Scam involving false promises of airline ticket giveaways
Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion. Virtually every major U.S. air carrier  including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, Emirates, United Airlines, US Airways, Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines, WestJet Airlines, Allegiant Air, and Air Canada  has been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years: Air Canada The primary type of free ticket fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free air travel tickets to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the airlines they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" tickets offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies: Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it.
An ad goes after Sen. John McCain for being just like President George W. Bush, hitting McCain onIraq, oil companies and health care.It also criticizes him on tax policy. A millionaire who's for tax cuts for millionaires. McSame as Bush, the ad states. It's true that Bush and McCain are both millionaires, with McCain being somewhat wealthier. Bush's net worth in 2006 was between $7.6-million and $20.1-million, based on his personal financial disclosures required by law and analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. McCain, meanwhile, is worth somewhere between $27.8-million and $45-million. (Sen. Hillary Clinton's net worth is between $10.4-million and $51-million, while Sen. Barack Obama's is between $456,012 and $1.1-million.) So McCain and Bush are both millionaires, and that part of the statement is correct. We couldn't find any proposals John McCain supports that offer new tax cuts for millionaires, so we suspect this is a reference to McCain's support of the Bush tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts lowered rates across the board for those who pay federal income taxes, so they benefited both millionaire and nonmillionaire taxpayers. But data compiled from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that millionaires saw the most sizable drops to their tax rates measured as a share of income. Those tax cuts will expire during the next presidential administration unless Congress acts to keep them in place. McCain actually opposed the Bush tax cuts before changing his mind and supporting them now. He said the reason for his change of heart is that rescinding the tax cuts would be the equivalent of a tax increase after they had been in effect for so long. (Both Obama and Clinton want to roll back the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes.) If you're trying to identify the candidate who supports the Bush tax cuts, McCain is your man. But we're concerned that the ad leaves the impression that McCain advocates new, additional tax cuts for millionaires rather than keeping the present situation in place. For that reason, we knock this claim down one peg on the Truth-O-Meter and find it Mostly True. Austin voters should doubt mayoral aspirant Mike Martinezs commitment to an affordable city, his opponent in a Dec. 16, 2014, runoff maintains. The narrator of a Steve Adler TV ad says that as an Austin City Council member, Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. That statement is made against this visual backdrop:  Source: TV ad from Steve Adler, Austin mayoral candidate,Mike Martinez Record on City Council, posted online Dec. 2, 2014. Martinez has been a council member since June 2006. So its no surprise he would have had a say on taxes and rates charged by the city-owned utilities, though unsaid here is that no single council member controls any such decisions; its been a seven-member body, including the mayor. Martinez also chairs theeight-person boardoverseeing Capital Metro, which provides local bus and limited rail service. So he could have voted on fares charged the elderly. Lets recap Martinezs actions on fares, city taxes and utility rates. Bus fares To our inquiries, Adlers campaign didnt provide comprehensive backup for his ad claim. But by email, spokesman Jim Wick pointed out a September 2010Austin American-Statesmannews storystating the Cap Metro board voted to require bus riders 65 and older to pay 50 cents a ride or $15 for a 31-day bus pass, starting in 2011. The story also said the board was deciding to charge seniors and people with disabilities to ride buses for the first time since 1989. For Capital Metro, spokeswoman Francine Pares told us by email Martinez has been a board member since June 2007 and chairman since January 2010. Pares also confirmed the boards decision to charge the 50-cent fares, though she said that change was adopted at the boards November 2010 gathering, which Martinez didnt attend, she said. According tominutes of the Nov. 10, 2010, board meeting, the six members who were there unanimously approved a resolution authorizing higher fares in part, the resolution said, to generate additional operating revenues while striving to meet growing demand for transportation options. Martinez and another board member were recorded as absent. Pares told us theboard in September 2013approved another