Ukraine was the No. 1 donor to Hillary Clinton when she was running for president.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., falsely claimed that when Hillary Clinton was running for president against former President Donald Trump, Ukraine was her top donor. Greenes remarks came before a rally for a congressional candidate in Texas, where she toggled between attacks on Democrats and critiques of the media. They would rather talk about Russia, Russia, Russia, and Ukraine, and talk about possible war, than talk about the real truth that Ukraine  dont forget this  Ukraine was the No. 1 donor to Hillary Clinton when she was running for president, Greenesaid Feb. 19in comments captured by Right Side Broadcasting Network, a right-wing website known for streaming Trumps events. Thats not the real truth. The claim about Clinton was part of a torrent of falsehoods from Greene that also included inaccurate claims that the southern U.S. border iswide open; that President Joe Biden has dementia; and that Clinton and her campaign hackedinto the White House andspied on the presidentof the United States. Clinton did notreportreceiving any campaign donations from the Ukrainian government or Ukrainian nationals during her bid for president in 2016, said Anna Massoglia, the editorial and investigations manager at OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. Such contributions are illegal under federal law, said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. Thelawprohibitscontributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements from foreign nationals in connection with any U.S. election. OpenSecrets website shows the actualtop donationsmade to Clintons campaign, as well as a breakdown of donationsby geographic location. The breakdown shows that all the locations are in the U.S.  Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally Sept. 8, 2016, in Charlotte, North Carolina. (AP) In an emailed response to PolitiFacts inquiry, Greene spokesperson Nick Dyer did not cite any donations that Ukraines government or Ukrainian nationals made to Clintons campaign. Instead, he cited a2015 chartfrom The Wall Street Journal that dealt with donations to the Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit organization founded by former President Bill Clinton. But the donations listed in that chart were not from the Ukrainian government, and they did not happen while Hillary Clinton was running for president against Trump. The chart was part of an article examining large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Hillary Clinton became former President Barack Obamas secretary of state in 2009. The graphic mapped individual contributions of more than $50,000 that foreign donors sent to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014, grouped by nationality. It showed people of Ukrainian nationality contributing at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, more than any other nationality. Helping push Ukraine to the top of that list were donations between 2009 and 2013 from a foundation created by Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel mogul and former parliamentarian. Those contributions accounted for at least $8.6 million, the Journal reported at the time. But misinterpretations of the graphic inspired a flurry of misinformation in 2019 and again in 2020, as Trump was impeached in the House for conduct related to Ukraine. Conservative websites and social media posts wrongly claimed that the Ukrainian government threw millions of dollars at the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton worked in the Obama administration. AsFactCheck.org,SnopesandPolitiFactreported, The Wall Street Journal chart ranked the top donations by nationality  not by foreign governments. A false meme from 2019 asserted that the Clinton Foundation received $10 million from the government of Ukraine, the Clinton Foundation press office told PolitiFact for this fact-check. The Clinton Foundation has never received any funding from the government of Ukraine. The time span covered in the chart also ended the year before Clintonannouncedthe launch of her 2016 presidential campaign on April 12, 2015. So the chart Greenes spokesperson cited doesnt support her claim about donations while Clinton was running for president. Greene said, Ukraine was the No. 1 donor to Hillary Clinton when she was running for president. Clintons 2016 presidential campaign did not report any donations from Ukraine or Ukrainian nationals  a move that would have broken the law. Asked for evidence to support Greenes claim, the congresswomans spokesperson did not cite any campaign donations. He pointed instead to a Wall Street Journal chart that mapped large individual donations between 1999 and 2014 to the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit organization. The chart was a ranking of the top foreign donors by nationality, not contributions from foreign governments. The Clinton Foundation said it has never received any funding from the Ukrainian government. We rate Greenes statement False.
