ask" offering: This innovative film, designed exclusively for gay audiences, goes into excruciating detail concerning the erotic career of Jesus Christ. The ads for the film show the face of The Savior (with a cross glistening in one eye) while the headline inquires 'Are You Curious About HIS Sexual Life?'  Filmmaker Ed D. Louie satisfies that curiosity by showing us that the Son of Man was a voracious homosexual. (After all, why did he spend all that time hanging around with the Apostles?) The central character of the film is actually a young gay male in contemporary America whose sexual obsession with Jesus helps him to understand the "hidden meaning" of the Gospels. Contrary to common belief, the entry for Him in the Medveds' book was not a hoax concocted by them.  However, the minor, low-budget film was so obscure even after its release that it's hard to imagine it could have triggered a massive outpouring of petitions to halt its production. obscure  The non-existence of a "gay Jesus film" did not stem the ire of those who heard about it. Blasphemy  even the mere hint of it  is enough to mobilize good Christian soldiers everywhere. In 1988, Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ reaped massive publicity  and long lines at the box office  after fundamentalist Christians picketed theaters. The uproar wasn't over a gay Jesus, merely one who both questioned his fate and who had a dream about a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. The film remains controversial to this day. We take our religious icons seriously, as Denis Lemon, editor of the British publication Gay News, found out in 1978. He lost his appeal against conviction for blasphemous libel involving poem he had published about a Roman centurion's homosexual love for Jesus. Though the nine month suspended sentence was set aside, the $900 fine against him and $1,900 fine against his magazine were upheld. A non-film version of a work similar to the one described in the petition was produced in 1998, when Terrance McNally's dramatic offering Corpus Christi began previews at the Manhattan Theater Club in New York. As described by the New York Times, the production "retells the Biblical story of a Jesus-like figure  from his birth in a Texas flea-bag hotel with people having profane, violent sex in a room next door, to his crucifixion as 'king of the queers' in a manner with the potential to offend many people."  Corpus Christi And it did. The Manhattan Theater Club's announcement of the play as part of its fall season was greeted with bomb threats promising to "burn the place to the ground" if the production opened. In May 1998 the theatre announced it was pulling "Corpus Christi" from its line-up. A week later it changed its mind, reinstating the play to its fall roster. Caught between cries of censorship on one side and outraged sensibilities on the other, the theatre had to make a choice.  Additional security measures were taken during the play's run to protect both the actors and the audience. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (self-described as the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group) planned an opening-night protest at the theatre involving busloads of people from as far away as Baltimore and Philadelphia as well as nuns, priests and lay people from Long Island. "Hopefully we'll send a message that this is basically unacceptable," said William A. Donohue, the league's president.  Corpus Christi continues to play various live theatres from time to time. It completed a four-week engagement at London's Pleasance Theatre in late 1999, and in March 2001 it became the subject of a brouhaha at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton when several state lawmakers threatened to cut funding for FAU because their theatre department staged the play.  In March 2010, Tarleton State University's decision to host to a student performance of Terrence McNally's Corpus Christi drew ire from some residents of Stephenville, Texas, home of that institute of higher learning.  Corpus Christi is undoubtedly the "play that went on for a while but never stopped" referred to in the current petition, but there are still no plans to make a movie out of it.  The 2010 release Corpus Christi: Playing with Redemption is often mistakenly cited as a film version of the play Corpus Christi, but it is not; it's a documentary about the controversy surrounding one particular troupe's production of the play,  not a movie version of the play itself.   Likewise, the 2006 DVD release entitled Corpus Christi is simply a documentary about the historical figure of Jesus, not a film version of the similarly titled play. documentary Corpus Christi Abrams, Joseph.  "Texas Town Cross Over Play's 'Gay' Christ."
  FOXNews.com.  25 March 2010. Applebomb, Peter.  "In Reversal, Theater Vows to Stage Play That Drew Threats."
  The New York Times.  29 May 1998  (p. A1). Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 175-177). Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."
  20 January 1985  [syndicated column]. Leo, John.  "Bigotry Still Has No Place in World of Art."
  The Detroit News.  9 June 1998  (p. A7). Medved, Harry and Michael Medved.  The Golden Turkey Awards.
  New York: Perigee Books, 1980.  (pp. 122-124). O'Haire, Patricia.  "Curtains for Play Depicting Christ As Gay."
  [New York] Daily News.  22 May 1998  (p. 7). Reel, Bill.  "Artistic Freedom Is Not a License to Commit or Aid Artistic Assault."
  Newsday.  2 June 1998  (p. A40). Associated Press.  "Florida University Under Fire for Play with Gay Christ Character."