increase in senior fares, to 60 cents, effective in 2015. Generally, she said, senior citizens receive 50 percent off regular fares. By phone, Martinez agreed he and fellow board members agreed to charge the fares for elderly residents. But that happened, he said, only after a state panel issued marching orders including a recommendation calling for Capital Metro to raise more money from fares. In a 2010 report, the staff of the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended the authority charge a bus fare of 50 cents for groups currently riding free. The commission had said 30 percent of Capital Metros passengers were riding for free and, it noted, the board had rejected proposed fares in 2008 and 2009. In its finalJuly 2011 reporton Capital Metro, the commission said: While fare increases are difficult, requiring only a portion of its ridership to bear the burden of these increases is not equitable or sustainable, especially in bad financial times. Martinez pointed out the sunset review occurred in keeping withlegislation passed into lawby the 2009 Legislature, which wanted Capital Metro to get its finances in order. City taxes On taxes, Wick of Adlers camp offered as backup news stories indicating thatin 2009, Martinez said taxpayers would have to pay a little more in taxes and fees through 2010 to maintain services andin 2010, the council acting to raise the citys property tax rate from 42.09 cents per $100 of property value to 45.71 cents; the city tax on a median value home was expected to increase $52 to $843. Wick followed up by emailing us achart made by Adlers campaignindicating city property taxes on a median-valued home going up on Martinezs watch. For a non-campaign analysis, we turned to the Travis Central Appraisal District; the chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, emailed us achartindicating city property taxes on a median-value homestead in 2007 were $715; in 2014, the comparable figure was $1,014. We converted the 2007 figure to 2014 dollars, using afederal inflation calculator. Upshot: Adjusted for inflation, city taxes on a median-value Austin homestead went up $278, or 34 percent, from 2007 through 2014, Martinezs council years. Over those years, according to the district, the median taxable value of an Austin homestead went from $177,257 to $228,032. Adjusting for inflation suggests there was a nearly $18,800, 9 percent, increase. Martinez agreed property owners paid more in taxes in his council tenure, results influenced by surging property values, he said. Still, he said, in five of eight years, council members voted to keep the citys property tax rate the same or to lower it. When the rate was raised, he said, the economy was in recession. For another fact check, the city provided this chart of tax rates, which shows the council raised the rate three times in Martinezs tenure, most recently for 2013,  but cut the rate four times, most recently for 2014. In September 2014, the council left the 2014 rate intact for 2015. Utility rates In 2011,we found Mostly Truea claim that Austin Energy, the city electric utility, was considering its first hike in rates since 1994. The base electric rate, covering staff, the electric system, power plants, vehicles and the like, hadnt changed since 1994. Meantime, residential customers were paying less for electricity than they once had, taking inflation into account. On June 7, 2012, the council unanimously voted to raise the base rate, theAmerican-Statesmanreported. The news story said: The complicated new rate structure will hit customers in different ways; generally speaking, the larger and more energy-hungry the home, the higher the percentage increase, effective October 2012. A typical home, which uses an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month over the course of a year, will see its monthly bill rise by $8, to $113, according to Austin Energy calculations. A home that uses a lot of electricity would see its monthly bill increase by $59, to $332, the story said. How would Adler have voted? We asked Wick how Adler would have voted on the bus fares, tax and utility rate hikes we confirmed. Theres no simple answer, Wick said by email, but Adler favors free fares for senior citizens. Our ruling Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. Austin residents pay more in taxes and could be paying more for electricity thanks to council actions Martinez supported. He also backed a decision by the Capital Metro board to charge half fares to elderly bus riders who had previously not been charged, though Martinez hardly did this by himself; its worth clarifying, too, that Capital Metro was under pressure to improve its finances and that Martinez missed the vote creating the then-50-cent fare. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple.   . Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6). On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor (and 2008 vice presidential pick) Sarah Palin called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, because the character was always "white" in the "Bible": article The announcement that Mall of America was welcoming its first black Santa Claus was greeted in many quarters as a good thing but, as might be expected in a country that has become increasingly more comfortable saying any racist thing that comes to mind, many were highly offended ... Among many who were offended by this move was former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The sharp-tongued Republican wasted no time in condemning the companys actions, going on social media and posting comments that called for boycotting and running Mall of America into the ground, on the basis of Santa always having been white in the Bible. No, I refuse to believe that they went this far in trying to cater to the minorities, I thought the company had some backbone but I guess I was wrong, Palin told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. She also argued that hiring a non-white Santa Claus was the last straw in corporate Americas twisting of traditional, conservative Christian values, because they realized they couldnt make any more money off of the usual scams and techniques theyve been using so far. She added, Thats why they had to come up with something new and out of the box, at least something that appeared that way in their minds. But, this proves that they have no morals and that they wont shy away from even the most blatant twisting of traditional Christian values, just so they could make more money. I understand having to make a profit in order to get by and have a good life, but I dont understand stomping on things that are holy and sacred in order to accomplish that ... Americans, especially white ones, need to boycott the company and need to run it into the ground, so that they never ever come up with such an offensive and sacrilegious idea again, Palin added.  Like all items published by Politicops, (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the tacked on fabrication is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details. Santa Newslo Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article. fake news However, all articles display by default in "hide facts" mode, so most readers view articles (or their headlines on social media) without embellishments marked:  Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought that a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape women would try to "get raped" in order to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die, but was kidnapped by demons. Viagra Bible-based hunger tests Ted Cruz Mike Pence Brock Turner David Bowie 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. A Once in a Lifetime Photo of a forest fire in Bitterroot Forest/Montana This awsome picture was taken in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana on August 6, 2000 by a fire behavior analyst from Fairbanks, Alaska by the name of John McColgan with a Digital camera. Since he was working while he took the picture, he cannot sell or profit from it so he should at least be recognized as the photographer of this once in a lifetime shot.  The year 2000 brought one of the worst fire seasons in half a century to the United States. By the month of August, more than 4 million acres (an area greater in size than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined) had been burned by wildfires, and dozens of blazes raged out of control in eleven western states, with nearly half of the conflagrations occurring in Idaho and Montana. On 6 August 2000, as several fires converged in the Bitterroot National Forest near the town of Sula in western Montana, John McColgan, a fire behavior analyst in the employ of the USDA Forest Service, snapped the spectacular photograph shown above with a digital camera and described the experience to a writer for the western Montana newspaper The Missoulian: Bitterroot Forest Service "That's a once-in-a-lifetime look there. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I've been doing this for 20 years and it ranks in the top three days of fire behavior I've seen." The day was Aug. 6, the Sunday when several forest fires converged near Sula into a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more than 800 degrees. Nevertheless, McColgan said, the wildlife appeared to be taking the crisis in stride, gathering near the East Fork of the Bitterroot River where it crosses under U.S. Highway 93. "They know where to go, where their safe zones are," McColgan said. "A lot of wildlife did get driven down there to the river. There were some bighorn sheep there. A small deer was standing right underneath me, under the bridge." McColgan snapped the photo with a Kodak DC280 digital camera. Since he was working as a Forest Service firefighter, the shot is public property and cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes. After McColgan downloaded his amazing image to an office computer, a friend found it, e-mailed a copy to another friend, and by mid-September 2000 the picture was blazing its way across the Internet. Because many forwarded copies of the image lacked any attribution or explanation, e-mail recipients began to circulate rumors about its origins and authenticity  some claimed that the photo was snapped by a tourist, that it was taken during the extensive Yellowstone National Park fire of 1988, or that it was yet another digital fake. fire As John McColgan said afterwards, "I couldn't have profited from [the photograph], so I guess I'm glad so many people are enjoying it." We're happy to help him at least receive proper credit for his work. This picture has also been circulated with text identifying it as a photograph of August 2003 forest fires in British Columbia, of October 2007 California wildfires, of the June 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the November 2016 forest fires in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Chaney, Rob.  "Mystery Solved: Forest Service Firefighter Captured Tragedy with Digital Camera."