If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist. social media scams The Germany-based search engine Ecosia claims to use its profits to plant trees around the world. Its home page even carries a tally of the number of trees that have reportedly been planted by Ecosia users:   For many people, this business model may seem "too good to be true" and has led to some skepticism about the legitimacy of this company. A search on Google, for instance, results in several articles and blog posts questioning the legitimacy of the search engine and asking whether Ecosia is a scam. As far as we can tell, Ecosia is a legitimate search engine that truly uses a portion of its profits to help plant trees around the world.  Ecosia was launched in 2009 by Christian Kroll. At the time, the search engine was partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and promised to donate "at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region." WWF announced the partnership in a blog post: blog Those people unable to make it to the Copenhagen Climate Conference this month can still contribute to stopping climate change  by using a new search engine from their own computers. The same day the conference begins on Dec. 7, web users can start using a new green search engine called Ecosia. The new application, powered by Yahoo! and Microsofts Bing search engines, will allow internet surfers to protect about 2 square meters of Amazon rainforest just by clicking on sponsored links. Although users do not donate any money themselves, the company behind Ecosia will donate at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region. The green search engine is a very modern and inventive method of saving the world climate without a huge effort, says WWF Germanys director Eberhard Brandes. Every year billions of dollars are being earned in the internet only from advertising revenue, says Christian Kroll, founder of Ecosia. There is a more eco-friendly way of using these huge profits: the money should better be used to fight global warming. Since 2009, Ecosia has partnered with a number of other environmental organizations. The company reports it uses a portion of its profits to fund these organizations, who in turn work to plant trees around the world.  Ecosia makes money the way most other search engines and websites do: through advertising revenue. While this money covers various business expenses, such as advertising and operational costs, Ecosia claims that the majority of its revenue goes toward funding tree-planting projects.  Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments: financial reports   We have been unable to independently verify these numbers. However, we checked the websites of several of Ecosia's reported benefactors and found that many of these organizations list Ecosia as one of their partners. Dr. Simon Pfister, managing director of Green Ethiopia, an organization working to grow forests in Ethiopia that received approximately $150,000 from Ecosia in June 2019, told us that Ecosia accurately reported its donation in the company's financial report.  Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company: Ecosia Certified B Corporation. B Corp Certification doesnt just evaluate a product or service; it assesses the overall positive impact of the company that stands behind it. And increasingly thats what people care most about. Certified B Corporations achieve a minimum verified score on the B Impact Assessment  a rigorous assessment of a companys impact on its workers, customers, community, and environment and make their B Impact Report transparent on bcorporation.net. Certified B Corporations also amend their legal governing documents to require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose. The combination of third-party validation, public transparency, and legal accountability help Certified B Corps build trust and value. B Corp Certification is administered by the non-profit B Lab. Ecosia lets users plant trees by searching the web. In donating 80 percent of its surplus ad revenue, the search engine has raised almost $3 million for reforestation projects since its founding in December 2009. Ecosia's mission to cultivate a world where the environment doesnt need protecting has it working to plant one billion new trees by the year 2020. By supporting high-impact reforestation efforts  as well as neutralising all CO2 emissions related to its search  Ecosia aims to achieve the highest positive environmental impact per dollar possible. By publishing its monthly donation receipts online, Ecosia aims to live up to its users demands for transparency. And by working to improve its charitable web service day after day, Ecosia aims to show the world that small changes can make a big difference. In its mission to plant one billion trees by 2020, Ecosia is working with experts and communities to reforest areas of the world that need it most. Sustainable, high-impact planting strategies mean improvements to the environment, local economies and social stability. Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023: Bing 2012 100 percent renewable energy In our data centers, we will continue to focus on R&D for efficiency and renewable energy. In 2016, we announced that we would power our data centers with more renewable energy, setting a 50 percent target by the end of 2018 and topping 60 percent early in the next decade while continuing to improve from there. We hit the first target nearly a year ahead of schedule, and today we are sharing the news that we will reach the 60 percent milestone before the end of this year. Were therefore setting our next milestone on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, aiming to surpass the 70 percent target by 2023. Well also launch a new data-driven circular cloud initiative using the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor performance and streamline our reuse, resale and recycling of data center assets, including servers. For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy. announced While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says: carbon footprint Renewable energy: Did you know that the CO2 