  30 March 2001.  The New York Times.  "Lemon Loses Appeal."
  18 March 1978  (p. 7). renovated A genuine Michael Kors handbag for $7.95? Good luck with that. In early July 2023, we looked for the hidden catch behind a new scam that was originating in TikTok ads. The ads claimed that luxury design company Michael Kors was giving away handbags for a small fee of $7.95. All that users would supposedly need to do to receive one of the handbags was answer three or four questions in a short survey. However, this was not a giveaway that Michael Kors was managing, nor was it a legitimate promotion in any way, shape, or form. The TikTok ads misleadingly claimed, "Michael Kors sends out handbags. Answer 4 questions and get a handbag."  Users who clicked on the ads were led to a page on 20mccsd.tech, a website that showedregistration information for a domain registrar in Russia. This may have been the country from which the scam was originating. showed The 20mccsd.tech website was designed to fool users into believing they were on the official website for Nordstrom, nordstrom.com. The scammers also made sure that anyone trying to visit the website with a copied link and not through a TikTok ad would see a strange facade that cloaked the fake Nordstrom website, as seen below:  As for users who did click on the ads, they saw the Nordstrom logo and the following text: "Congratulations! You have been selected to participate in the Nordstrom campaign. You could win a Michael Kors handbag!"  After answering three questions, users were redirected to exclusiveluckyshop.com. This website then claimed users would be eligible to enter into a supposed giveaway for a Michael Kors Voyager Medium Crossgrain Leather Tote Bag. This product normally retails for $298, according to Michael Kors' official website. website The scam had changed from promising handbags for $7.95 in the TikTok ads to instead saying that users would be paying the small fee simply to enter to win in a suspicious giveaway.  At the very bottom of exclusiveluckyshop.com, in a small font size, we found the terms and conditions. The terms included the catch behind the entire scam: Any users who paid the fee of $7.95 would later be billed $67.32 per month until they found a way to cancel. This monthly charge was purportedly meant to fund a $125 gift card for customers to use in what was referred to as a "best consumer gadget club." In other words, this was a hidden subscription scam, a topic that we previously reported about with another scam. previously reported about with another scam  The terms also showed the phone number (866) 877-1602. In a call we placed to this number, an automated voice message thanked us for calling "customer support." Just as we'd seen in past years with other scams involving CBD and keto weight loss gummies, no specific company name was announced like it would be when placing calls to legitimate businesses. If any readers fell victim to this scam, we recommend callingyour credit card company or the phone number for whatever payment method you used to make the purchase. Always bear in mind that if an online offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. Liles, Jordan. "This Cash App Email Scam About a Fake Deposit Could Cost You Thousands on Your Credit Card." Snopes, 19 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cash-app-scam-email-fake-deposit/. "Voyager Medium Crossgrain Leather Tote Bag."Michael Kors, https://www.michaelkors.com/voyager-medium-crossgrain-leather-tote-bag/_/R-US_30H7GV6T8L. "WHOIS Search."GoDaddy.Com, www.godaddy.com/whois/results.aspx?domain=20mccsd.tech. Hillary Clinton is attacking DonaldTrumps tax plan, saying it actually benefits the hedge fund managers Trump had promised to cut down to size. Now, before releasing his plan, Trump said, Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. And he added, Theyll pay more,  Clinton said. Then his plan came out. And it actually makes the current loophole even worse. It gives hedge-fund managers a special tax rate thats lower than what many middle-class families pay, Clinton continuedin the June 21, 2016, speech. And I did have to look twice because I didnt believe it. Under Donald Trumps plan, these Wall Street millionaires will pay a lower tax rate than many working people. Trumps plan does roll back one high-profile advantage for hedge fund partners. Is Clinton right to say they still come out ahead? Trump took an aggressive position on tax rates for hedge fund managers during his fight for the Republican nomination. In an interview with CBS in August, Trumpcalledthem paper pushers who did not build this country. In a Republicandebatein September, Trump said his tax plan would make them pay more. The hedge fund guys wont like me as much as they like me right now. I know them all, but theyll pay more, Trump said. After the Republican debate, Trump released the outline of histax plan. Trumps plan eliminates the so-called carried interest tax loophole, which allows general partners in private investment firms (including most hedge fund managers) to treat some of their income as income from investments, or capital gains, subject to a top tax rate of 23.8 percent, instead of the much higher tax rate for ordinary income (43.4 percent). Under Trumps plan, income from carried interest would no longer be treated as capital gains. Tax rates for ordinary income tops out at 25 percent under Trumps plan. This looks like a hike in line with Trumps promises. Except. Along with private equity and venture capital funds, many hedge funds are structured as partnerships. Under Trumps plan, income through a business partnership is taxed at a rate of no more than 15 percent, significantly less than the 23.8 percent they previously paid, according to ananalysisof Trumps tax plan from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Eliminating the carried interest loophole actually helps these hedge fund managers under Trumps plan. If carried interest was still treated as capital gains, it could be taxed at the top rate for capital gains in the plan (20 percent), higher than the fixed 15 percent tax for partnership income. Trumps plan presents the discounted rate for partnership income as a way to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. It also helps large businesses and wealthy financiers who structure their businesses as partnerships, including the hedge funds managers he attacked in his campaign. Clinton also said that rates for hedge fund managers would be lower than for middle-class families under Trumps plan. Defining the middle class can be tricky, but in thePew Research Centers rangeof $42,000 to $125,000 for a household of three in 2014, a substantial number of middle-class households would make enough to qualify for a marginal tax rate of more than 15 percent if Trumps plan were enacted. Not all of these people would pay more than 15 percent overall, according to Bob Williams at the Tax Policy Center, and it would be difficult to say how many middle-income people would pay more than hedge fund managers once the many different variables involved played out. But some would, Williams wrote in an email. In May,Politicoreportedthat the Trump campaign had engaged two economists to craft a new tax plan. The Trump campaign has not confirmed whether they plan to re-write their tax plan, and did not respond toPoliticosrequest for comment. The tax plan announced in September remains on Trump's website, and is the basis of this article. The Trump campaign did not respond to our request for comment on this article. Our ruling Clinton said Trumps proposed tax rate for hedge fund managers makes the current loophole even worse. She has a point. By setting a lower tax rate for income from business partnerships, Trumps tax plan would benefit many hedge fund managers. Though the plan would cut tax rates for middle-class families as well, the cuts that would apply to most hedge fund managers are steeper and their resulting tax rate is lower. Trump promised that his tax plan would roll back advantages for hedge fund managers. Instead, in most cases, it would improve their position. We rate the statement True.