  The Missoulian.  15 September 2000. CNN.com.  "Montana Homes Threatened by Wildfires."
  7 August 2000. When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. Walt Disney's health had been deteriorating for many months before he finally agreed to enter St. Joseph hospital in California on 2 November 1966, for tests concerning the pain in his leg and neck. Doctors discovered a walnut-sized spot on the x-ray of his left lung and advised immediate surgery. Disney left the hospital to attend to studio business for a few days, then re-entered St. Joseph on Sunday, November 6, for surgery the next day. During Monday morning's operation, doctors found his left lung to be cancerous and removed it. His oversized lymph nodes were an indication that Disney hadn't much longer to live.  After two weeks of post-operative care, Disney was released from the hospital. He crossed the street to his studios and spent another ten days tending to studio business and visiting relatives before he grew too weak and had to return to St. Joseph on November 30. His health started to fail even more rapidly than expected, and drugs and cobalt treatments sapped what little strength he had left. Walt Disney died two weeks later when his circulatory system collapsed on the morning of December 15, 1966. In the decades since Walt Disney's death, the claim that he arranged for his body to be frozen has become ubiquitous. Nearly everyone familiar with the name 'Walt Disney' has heard the story that Disney's corpse is stored in a deep-freeze chamber somewhere -- directly under Disneyland's "Pirates of the Caribbean" attraction is the most frequently mentioned site -- awaiting the day when science could repair the damage to his body and bring 'Uncle Walt' back to life. Was Walt Disney aware of the possibilities of life extension through cryogenics? He certainly could have been aware of the progress being made in cryogenics research. Numerous articles and books on hypothermia and the preservation of animal tissue through freezing appeared in both the scientific/medical and general press in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Anyone with an interest in the subject could easily have located this reading material, and even someone without a particular interest in the subject may have run across one or more articles on the topic in the general press. The subject of cryonics was further brought to the public's attention with the publication in 1964 of Robert C.W. Ettinger's book, The Prospect of Immortality. Ettinger's book, drawing on much of the available literature about cryonics, covered the practical, legal, ethical, and moral impact of freezing and reviving human beings. Ettinger, while admitting that science had as yet no way of reviving frozen human beings, was unflaggingly optimistic that a viable means of reanimation would eventually be found, telling his readers: The fact: At very low temperatures it is possible, right now, to preserve dead people with essentially no deterioration, indefinitely. The assumption: If civilization endures, medical science should eventually be able to repair almost any damage to the human body, including freezing damage and senile debility or other cause of death. Hence we need only arrange to have our bodies, after we die, stored in suitable freezers against the time when science may be able to help us. No matter what kills us, whether old age or disease, and even if freezing techniques are still crude when we die, sooner or later our friends of the future should be equal to the task of reviving and curing us. Given the prevalence of articles published about cryonics in the mid-1960's, and the relative popularity of Ettinger's book among science buffs (even if few of them had actually read it), it is certainly possible that Walt Disney was aware of the potentiality of cryonic storage of humans. Whatever the possibilities, however, there is no documentary evidence to suggest that Walt Disney was interested in, or had even heard of, cryonics. Documentation of Disney's alleged fascination with preserving or extending his life through cryonics did not appear until decades after his death, and what little information is available has predominantly been provided by some extremely questionable sources. Claims about Disney's interest come primarily from two of the more recent Disney biographies: Leonard Mosley's 1986 effort, Disney's