footprint of an average search is estimated at 0.2 grams? Not so with Ecosia. We recently built our own solar plant, so that we can run our servers on clean power. This is even better than buying renewable energy from existing plants, as the plant can deliver clean energy to the grid and replace electricity derived from fossil fuels. Carbon-negative: By planting trees and offsetting its energy use with renewables, each search with Ecosia actually removes 1 kg of CO2 from the air, which makes Ecosia a carbon-negative search engine. Heres the math: an average search generates around 0.005  of revenue. It costs roughly 0.25  to plant a tree, which means that Ecosia can plant one tree every 50 searches. On average, these trees will each remove 50 kg of CO2 during an expected 15 year lifetime. To sum up: Ecosia makes money through advertisements on its search engine. While a portion of that money is used to fund the operational costs of the business, about 80% of its surplus revenue is donated to environmental organizations and tree-planting projects around the world.  Smith, Brad.  "We're Increasing Our CarbonFee as We Double Down on Sustainability."   Microsoft.  15 April 2019. Google.  "100% Renewable is Just the Beginning."
  Retrieved 27 August 2019. Ecosia.  "Financial Reports and Tree-Planting Receipts."
  15 May 2019. World Wildlife Fund.  "Clicks to Help Save Amazon."   3 December 2009. Republicans havemade it clearthat between now and the November 2014 gubernatorial election, they will bereminding votersabout Democratic former Gov. Jim Doyle -- who has been out of office, and largely out of sight, for more than three years. They are casting Doyle as an ineffectual, or worse, chief executive and tying him to Gov. Scott Walker's main challenger, Democrat Mary Burke. On Feb. 4, 2014, the state Republican Party issued anews releaseattacking Burke, who served as state commerce secretary during part of Doyle's tenure, for not having proposed a jobs plan. Among other things, the party said Doyle-Burke policies led to the loss of 133,000 jobs, a claim previously made by Walker that we ratedMostly False. Walker had said Burke implemented the policies of Doyle and those policies saw the state lose more than 133,000 jobs. The number was right but other factors, namely the Great Recession, were primarily to blame. Another line in the state GOP's news release also referenced Burke, albeit more benignly, in making this claim: The only time over the last 25 years when the states unemployment rate exceeded the U.S. average was when Burke was commerce secretary. Lets take a look. The numbers Asked for evidence to back its claim, the Republican Party referred us to monthly unemployment rates forWisconsinandthe U.S.from 1988 through 2013. They are from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government's official job counter. More specifically, the party cited 15 months in 2006 and 2007 when Wisconsins unemployment rate exceeded the national rate. That was in May, June, September, October, November and December of 2006; and the first nine months of 2007. Burke was commerce secretary during all 15 months, having served in the post from Feb. 7, 2005 to Nov. 2, 2007. And BLS statistics confirmed that the only times since 1988 that the Wisconsin unemployment rate exceeded the U.S. rate were those 15 months. It's worth noting that although state unemployment rates exceeded U.S. rates during that period, the rates were under 5 percent whereas they are now above 6 percent. And the difference between the Wisconsin and U.S. unemployment rates was relatively small in the period cited by the GOP. For example, in May 2006, the state unemployment rate was 4.7 percent and the national rate was 4.6 percent. The largest difference was 0.4 percent -- the state rate was 4.8 percent in May 2007, while the national rate was 4.4 percent. The Republican Party did not have evidence to back the other part of its claim, which links the higher state unemployment rates to Burke. Other factors Marquette University economist Abdur Chowdhury told us that state government policies, such as providing business incentives, can affect unemployment and that Burke clearly was part of the team that developed policies in the Doyle administration. But many factors, particularly trends in the national economy, affect unemployment rates in the states. I wouldn't give Mary Burke full credit for any job that was created and she should not be solely blamed for the loss of any job, Chowdhury said. Indeed, when Burke cited her work as commerce secretary and said in October 2013 that when she left the job in 2007, Wisconsin had 84,000 more jobs than it does today, we rated her statementHalf True. The numerical part was on target, but Burke overstated the credit that she and Doyle deserved. In this case, the state GOP notes higher unemployment rates while Burke was in the commerce job, but doesnt directly blame her or her policies for the higher rates. Our rating The Wisconsin GOP said: The only time over the last 25 years when the states unemployment rate exceeded the U.S. average was when Burke was state commerce secretary. The statistic is accurate and the claim only indirectly blames Burke. We rate it Mostly True. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelsweb page. Follow us onTwitterandFacebook. This legend is another example of the "good samaritans gone wrong" motif: though the would-be good deed doers depicted here don't realize it, they've left a very confused young bride sitting alone in a hotel room back in Blackpool.  As a belief tale, however, this one is fraught with improbabilities. Would a freshly-minted groom really spend a whole day socializing in a bar yet never once mention that he'd just gotten married the day before? Indeed, what was he doing in the bar at all?  If he'd left his bride alone on the first day of their honeymoon to go an an all-day bender, perhaps they were both better off for his being returned to his mother. Sightings:  Something akin to this legend happens in the 1916 Douglas Fairbanks silent film His Picture in the Papers. Pete Prindle (Fairbanks) asks a club member for a dollar so he can visit the psychic Vera Carewes. The fellow member misunderstands the purpose of the loan and, duly impressed that Prindle can manage the trip on a dollar, gets him liquored up at the bar. Hours later an insensible Prindle is delivered to the docks and loaded onto a ship bound for Vera Cruz. His Picture in the Papers Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.  ISBN 0-393-31208-9  (pp. 229-230). Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nastier Legends.
  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.   ISBN 0-7102-0573-2  (p. 29). The Big Book of Urban Legends. 
  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 17). Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. On Aug. 18, 2022, a Twitter user named @cocksources tweeted a picture that appeared to show former NBA superstar Magic Johnson giving blood. The caption in the tweet read, "Earlier today, NBA legend Magic Johnson donated some of his blood to the Red Cross to help underprivileged communities help fight COVID-19."  tweeted Why would this be news of interest? Johnson announced his retirement from the NBA in 1991 after testing positive for HIV. announced his retirement Despite the tweet, the truth was that @cocksources publishes satire, which meant that the news wasn't real. The Twitter account's bio said that part of its mission was "spreading narratives with misinformation (satire)." bio  Five days later, Johnson addressed the satirical news, tweeting, "Im aware of the false story circling the internet, and to be clear, I have never donated blood." addressed  According to the TinEye reverse image search website, the oldest posting of the picture was in an article from 2013 on 24ur.com. The story said that the photograph had already raised eyebrows on Twitter years before and that it simply showed Johnson "undergoing a medical examination" in the 2012 documentary, "Endgame: AIDS in Black America." TinEye reverse image search website article Twitter Johnson  We previously reported on this photo back in 2015, when a different misleading rumor said it showed Johnson donating blood for leukemia and lymphoma patients. reported In sum, no, Johnson wasn't donating blood to the Red Cross to help underprivileged communities help fight COVID-19, nor did the picture show him donating blood at all. Red Cross Dvignil Prah: HIV Pozitiven Magic Johnson Daroval Kri? 24ur.com, 26 Mar. 2013, https://www.24ur.com/ekskluziv/tuja-scena/dvignil-prah-hiv-pozitiven-magic-johnson-daroval-kri.html. Nadel, John. AP Was There: Magic Announces He Has HIV, Retires from NBA. AP News, 23 Feb. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-lakers-nba-entertainment-sports-health-d51716031d2641c7e58957e9ef9da718. TinEye. https://tineye.com/. Claim: Edible Arrangements funds the terrorist organization Hamas. UNDETERMINED Example:   [Collected via Facebook, July 2014] A friend posted an "article" about Edible Arrangements supporting Hamas: "After you see what Edible Arrangments did for Hamas, you'll never buy from them AGAIN."  Being suspicious, I did a search and found a number of articles, all from late 2012, and all from questionable "news" sources.   Origins:  Edible Arrangements International is a U.S.-based business that specializes in selling "fruit bouquets," fruit baskets designed like floral arrangements.  As of 2014, the company was a 1,200-store chain with outlets in 14 countries, including the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Italy, Turkey, Hong Kong, Oman, India and China. Since at least as far back as 2012, rumors have circulated claiming that brothers Tariq and Kamran Farid, who founded the company, are "devout Pakistani Muslims" who have, through their Tariq Farid Foundation, donated money to organizations linked with Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist movement engaged in armed resistance and terrorism against Israel: rumors Tariq Farid Foundation Hamas Tariq Farid is the CEO of Edible Arrangements, which he started with his brother, Kamran Farid. Not only are they devout Pakistani Muslims, but they are major donors and fundraisers for American mosques, Islamic schools, and similar enterprises in Pakistan. Recent tax returns of their Farid Foundation, to which they and Edible Arrangements are major contributors, show that their foundation gives tens of thousands of dollars to extremist Islamic schools and mosques in America and to Islamic Relief, the HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood "charity" which sends tens of millions of dollars to finance jihad around the world. The Anti-Defamation League (whose stated mission is to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all citizens alike") said of such rumors back in 2012 that: Anti-Defamation League We have received several such inquiries regarding recent allegations by Debbie Schlussel in an article critical of the owners of Edible Arrangements, which sells fruit baskets and the like. Schlussel claims that the owners of Edible Arrangements are funding Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas, through their Farid Foundation. In