World, and Marc Eliot's 1993 entry, Walt Disney -- Hollywood's Dark Prince. Both books have been largely discredited for containing numerous factual errors and undocumented assertions, rendering them rather untrustworthy as sources of reliable background material. Eliot's biography, which dwells unrelentingly on every salacious incident and rumor connected with Walt Disney's name, is fairly easy to dismiss. Charitably described as "speculative," it contains a single passage concerning Walt Disney's alleged interest in cryonics: Disney's growing preoccupation with his own mortality also led him to explore the science of cryogenics, the freezing of an aging or ill person until such time as the human body can be revived and restored to health. Disney often mused to Roy about the notion of perhaps having himself frozen, an idea which received ... indulgent nods from his brother ... Not surprisingly, the source behind this piece of information is nowhere to be found in Eliot's notes. And as there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics, Eliot's "source" was likely nothing more than repetition of rumor. Mosley's Disney's World is also rather long on rumor and short on facts. The book has been described as "poorly researched and filled with inaccuracies", a biography that seemed "to promote certain preset points of view, regardless of evidence". The same critique goes on to say, "One of its central themes, for example, is Disney's fascination with cryogenesis and the strong suggestion that his body was frozen following his death. It makes for titillating reading; however, few facts support Mosley's claims". Disney's World paints a picture of an anxious Walt Disney desperately searching for a way to spring back to life in order to prevent or correct the horrible mistakes his followers were bound to make in turning his EPCOT dream into reality: [T]he chief problem that troubled Walt was the length of time it might take the doctors to perfect the process. How long would it be before the surgical experts could bring a treated cadaver back to working life? To be brutally practical, could it be guaranteed, in fact, that he could be brought back in time to rectify the mistakes his successors would almost certainly start making at EPCOT the moment he was dead? Mosley's book is filled with repetitions of the claim that Walt Disney grew increasingly interested in cryonics as his health waned in late 1966, such as this paragraph: It was about this time that Walt Disney became acquainted with the experiments into the process known as cryogenesis, or what one newspaper termed "the freeze-drying of the human cadaver after death, for eventual resuscitation." Mosley's statements regarding Disney's belief in the feasibility of cryonics are somewhat difficult to take seriously, given that his book includes such ludicrously erroneous (or fabricated) statements as: The surgeons had taken away his diseased lung to examine it, and then were going to preserve it. Walt was pleased when he heard that. He knew enough about cryogenesis by now to be aware that it was important to hold onto all the organs -- just in case the surgeons needed to treat them before putting them back where they belonged. (Samples of tissue removed during cancer surgery are preserved in formaldehyde, a method of "preservation" which, while useful for microscopy studies, damages the tissue biologically. Organs removed from Disney by his surgeons could never be "put back where they belonged", no matter what the treatment.) Mosley provides no source for his statements, other than to assert that Disney's "closest colleagues and advisers" were "confident" that Walt Disney "eventually became convinced of cryogenesis as a viable medical process and was persuaded that, even in 1966, it was possible for a human being to have himself brought back to life after death". In fact, these "close colleagues" of Disney's turned out to be a few employees on the periphery of the Disney organization who had never spoken to Walt about cryonics, and were merely repeating the same decades-old rumor for Mosley's benefit. On the other hand, someone much closer to Walt Disney, his daughter, Diane wrote in 1972: "There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that my father, Walt Disney, wished to be frozen. I doubt that my father had ever heard of cryonics." Despite the persistent rumors, available documentation indicates that Walt Disney was in fact cremated. Although Disney's preferences regarding the disposal of his body are not public record(instructions or provisions for his funeral and burial were not included in his will), other publicly-available material is entirely consistent with the claim that he was cremated: will o Walt Disney publicly stated -- ten years before his death -- that he wished not to have a funeral. o Disney family members have confirmed that cremation was Walt's wish. o Disney's death certificate shows that he was cremated two days after his death. The name, license number, and signature of the enbalmer appearing on the death certificate are those of a real enbalmer who was employed at the Forest Lawn mortuary at the time. death certificate o A marked burial plot for Walt Disney (and other family members) can be found at the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale (the logical resting grounds for someone whose cremation was handled by Forest Lawn's mortuary), and court papers indicate that the Disney estate paid $40,000 to Forest Lawn for interment property. burial plot Since Disney's demise, several unmremarkable events and circumstances surrounding his life and death have been combined to try to establish a pattern of mystery and secrecy concerning the disposal of his body. All of these events, however, have straightforward, non-mysterious explanations: o "Disney had a long preoccupation with death"o "Disney had a neurotic fear of death" Statements concerning Disney's alleged preoccupation with death are generally attempts to sensationalize the topic by distorting the facts. Although he did worry about dying prematurely, Disney was not "obsessed with death". Supposedly having been told by a fortune-teller that he would die when he was thirty-five, Disney reportedly brooded about his inevitable demise during occasional bouts of depression, even after he had long passed the allegedly fatal age. Contemplating one's mortality is not an unusual behavior, and there is no evidence that Walt Disney did so to an excessive degree. William Poundstone quotes some ridiculous passages from Anthony Haden-Guest's The Paradise Program to try to establish Disney's preoccupation with death, detailing a "gruesome seven minute Mickey Mouse cartoon" made in 1933 in which "a mad scientist tries to cut off Pluto's head and put in on a chicken. The cartoon in question is The Mad Doctor, which was nothing more than humorous spoof of 1930's horror films. Even in the cartoon itself the "horrific" events are not portrayed as real: the whole episode turns out to be nothing more than a nightmare of Mickey's. Although Poundstone wrote that the film was pulled from the Rank film library in 1970, it has been readily available on home video releases since then. o "The news of Disney's death was deliberately delayed." This claim that the announcement of Walt Disney's death was deliberately withheld from the press for several hours has been made most persistently, presumably because Disney's aides would have needed time to furtively whisk his body away from the hospital to the secret cryogenic chamber before the presence of reporters made the task impossible to accomplish in privacy. Leonard Mosley's description of the event features some of more absurd stretches of truth made in this regard: And this is where the mystery begins. It was Walt himself who had asked Roy Disney to keep his illness secret, but the manner in which the world was apprised of his death remains surprising. In fact, it was not until hours after he was declared dead that an announcement was made. First came radio announcements, then a curt official notice informed the press and public that Walt Disney was no more. It added that there would be no funeral. He had already been cremated, the announcement said, and his ashes interred in the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California. Only immediate family members had been present. It is true that Disney's death was not officially announced to the press until several hours after it occurred at 9:30 AM on Thursday, December 15, 1966, but the reasons behind the delay were perfectly ordinary ones. First of all, Disney's death would not have been announced immediately under any circumstances: Several family members had to be notified before a public announcement could be made, and Disney studio executives had to be located and informed that the head of their organization had passed away before the information would be released to the press. Additionally, the gravity of Disney's illness had largely been kept a secret from the press, so there were no hordes of reporters crowding the hallways of St. Joseph Hospital, waiting for the inevitable announcement of his death. The reason for Disney's original hospitalization had been announced to the press as "treatment of an old neck injury received while playing polo," and when Disney re-entered the hospital for the final time two weeks before his death, the statement made to the press was that Disney was undergoing "a routine post-operative" checkup. Although it was certainly no secret that Disney was quite ill, the seriousness of his condition was not generally known. The extent to which the details of Walt Disney's illness were kept from the press are evidenced by the newspapers reports of his death, which stated that his left lung had been removed during an operation on November 21 (an error which Poundstone repeats in Big Secrets). That operation had actually taken place two weeks earlier; November 21 was the date of his original post-surgery release from the hospital. So, given that relatives and studio heads had to be notified before any statements about Disney's death were made to the press; that the media were not on a "Disney death watch," busily preparing obituaries and tributes; and that communications in 1966 were certainly slower than they are today, it is not at all surprising that official news of Disney's death did not reach the public until a few hours later. Mosley's other statements, about Disney's funeral and cremation, are just further examples of sloppy research on his part. Disney was not cremated until two days after his death; no press announcement made "hours after he was declared dead" claimed that he had already been cremated.  