our judgment, Schlussel's allegations lack context and nuance and she does not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she references, we believe it is an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements is funding Hamas. The ADL disclaimed these rumors again in August 2014: disclaimed A widely circulated rumor suggests that the owners of Edible Arrangements, a company that sells fruit baskets through a series of privately owned franchises across the country, are funding Hamas through a charitable foundation they support. Several ideologically motivated online sites are urging consumers to boycott the company due to their ties to terrorism." In fact, there is absolutely no truth to these unfounded assertions. While the Farid Foundation has provided funding to various organization in the U.S. and abroad, there is no evidence to suggest that any of those funds have been used to support terrorism.  Moreover, the company has clearly and unequivocally denounced terrorism, including those forms of terror used by Hamas. It should also be noted that the company's franchise owners come from a variety of religious backgrounds; some are Jewish, including the companys current president. We do note that in June 2014 Islamic Relief WorldWide (IRW) was banned from operating in Israel due to that country's belief that IRW "funnels cash to Hamas": Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon [has] signed a decree banning Islamic Relief Worldwide from operating in Israel. Israel believes IRW, which markets itself as a charitable agency that solicits donations from all over the world, funnels cash to Hamas. Yaalons ban was decided upon after the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), the coordinator for government activities in the territories, and legal authorities provided incriminating information against IRW.  The organization has representatives worldwide, including Australia, the United States, and Britain, where it is headquartered. Some of their local branches in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria are run by Hamas operatives.  Ya'alon's decree makes it illegal for IRW to function anywhere in Israel, Judea, and Samaria. It will also be forbidden from transferring funds to any destination in Judea and Samaria.  "[The IRW] is another source of funds for Hamas, and we have no intention of allowing it to operate and assist terrorist activity against Israel," Ya'alon said. "This is another in a series of steps that we are taking against Hamas in Judea and Samaria and the pressure we are applying, the goal of which is to harm the organizations leadership and rank-and-file as well as its civilian infrastructure. These serve as the foundation from which Hamas operates among the local population." In March 2014, Blue MauMau reported on a sexual and religious harassment lawsuit against Edible Arrangements and founder Tariq Farid which referenced charitable organizations that the Farids allegedly support: reported Farid and his brother, Kamran Farid (Edible Arrangements' Chief Operating Officer), at all relevant times hereto have been the two trustees of a foundation called the Farid Foundation, operated out of the same location as Edible Arrangements. Farid Foundation makes significant contributions to Islamic causes and organizations,  including the Farid Foundation Pakistan; the Salma K. Farid Academy; Islamic Circle of North America Relief; the Muslim Coalition of Connecticut; the Inner-City Muslim Action Network; the Wallingford Islamic Center; Masjid AI-Islam; and the Islamic Association of Southern Connecticut. The funding for these donations is derived in large part from donations by Farid and his brother, and by Edible Arrangements and its affiliated entities. One of those organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) supposedly has financial ties to Hamas, but the evidence presented for that claim only references web links from the ICNA web site to Hamas and similar groups, not any direct financial ties: ICNA evidence Open support for terrorist causes was available on the websites of regional ICNA branches, even after 9/11. As late as November 2002, the ICNA Southeast Zone website linked to the websites of Hamas, Hizballah, and terrorist organizations fighting in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the Pakistani-Indian disputed region of Kashmir. Among its short list of recommended Islamic charities was the Islamic Society in Gaza, which openly touted its connections to Hamas. The day after the Blue MauMau article was published, Tariq Farid's legal representatives issued a letter challenging the truthfulness of its implications, demanding its retraction, and asserting, among other things, that Farid's foundation only donation to ICNA was made "to a special fund of the ICNA called 'ICNA Relief USA', an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing: letter This letter addresses a recent article regarding my clients, Tariq Farid and the Farid Foundation, that was written by Paul Steinberg under the pseudonym "Corbin Williston," and published on your website, Blue MauMau. The article is false and defamatory of Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation, and we demand an inunediate and complete retraction. We also demand that the publication be immediately removed from all websites under your control.  