o "The cause of Disney's demise was never formally announced." This statement is both inaccurate and irrelevant. The cause of Disney's death was initially announced as being "acute circulatory collapse," which meant simply that his heart had stopped beating. As facile as the official announcement may seem to those who know he "really" died of lung cancer, it does reflect the proximate cause of his death. This notion is borne out by the official death certificate, which lists "cardiac arrest" as the primary cause of death. The fact that cancer was what caused Disney's heart to give out was, medically, of secondary importance. death certificate Official statements released to the press after Disney's surgery (and before his death) had already revealed that a tumor had been found, necessitating the removal of a lung. Whether stated "officially" or not, it was quite clear to the public that Disney had died of lung cancer. In any case, what possible difference could it have made what Walt Disney died of? How could dissembling about the "real" cause of his death possibly have facilitated the goal of secretly storing his body in a cryonic chamber? o "Disney's funeral services were held in secret." Disney's funeral was not "secret"; rather, it was private, conducted quickly and quietly at the Little Church of the Flowers in Forest Lawn Cemetery, Glendale at 5:00 PM on Friday, December 16 (the day after his death). No announcement of the funeral was made until after it had taken place, no associates or executives from Disney Studios were invited, and only immediate family members were in attendance. Forest Lawn officials refused to disclose any details of the funeral or disposition of the body, stating only that "Mr. Disney's wishes were very specific and had been spelled out in great detail.". None of this secrecy surrounding Disney's funeral should be the least bit surprising to anyone, however. The biography The Story of Walt Disney (essentially an autobiography in which Disney's own words and thoughts were attributed to his daughter Diane), written a decade before Disney's death, noted that: [Walt] never goes to a funeral if he can help it. If he had to go to one it plunges him into a reverie which lasts for hours after he's home. At such times he says, 'When I'm dead I don't want a funeral. I want people to remember me alive.'" Is it so remarkable that a man who had an aversion to funerals -- and who had stated a ten years earlier that he didn't want a public funeral -- was sent off with a very quick and very private ceremony? If the clandestineness of the funeral had been intended to cover up the fact that Disney's body had already been deposited in liquid nitrogen at a secret facility, there were certainly better, less obvious ways of accomplishing the deception: Disney could have been given a simple closed-casket ceremony, with nobody the wiser. o "Disney specified the public was never to be told the location of his grave." Again, this claim is unsupported by any factual information and is not the least bit extraordinary. It is true that officials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park will not divulge the location of the Disney family plot. Many celebrities do request that the locations of their burial plots not be given out to visitors as a simple matter of privacy. The burial sites are not intended to be "secret," however; if they were, they wouldn't be marked and located on publicly-accessible grounds. Disney's plot was not, as Mosley claimed, "already filled with family ashes from which the public would always be barred." Disney's plot is far from obtrusive, but it is located in an unrestricted part of the park and marked with a plaque identifying its occupants; anyone who so desires is perfectly free to visit, leave flowers, take photographs, etc. The plot was certainly not "already filled with family ashes" at the time of Disney's interment, as for many it held the remains of only one other person: Ron Brown, a son-in-law who died the year after Disney did. In fact, according to the book Wills of the Rich and Famous, the interment property was not even chosen until September 19, 1967, making it rather difficult to believe that it could have been "already filled with family ashes." If Disney was not really frozen, then how and when did this rumor originate? The exact origins of the rumor are unknown, but at least one Disney publicist has suggested that the story was started by a group of Disney Studio animators who "had a bizarre sense of humor." The earliest known printed version of the rumor appeared in the magazine Ici Paris in 1969. Even if the origins of the story are unknown, it is certainly easy to see why the rumor is so believable. In the years immediately preceding his death, Disney was involved in a number of projects which cemented his image as a technical innovator in the public's mind. Disneyland attractions such as the monorail, the House of the Future, the Voyage to the Moon; the introduction of audio-animatronic figures at the 1964 World's Fair, and Disney's plans for his "community of tomorrow" (EPCOT) in Florida made it easy to believe Walt Disney was ahead of everyone else in his planning, even when it came to his death. When you consider that the first cryonic suspension took place just a month after Disney's death (Dr. James Bedford, a 73-year-old psychologist from Glendale, was suspended on January 12, 1967), it's not so far-fetched to imagine that Disney might have made similar arrangements.  Adams, Cecil.  More of The Straight Dope.   New York: Ballantine Books, 1988.  ISBN 0-345-35145-2  (pp. 331-333). Davis, Jeff.  "Walt Disney Dies."   Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.  15 December 1966  (p. 1). Eliot, Marc.  Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince.   Seacaucus, N.J.: Carol Pub. Group, 1993. Ettinger, Robert C.W.  The Prospect of Immortality.   New York: Doubleday, 1964. Jackson, Kathy Merlock.  Walt Disney: A Bio-Bibliography.   Westport, CT: Greenwood Pub. Group, 1993.  ISBN 0-313-25898-8. Miller, Diane Disney.  The Story of Walt Disney.   New York: Holt, 1957. Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!   New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2. Mosley, Leonard.  Disney's World.   New York: Stein and Day, 1985. Nass, Herbert E.  Wills of the Rich and Famous.   New York: Warner, 1991.  ISBN 0-446-39218-9. Poundstone, William.  Big Secrets.   Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986.  ISBN 0-395-45397-6  (pp. 219-224). Thomas, Bob.  Walt Disney: An American Original.   New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.  ISBN 0-7868-6027-8. Trimborn, Harry.  "Wizard of Fantasy Walt Disney Dies."   Los Angeles Times.  16 December 1996  (p. 1). The Boston Globe.  "Ask the Globe."   24 January 1992  (p. 20). Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.  "Disney Rites Secret; As He Wished."   17 December 1966  (p. 1). Los Angeles Times.  "Services for Walt Disney Held as He Asked -- For Family Only."   17 December 1966  (p. 1). The New York Times.  "Walt Disney, 65, Dies on Coast; Founded an Empire on a Mouse."   16 December 1966  (p. 1). In 2020, the Pinterest post displayed below alleged Ruby Tuesday was going out of business before the end of the year. The post linked to a 50-page article on the website Money Pop with the headline, "These Restaurant Chains Are Turning Off Their Burners And Closing Up Shop." 50-page article   The social media post and article headline were misleading. The COVID-19 pandemic had indeed forced Ruby Tuesday to file for bankruptcy protection and close 185 branches nationwide as of fall 2020, according to court records obtained by Snopes and news reports. file 185 branches court records news reports This announcement does not mean Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday," CEO Shawn Lederman said in an Oct. 7 statement at the time. an Oct. 7 statement Another statement from the business at the time of the bankruptcy filing said it was "pursuing a comprehensive financial and operational restructuring" to reduce debt and that it intended to overcome bankruptcy status "as quickly as possible." statement Despite the site closures, more than 230 company-owned locations remained open in addition to an undisclosed amount of branches run by 10 franchise groups, according to USA Today. No evidence showed a significant change in those numbers between the date of Ruby Tuesday's filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the publication of this report. USA Today In addition to Ruby Tuesday, the Money Pop listicle erroneously made it seem as if Taco Bell was closing in 2020 (see our fact check here), along with numerous other food businesses that were still serving customers as of this report. see our fact check here other food businesses We should note here that, although the headline on the Money Pop was false, the text on the article appeared rooted in truth, reading: Like Friendlys, Ruby Tuesday is an East Coast chain, but this restaurant has some branches on the Pacific Coast, too. The restaurant was founded in 1972 in Knoxville, Tennessee, and has seen some major dips in revenue over the past few years. Which, unfortunately, has resulted in many of the restaurants closing. At last count, the chain has around 491 stores around the world. But according to Restaurant Business, that number is due to nearly 50% of the stores closing over the past ten years. They said it was because customers were enjoying the convenience of take-out instead of actually sitting down in a restaurant. In sum, while the pandemic had negatively impacted Ruby Tuesday, and it was true that the chain had closed numerous sites in 2020, the Money Pop headline was inaccurate to claim all locations were "turning off their burners and closing up shop" or that the restaurant chain was going out of business.