The article has been deliberately written to falsely accuse Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation of supporting the illegal acts of alleged terrorist organizations and the activities of alleged war criminals. Moreover, the article is written so that a reasonable reader would believe  that Edible Arrangements, the well-known business of which Mr. Farid is founder and CEO, also supports these alleged acts of terrorism. These statements, and the entire message of the article, are patently and outrageously false. Indeed, the author and publisher of these falsehoods could only have acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. The article asserts that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports terrorist activities overseas through the Farid Foundation's donations to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In fact, the Farid Foundation's only contribution was to a special fund of the ICNA called "ICNA Relief USA", an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing. When a rumormonger made similar false accusations against the Farid Foundation some time ago, the Anti-Defamation League responded that such "allegations lack[ed] context and nuance and [the accuser] [did] not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she referenc[ed], we believe it [was] an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements [funded] Hamas." Most egregious and defamatory is the articles clear implication that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports the goals of an alleged terrorist (Ashrafuzzaman Khan) or overseas terrorist groups. There is not a shred of objective fact, cited or existing, to support this false assertion. In addition, the article is in part based on false allegations contained in a complaint of an ex-employee of Edible Arrangements. Mr. Farid and Edible Arrangements have refuted those allegations in their answer and will obtain dismissal of all claims in the litigation. Blue MauMau's original article has not been retracted, and its author published a follow-up the next day stating (in part): follow-up A few observations regarding the Edible Arrangements statement: The franchise does not dispute that the head of ICNA was recently convicted of war crimes in Bangladesh. The franchise says that Edible Arrangements actually gave money to "a special fund" of ICNA. In other words, although ICNA may have been run by a man convicted of torture and murder of 18 people, he also ran "a special fund" which "helps women with temporary housing." Members of the public may find this a distinction without a difference, and they may also find it relevant that Edible Arrangements does not see any problem with ICNA's history of behavior, nor does it see any problem with the head of ICNA being a party to torture. My guess is that the people who were tortured and murdered might disagree with Tariq Farid. The franchise says that a "reasonable reader" may believe that Edible Arrangements and Tariq Farid "support these alleged acts of terrorism."  Well, yes. That is a "reasonable" reading of the uncontroverted facts laid out in the BlueMauMau article. Whatever the truth of those issues regarding ICNA may be, the evidence for a direct financial link between ICNA and Hamas (and thus between Edible Arrangements and Hamas) still appears rather tenuous. Last updated:  2 August 2014    O'Connor, Clare.  "How Edible Arrangements Sold $500 Million of Fruit Bouquets in 2013."   Forbes.  8 April 2014.     Williston, Corbin.  "Edible Arrangements Suit Renews Questions of Terrorist Support."   Blue MauMau.  30 March 2014.     Williston, Corbin.  "Edible Arrangements Denies Funding Terrorists."   Blue MauMau.  31 March 2014.     The Jerusalem Post.  "Israel Bans Islamic Relief Worldwide from West Bank Due to Hamas Ties."   19 June 2014. In April 2021, users of the online forum Reddit discussed, shared, and pored over a striking meme that purported to contrast the perception Americans hold about their country's superlative status among the nations of the world with the (supposedly) much more sobering reality.  The meme was posted to the "/facepalm" sub-reddit  a discussion board dedicated to displays of stupidity  on April 12. It read as follows: posted What the USA thinks it's #1 in:- Healthcare 30th- Happiness 19th- Education 26th- Life Expectancy 46th- Free Press 42nd- Freedom Index 17th- Climate Change Performance 59/60 What it IS #1 in:- Incarceration- Gas consumption- Oil consumption- Military spending   The meme originated in a widely-shared tweet posted back in October 2020, and was also reposted on Facebook at that time. This fact check will focus specifically on the second half of the meme, "What the U.S. is #1 in"  the potentially surprising and arguably dubious superlatives attached to the United States. tweet Facebook On the whole, the meme contained a mixture of accuracy and inaccuracy, much of which depended on the way in which certain rankings were viewed. For example, the U.S. spends by far the most of any country on its military, in absolute terms, but not when overall government spending or the size of the American economy is taken into account.  The United States has comfortably the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, according to two reliable sources. In 2018, the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization which gathers data on imprisonment but also advocates against mass incarceration, reported that the U.S. has an incarceration rate of 698 per 100,000 people. That was a significantly higher rate than that of the second-ranked nation, El Salvador, which had an incarceration rate of 614, or Turkmenistan, where the rate was 583 per 100,000 people. nonprofit reported Similarly, the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London, also ranked the U.S. first in 2018, with an incarceration rate of 639 per 100,000 people, with El Salvador and Turkmenistan again ranked second and third, respectively. The U.S. also had the highest outright number of incarcerate persons in the world, regardless of overall population, at just over two million people. ranked The underlying data is now three years old, so this assessment comes with something of a health warning. However, given the gap between the United States and other nations in 2018, the ranking is unlikely to have been upended since then. It's not made clear in the meme, but it is reasonable to assume this claim refers to vehicle gas  that is, automobile gasoline  consumption. On that premise, the claim is true. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a federal agency, the U.S. consumed 9.3 million barrels of automobile gasoline per day, in 2018  the greatest amount of any country. consumed That's the equivalent of 1.2 gallons per person per day, which is also the world's second-highest rate of consumption, even after population is taken into account. Canada, with 1 gallon per person per day, and the United Arab Emirates, with 0.9 gallons per person per day, were the third- and fourth-ranked nations, respectively. The place with the highest per capita consumption of automobile gasoline in 2018 was Gibraltar, a British territory located on the southern tip of Spain, with nearly 1.3 gallons per person per day. Since Gibraltar has such a small population (only 33,718 people lived there in 2018) it's quite possible that the per capita consumption figures are skewed. Gibraltar is also not a sovereign nation, so a further argument exists for placing the U.S. at the top of the per capita consumption rankings. Again, the underlying data is a few years old and comes with a health warning, but the gap between the U.S. and other nations is unlikely to have been bridged since 2018. This claim is a , with the same disclaimer that the most recent reliable figures available date from 2018. The best source available here is, again, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which reported that, in 2018, the U.S. consumed 20.5 million barrels (861.5 million gallons) of oil per day. That's 20% of the entire world's consumption, and comfortably the highest volume of any nation.  reported However, when population is taken into account, the U.S. is not the world's most voracious consumer of oil, which is defined by the Energy Information Administration as including crude oil, all other petroleum liquids, and biofuels. Those 20.5 million barrels equate to 2.6 gallons of oil per person per day. Several other countries had higher rates of consumption than that, including Singapore (11 gallons per person per day), Kuwait (4.3 gallons per person per day), Saudi Arabia (3.8 gallons per person per day), and Canada (2.9 gallons per person per day). A handful of very small countries rounded out the top 10, suggesting that statistical outliers in small populations might again be playing a role.  higher rates . According to figures collected by the Stockholm International Peace Institute, a leading think tank based in Sweden, the U.S. had by far the world's highest military expenditure in 2019, the most recent year for which figures are available, spending close to $732 billion. China was ranked a distant second, with $261 billion, while India and Russia spent $71 billion and $65 billion, respectively.  figures However, the U.S. ranked second to Israel when population is taken into account, spending $2,224 per person on its military, in comparison with Israel's $2,402 per person. The U.S. also ranked outside the top 20 for military spending as a percentage of total government spending (at 9.4%) and outside the top 10 for military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the overall size of the economy, with 3.4%. Claim:  Photograph shows a 9-month-old baby tattooed by its mother's boyfriend.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2011] A local New York State resident, Franny Trokerns was arrested early this morning after being turned in by her babysitter. After the babysitter noticed the child was constantly screaming as if the baby was pain she took the baby's clothes off to give her a bath and saw the baby had a REAL tattoo on the her right arm. The babysitter was in disbelief and immediately called authorities. The mother works as a dancer at a local strip bar and apparently during a night of heavy drinking of shots she allowed her on-and-off-again boyfriend Derrek Honsteads (a tattoo artist) to tattoo her 9 month old baby for a little practice!   Origins:  This image does not show a 9-month-old baby whose mother, after a night of heavy drinking, allowed her tattoo artist boyfriend to ply his trade on her child.  The infant in the picture is not a real child, and the accompanying text is simply a bit of fiction crafted by someone to create a false outrage-provoking backstory. What's pictured here is a 2010 work by Brooklyn, New York, artist Jason Clay Lewis, who describes his art thusly: Jason Clay Lewis As an artist, my approach has always been, intentionally, to confound and challengeattempts to make things fit into what we already know and think. I strive to questionperceived beauty, passion, life, death, and creation. I have an urgent conviction that artis a passionate and essential affair, as if a matter of life and death, where one sensesthe only response to death is art. Without glossing over the violence of the natural worldI asks questions about man's suicidal folly, the one we call progress, a merger into apathetic religion of commerce and profit, of false facades, and using a strategy to makeus reconsider our world of visual imagery. I tinker with these visual explanations, tryingto give them purpose, direction, and meaning. Always perfectly aware that knowing thisconstant probing does not have a sequence to a perfect solution. Atypical andfascinating, as an adventurer blending expression, analysis, and experience, I use everymeans and media available to explore the love of knowledge and depict limits, whiletrying to push those limits even farther. My interest in unique materials helps to developmy ideas of attraction verses repulsion allowing my work to have both a strong visceralfeeling while maintaining a direct cerebral presence. This particular work is entitled 'Drill Baby' and features an infant constructed from vinyl rubber, mohair, oil paint, plaster, and aluminum armature.  Photographs of the full artwork, as well as close-ups taken from multiple angles, can be viewed here. here Last updated:  22 January 2012 The congressional contest between Democratic Rep. Betty Sutton and Republican Rep. Jim Renacci is among the nations most costly and hard-fought races, and has also devolved into one of the nastiest.After Renacci placed ads accusing Sutton of voting to raise taxes on just about everyone, Sutton fired back with an ad that claims Renacci supports tax breaks for millionaires like himself and tried to avoid paying taxes on nearly $14 million that he made.We play by the rules but Renacci thinks hes above them, says a male blue collar worker shown in Suttons ad.On the same day that Sutton unveiled the ad that accuses Renacci of avoiding taxes, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made a similar assertion in adifferent ad, which says: Renacci tried to skip out on paying over a million in taxes..The tax avoidance claims in Suttons new ad echo charges that were raised against Renacci in 2010, when he first ran for Congress and defeated Democratic Rep. John Boccieri. They stem from a dispute Renacci had with the Ohio Department of Taxation, which accused him and his wife, Tina, of misreporting their income in 2000 and assessed them nearly $1.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties.The Renaccis filed state tax returns that claimed they had a loss of $247,336 that year, but auditors determined they actually made $13,730,440. The couple filed a tax appeal when the state dinged them for $954,650 in back taxes, $146,938 in interest and $293,876 in penalties.The quarrel was over Renacci's trust income from an S corporation, which wasnt taxable for several years before Ohio's tax commissioner changed the states policy. S corporations permit income to be taxed at an individual rate for federal tax purposes, and avoid double taxation on corporate income. Renacci was among a group of taxpayers who fought the state decision. He contended the trust income should have been tax-free and that he had reasonable cause to exclude it on his tax return, tax department and court documents say.Others dropped their appeals, but Renacci continued to fight, even after a 2006 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in a similar case in which the court said the trust income was subject to taxation. In that case, the taxpayers reported their S Corporation income on their 2000 tax return and then unsuccessfully asked for a refund.A 2007 legal brief the state of Ohio filed in Renaccis case observed that nearly all other litigants who created grantor trusts in an attempt to shelter, i.e., exclude their S corporation income from Ohio income taxation gave up their appeals, and that the Renaccis were almost alone in their persistence. Court records show the Renaccis eventually sent the state more than $1.3 million, but they continue to argue that $359,822 that they paid in penalties and interest were improper.He was proud of his fight, and to have fought till the end, along with many other Ohioans for tax fairness, Renacci spokesman James Slepian told the Plain Dealer in 2010.When asked about Suttons new ad,  Slepian this month called her a desperate politician who knows shes losing and has no record to run on, and said shes  engaging in the bogus, gutter politics of recycled personal attacks that have defined her sad career in Congress.Indeed, the charges against Renacci are somewhat recycled. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union placeda television adin 2010 that contained a more extreme version of the charges that Sutton is making.That ad said he cheated on his income taxes, that he hid more than $13 million and was forced to pay $1.4 million in back taxes and penalties. Renacci filed a defamation suit against the union after the ads began to air.Court recordsshow he dropped the case on Feb. 3, 2011, shortly after he took office in Congress.PolitiFact Ohio founda claim in that ad to be Mostly True because Renacci could have disclosed the trust income on his state tax return, as the state warned he should, but he didnt. He also could have paid the taxes and contested the amount, but didnt. And he didnt amend his return, despite an explicit 2002 warning from Ohios tax Department that he could face penalties for fraud and failure to pay if he didnt. But Renacci ultimately worked within the system to resolve the case, paid the full amount that was due, and was not ever charged with tax fraud.The claim in this ad is an easier call. Reams of legal documents show that Renacci battled with the state over trust income from an S corporation, trying to avoid paying taxes on the $13.7 million at issue in the case.On the Truth-O-Meter, Suttons claim rates True. In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers."