Was Rev. Al Sharpton Paid $24K to Speak at George Floyd's Funeral?
Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here In June 2020, several social media users copy-pasted a piece of text across social media that claimed the Rev. Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at the funeral of George Floyd, the Black man whose death while in police custody sparked nationwide protests against police brutality and racial injustice. social media     Verbatim or near-verbatim copies of this message  "Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at George Floyd's funeral"  have been shared by dozens of users on Facebook and Twitter. The earliest posting of this message that we could find was shared on June 13, a few days after Floyd's funeral service, by Brian Benedetto. That post had been shared more than 69,000 times:   However, none of the posts that we examined offered any evidence to support the claim. These posts weren't accompanied by links to news articles, quotes, TV interviews, financial records, or any other evidence to prove this accusation. It seems that this claim was simply conjured up out of thin air.  This type of post, a piece of text overlaid on a bright background, is frequently used to share unfounded claims, which are repeated over and over until some people become convinced that they are true.  Poynter wrote in 2019: Poynter When Facebook started letting users post text on top of colored backgrounds in 2016, it seemed like a fairly benign way to get people to share more personal thoughts on the platform. [...] But since then, like other formats on Facebook, the text post feature has been weaponized into an effective way to spread misinformation on the platform. Over the past few weeks, some of the most viral hoaxes on Facebook have spread in the form of text posts. They make salacious political claims without linking to any website or attaching a photo or video. They often come from regular Facebook users instead of Pages or Groups. There is no evidence to support the claim that Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at Floyd's funeral. This claim did not originate with a credible source and is not supported by any available evidence. However, we can't definitively say that Sharpton was not paid for this speaking engagement. We reached out to Sharpton and The Fountain of Praise Church in Houston for more information and will update this story if we hear back.  A video of Sharpton's eulogy can be viewed below: eulogy    Funke, Daniel.  "Forget Fake News Stories. False Text Posts Are Getting Massive Engagement on Facebook."
  Poynter.  6 March 2019. Emmrich, Stuart.  "The Most Moving Moment of Al Sharptons Eulogy for George Floyd."
  Vogue. 2 June 2020. CBS Minnesota.  "Al Sharpton To Deliver Eulogy At George Floyd Memorial Service."   2 June 2020.
A gun reform group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, has turned its focus to New Hampshire, running a TV ad that criticizes Republican congressional candidate Marilinda Garcia not only on gun ownership, which is the groups main focus, but also on the minimum wage and equal pay for women. In a 30-second spot titled Strange Ideas, Giffords group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, asserts that Garcia holds views different from a majority of New Hampshire residents. Marilinda Garcia has some strange ideas. Most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage. Garcia opposes it. Most people support guaranteeing women get equal pay for equal work. Garcias against that, too. Garcia even opposes closing the loophole that allows dangerous criminals to get a gun without a background check. Granite Staters deserve commonsense leadership, not Marilinda Garcia. PolitiFact New Hampshire decided to check the record on those claims. In this item, well check Garcias stance on a minimum wage increase. Garcia, a state representative, is challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, a Democrat, for the 2nd Congressional District seat. The Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC unveiled the advertisement in September, just as it stopped airing a controversial TV ad that accused a congressional candidate in Arizona of opposing legislation that aims to prevent convicted stalkers from buying guns. On-screen, the New Hampshire ad cites a WMUR-TVpoll from Februarythat found three-quarters of New Hampshire residents supported raising the state minimum wage to $9 an hour. That provides support for the ads claim, though its worth noting that a federal proposal supported by President Barack Obama and other Democrats would push it higher, to $10.10 an hour. At the time the poll was conducted, the New Hampshire Legislature was considering a bill (HB1403) to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.25 in 2015, and then to $9 in 2016. The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, found that 59 percent of residents strongly supported the increase and another 17 percent somewhat supported it. Eight percent strongly opposed it and 5 percent somewhat opposed it. Another 11 percent were neutral or don't know enough to say, according to WMUR. New Hampshire is the only state among its neighbors without a higher wage than the federal floor of $7.25, and it has the lowest minimum wage of any New England state. The minimum wage is $8.73 an hour in Vermont, $8 in Massachusetts and $7.50 in Maine. All told, it is one of 18 states have the same minimum wage as the federal minimum of $7.25, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures. About a month after the poll, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted toincrease the states minimum wageby a vote of 173-118. Legislators voted mostly along party lines, with five Democrats voting against it and four Republicans voting for it. We checked theroll callto see how Garcia voted, but on three successive votes on March 12, 2014, related to the minimum wage bill, Garcia did not cast a vote. Later, in May, the Republican-controlled State Senatekilled the bill, with all 13 Republicans voting against it and 11 Democrats voting in favor of it, a process in which Garcia played no official role. An earlier legislative battle over the minimum wage in New Hampshire also sheds light on Garcias record. In 2011, the New Hampshire legislature, with a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, passed a bill that deleted the states minimum wage, meaning that the states lowest wage would be the federal minimum. At the time, New Hampshires minimum wage was $7.25 an hour, the same as the federal amount, but critics said the bill was intended to keep the states minimum wage as low as possible. In the House, Garcia was one of 236 legislatorsto vote in favorof that bill, HB133. After passing the state Senate, Gov. John Lynch vetoed the measure. Both the House and Senate overrode Lynchs veto, and Garcia was one of261 members of the House to vote in favorof overriding the governor. So, while Garcia has no voting record on the 2014 minimum wage increase in New Hampshire, she did take a clear stand on the 2011 law tying the states minimum wage to the federal one. As further evidence of Garcias opposition to increasing the minimum wage,  the ad cites an article fromThe Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress,which reported that Garcia opposes a minimum wage hike. That article, publishedJune 9, introduced Garcia -- then considered an underdog in the Republican primary against state Sen. Gary Lambert -- to a national audience. The article reviews her record as a state legislator and points to how some GOP establishment figures had feared Garcia would be viewed as too conservative in a general election race. The article quotes Garcia saying in a March interview that while increasing the minimum wage superficially seemed like a good idea, it wouldnt actually help anybody much more and could in fact hurt. It actually has negative outcomes in many areas. One would be, if were trying to encourage people to educate themselves further so they dont have to stay in a minimum-wage job anymore, raising [the minimum wage] lowers the incentive to do that, she said. Garcias stance hasnt changed since then. In an email message to PolitiFact New Hampshire, Kenny Cunningham, the Garcia campaigns political and communications director, reinforced the position. A one-size-fits-all minimum wage from Washington, D.C., is counter-productive. Economists agree it would increase unemployment, particularly amongst teenagers, Cunningham said. Instead, Marilinda wants to reduce Americas highest-in-the-world corporate tax rates and rein in job-killing regulations. Our ruling An ad from the liberal Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC says most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage, but Marilinda Garcia opposes it. Polls from when the New Hampshire Legislature was considering raising the states minimum wage showed that a majority of residents surveyed supported increasing the wage from the federal minimum of $7.25 to $8.25 and eventually to $9 an hour. And Garcia has gone on the record criticizing attempts to raise the minimum wage, saying its effects could be counter-productive and could lead to negative outcomes. She also cast several votes in 2011 that effectively kept the state minimum wage the lowest in the region. The claim needs a slight clarification. As backup for the assertion that most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage, the poll cited a poll that asked residents about a $9 minimum wage. Its not clear whether residents would support a hike to the higher level of $10.10, as the president and congressional Democrats are seeking. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True. Claim:  News about swine flu cases in New Orleans has been suppressed to avoid interfering with attendance at Jazz Fest.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] I just got this email from a friend of mine whose co-worker went to the doctor today:     "The secretary in my office spoke to her mother's doctor this morning.  He told her the following and urged her to pass this on to everyone she knows.  She said this doctor is not normally the alarmist type but was very adamant about this.  He is a doctor at East Jefferson Hospital, he said the following: There have been 65 cases of Swine Flu in the New Orleans area in the past 48 hours.  This is not yet public knowledge because Nagin doesn't want to hurt Jazz Fest.  The boats that are docking and coming in from Mexico could be the culprits, but no one knows yet.   His instructions are as follows: For the next 10 days (he said by then we will all know about this) do not use public restrooms! Stay away from large crowds and anyplace with low income workers, he specifically said Wal-Mart.  He said this should be taken very seriously because since we are not being made aware of it, it could literally spread here like wildfire.  He recommended buying Lysol wipes and wiping down anything you have to use that can be accessed by the public. He also contacted his child's school and recommended they cancel the school play. This came directly from the doctors mouth!" Origins:  The above-quoted e-mail began circulating on Tuesday, 28 April 2009. While its author is unknown, the quality of the information it proffers is not: it's bunk. As Gina Swanson, a news reporter with WDSU-TV in New Orleans said of the item in her 29 April 2009 piece about the e-mailed rumor: "The e-mail alleges that there are dozens of cases, confirmed cases, of swine flu here at East Jefferson Hospital, and doctors are not  alerting the public. We spoke with doctors here [at East Jefferson Hospital] this afternoon. They want to set the record straight  they say simply that's not the case." Said Dr. John Wales, Director of Emergency Medicine, East Jefferson Hospital, in that interview:"At our hospital, there's no reported cases of swine flu. We've had one case a couple of days ago and another case about a week ago of influenza A, which is very typical at the end of the flu season, which is where we are now, for a couple of flu cases to come in and test positive for Flu A. But as far as we know, there are no cases of swine flu at East Jefferson." As East Jefferson Hospital said in its 30 April 2009 online denial of the rumor: "East Jefferson General Hospital would like to dispel a current Internet rumor claiming that an unnamed physician confirms there are 65 cases of H1N1 Flu, commonly known as swine flu, in the New Orleans area. There is no truth to this. At this time, there are no confirmed cases of swine flu in the state of Louisiana." denial As of 2 May 2009, the number of probable swine flu cases in the whole of Louisiana stood at 23. Barbara "N(ew)O(rleans) truth to the rumor" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 May 2009    East Jefferson General Hospital Newsroom.  "EJGH Updates the Community on Swine Flu."   30 April 2009. A photograph purportedly showing an image of Eric and Donald Trump, Jr., the two older sons of President Donald Trump, has been circulating on social media in various forms since at least June 2017: circulating various @realDonaldTrump Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it. pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn  Linda Radtke (@lradtke77) June 9, 2017 June 9, 2017  The image, which provides an oddly grotesque look at President Trump's olders sons, has been re-purposed in various memes to mock the First Family. For instance, it has been turned into a movie poster for Dumb and Dumber, was shared in a meme comparing the two Trumps children into to the "sloth" character from the movie The Goonies, and was frequently shared with the captions "They look like that "h'yucc" sound Goofy be making" or "Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it." Dumb and Dumber sloth captions However, this picture (despite the Getty Images watermark) is not a genuine photograph of Donald Trump's sons, but a digitally altered version of one. The original photograph was taken on 12 November 2005, during Donald Trump, Jr.'s wedding reception at his father's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was captioned: "Donald Trump, Jr. pose with his brother Eric Trump after the wedding ceremony at the Mar-a-Lago Club on November 12, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by C. Allegri/Getty Images)" original Several subtle changes were made to the original image in order to uglify the Trump brothers. For instance, Donald Trump, Jr.'s upper lip was enlarged, his bottom teeth were hidden, his right eye was moved off-center, and his left ear was lowered. Eric Trump's eyes were also widened, and some extra fat was added to his neck. Here's a comparison of the fake image (left) and the real image (right): On 30 January 2018, Utah-based Premier Pediatrics shared a Facebook post warning that Crayola bathtub fingerpaint soap chemically burned a patient's hands: Facebook post   The text of that warning reads as follows: CAUTION! ? We want to share a warning with everyone.  We had a patient come in today. He had used Crayola Bathtub Fingerpaint Soap and it BURNED his hands. Luckily only his hands. We're talking layers of skin gone! We have permission to share. She has attempted to contact the company 3 times with no reply. She purchased it at Wal-Mart but its sold everywhere. Most Amazon reviews are great but we found a ton of bad ones with kids having terrible rashes or more burns.PLEASE SHARE OR TAG YOUR FRIENDS!! ?@premierpediatrics(Update: the company has reached out to us and given their direct line to the parent.) According to to Premier Pediatrics, the child showed up with burns on 30 January 2018. The office also claimed the child's mother made three attempts to contact Crayola about the situation, but it was not clear how much time elapsed between the purported injury, calls, and doctors' visit. Premier Pediatrics pointed to mixed reviews on Amazon as evidence the product causes burns  but some of those reviews were based on Facebook warnings about the product. Amazon A spokesperson for Crayola told us they will be investigating: Thank you for making us aware of this incident. As the manufacturer for childrens products, safety, above all else, is most important to us. We share your concerns and are actively looking into this further. Patient privacy laws make it difficult to find out more details about the purported injury. Although it is possible the photographs show burns on a child exposed to Crayola's bathtub fingerpaint soap, the vast majority of commenters report use of the product without incident. An individual allergic reaction to an unidentified ingredient in the soap is possible, but without further information, impossible to verify. Patient privacy California Department of Health Care Services.  "What Is HIPAA?"
  Accessed 2 February 2018. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a statewide mask mandate starting July 23, 2020, amidst a rise in COVID-19 cases in the region, online rumors suggested any mask manufacturers, including those selling masks from home, were at risk of facing lawsuits.  announced rise Snopes readers alerted us to the circulation of the above-displayed letter purportedly from the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA), printed on an American Bar Association (ABA) letterhead. Dated July 19, 2020, the letter claimed that under "Ohio Consumer Laws" individuals could bring a lawsuit against establishments selling or manufacturing masks without licenses or warning labels, including those selling out of their homes, especially if wearers got lung damage. The letter, full of grammatical errors and deprived of punctuation, stated: Under Ohio Consumer Laws you can now bring lawsuit against any retail establishment selling or manufacturing Face Masks or Facial Coverings for the purpose virus protection You can now file lawsuits against anyone selling a facial covering that has not been Medically Approved to filter contagious diseases. This includes any Homemade or Factory made mask With the rise in lung damage caused by pleurisy you can Legally sue for Medical Damages and or selling a Medical Device without license Any mask sold without proper warning labeling sewn into the fabric will be considered in violation, you can also file a mislabeled or not FDA approved lawsuit You can also pursue anyone selling face masks out of their homeYou can also bring suit if selling a medical device without licenseYou can also bring suit for Illegal Monetary Sales and failure to disclose income under IRS 254-70994USYou can also now bring suit against any small business that knowingly sells a defective face covering that causes lung damage We believe these lawsuits will be very lucrative moving forward We learned that the letter attribution was fake and its contents were suspect. In a statement on their Facebook page, the OSBA said they did not issue a letter and readers should be wary of its contents: statement   We reached out to the OSBA who would not comment on the contents of the letter because as an organization they refrain from giving legal advice.  Snopes also reached out to the Ohio attorney generals office about the information in the letter. A representative confirmed that under Ohio law consumers can bring lawsuits against suppliers for unfair and deceptive practices, but much of what constitutes a violation relies on court interpretation. According to the Ohio Revised Code, such deceptive practices include: Ohio Revised Code That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not [...] It is likely that this applies to any mask manufacturers that make deceptive promises about the quality of their product(s) and the level of protection the product(s) provide. DeWine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended the use of homemade and non-medical grade masks in addition to practicing social distancing. The CDC stated that surgical masks or respirators are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers. The Ohio state and federal governments have shared recommendations for do-it-yourself (DIY) or homemade masks without any requirement for a license or warning labels. Consumer protection laws may apply to people selling these homemade masks without affixed labels, but the actual legal implications remain unclear given government recommendations.  DeWine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Ohio The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulates masks used for medical purposes only. In April 2020, when health care providers in the U.S. reportedly did not have access to enough personal protective equipment, including masks, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for face masks used by the general public and in health care settings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In short, this EUA required that face masks should be labeled accurately and their use not be misrepresented. Authorized masks were to meet the following requirements:  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) 1. The product is labeled accurately to describe the product as a face mask and includes a list of the body contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); 2. The product is labeled accurately so that it does not claim to be intended for use as a surgical mask or to provide liquid barrier protection; 3. The product labeling includes recommendations against use in a clinical setting where the infection risk level through inhalation exposure is high; 4. The product is not labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the products intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction; 5. The product is not labeled as a respiratory protective device, and therefore should not be used for particulate filtration; and 6. The product is not labeled for use in high risk aerosol generating procedures. In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as false. Codes.Ohio.gov.  "Chapter 109:4-3 Deceptive Acts or Trade Practices in Connection with Consumer Transactions."
 Accessed 3 August 2020 FDA.gov. "To: Manufacturers of Face Masks; Health Care Personnel; Hospital Purchasing Departments and Distributors; and Any Other Stakeholders."
  24 April 2020.  Ingles, Jo.  "Coronavirus in Ohio: Ohioans Advised To Wear Homemade Masks in Public."
  WOSU.  6 April 2020. Morello, Carol.  "Coronavirus Cases on the Rise in the Midwest as They Ebb in the Sun Belt."
  The Washington Post.  28 July 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Considerations for Wearing Masks."
  16 July 2020. Waldrop, Theresa.  "Ohio Governor Orders Statewide Mask Mandate as of Thursday."
 CNN. 22 July 2020. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In late December and early January 2021, increasing COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person became a major issue in the Georgia Senate run-off elections. The campaign pitch, made in some form by Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, and Joe Biden leading up to that Jan. 5, 2021 election, was that a blue (Democrat-controlled) U.S. Senate would ensure passage of those $2,000 checks. On Jan. 20, Biden unveiled his $1.9 trillion COVID stimulus plan. It proposed issuing $1,400 checks to each person. Some have interpreted the $1,400 as a broken promise, despite the fact that the goal, since December, had always been to achieve a total per person payment of $2,000. The $600 checks already approved by Congress began disbursement starting on Dec. 29, 2020. Here, Snopes takes a granular look at the issue. 1.9 trillion proposed On Dec. 22, 2020, President Donald Trump shocked congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle by threatening to block passage of a third COVID-19 stimulus package that had been negotiated for months and that his administration played a crucial role in shaping. The problem, Trump stated in a video Tweeted out that night, was that the $600 per person cap was not enough. "I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple," he said. shocked video In a confusing moment of limited bipartisanship, Democratic members of Congress agreed with Trump and launched a last-minute campaign to amend the relief bill to include the $2,000 checks requested by Trump. Congressional Republicans, for the most part, opposed the increase. An attempt to raise the amount, pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, to the level Trump had requested failed on Dec. 24. Ultimately, Trump signed the originally negotiated bill  which included the $600 per person cap  on Dec. 27.  failed signed In response, on Dec. 28, Democrats in the House passed a stand-alone bill designed to make Trump's vision of $2,000 per person a reality. The text of the bill proposed, in part, to amend the portion of the recently passed relief package "by striking '$600' each place it appears and inserting '$2,000', and by striking '$1,200' each place it appears and inserting '$4,000.' The move was described by The Associated Press at the time as "all but dar[ing] Republicans to break with Trump." text was described That "dare" came at a complicated political moment. The two run-off elections for Georgia would determine the balance of power in the Senate. Both Ossoff and Warnock capitalized on the moment, immediately pushing both their GOP rivals in Georgia to support the House bill upping the payment to $2,000. capitalized On Dec. 28, the same day that the House passed its proposed increase to COVID relief checks, Warnock tweeted that, "Georgians could have gotten $2,000 relief checks. You're only getting $600  because [opponent Kelly Loeffler] refused to fight for more." That same day, Ossoff tweeted that his opponent "David Perdue didnt even want the first round of stimulus checks." On election day, Ossoff's final pitch to voters included the statement, "We will be able to pass $2,000 stimulus checks for the people next week." tweeted tweeted https://streamable.com/tehygd President-elect Biden had made the same general point a day earlier at a rally for Ossoff and Warnock. "By electing Jon and the reverend, you can make an immediate difference in your own lives," Biden said on Jan. 4, "because their election will put an end to the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check. That money that will go out the door immediately." https://streamable.com/jckvga On Jan. 20, Biden revealed his COVID relief plan in an executive order calling for additional payments of $1,400 per person. This led some to interpret Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff's pre-election discussion as a disingenuous bait-and-switch, promising a certain amount of money for votes and then refusing to deliver on that promise. "$2,000 means $2,000," Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post following the release of the plan, "$2,000 does not mean $1,400." Other critics accused Biden and Ossoff of "purchasing" peoples' votes and then refusing to "pay up." told Those arguing that Biden et al. broke a political promise by proposing $1,400 checks on top of the already approved $600 ones misrepresent the political debate surrounding COVID-19 relief efforts. Until the "broken promise" talking point emerged, the two political "camps" were the $600 advocates (most congressional Republicans) and the $2,000 advocates (Trump and most congressional Democrats). At no point was there ever a "$2,600 camp." Before the end of December, it appeared logistically possible to modify the amount of money mandated in the previous COVID-relief package through that House bill passed on Dec. 28. According to reporting in The New York Times, however, the Treasury Department "started making direct deposit payments" on Dec. 29, and started mailing checks the next day. reporting Ocasio-Cortez, who suggested Biden's plan did not fulfill the campaign promise of $2,000 checks, explicitly advocated the same solution on Dec. 23, proposing an amendment that would increase payments in the Trump package by $1,400 per person: same solution   Looking back at the statements made by Biden and others, references to "$2,000 checks" must be to these legislative efforts  including those advocated for and voted on by Ocasio-Cortez. Because the Senate cannot "block" legislation that has not yet been proposed, Biden's reference to "the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check" clearly refers to the Senate's unwillingness to take up the House amendment upping the $600 checks to $2,000. reference The end result of the solution Ocasio-Cortez, Biden, Ossoff and Warnock proposed or advocated for in late December would have been a total of $2,000 per person. The end result of the Biden package, if passed, would be a total of $2,000 per person. Indeed, the claim that any politician was arguing for a total of $2,600 per person in late December is completely untenable, and belied by Ocasio-Cortez's support for the $2,000 solutions advocated for by herself and other Democrats at that time. The central issue is this: As the debate about the inadequacy of $600 checks versus $2,000 checks was raging in Congress, the $600 plan had already become law. Money was already being dispersed. To achieve the total of $2,000 advocated for by Trump and Democrats in late December, an additional payment of $1,400 passed through new legislation would be required. Biden's plan, the specifics of which are currently being worked through in the House at the time of this reporting, would achieve that same end result. currently There is a plausible argument, however, that Biden and Ossoff over-promised regarding the rapidity with which a Biden administration and a blue Senate could bring about rapid disbursement of these funds. As the House has yet to approve the legislative package proposed by Biden, the money did not "go out the door immediately," as Biden promised on Jan 4. Nor would that legislative package be passed, as Ossoff claimed it would, "the next week" after his election. The first $600 payments already approved have yet to reach many Americans. many In late December 2020, Democrats united with Trump to push Congressional Republicans to increase COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person. The universal call by those on the Left, at the time, was for a total of $2,000 per person. Ultimately, the $600 plan passed while the viability of $2,000 payments was still gaining traction. References to "$2,000 checks" made in January by Biden and by Georgia's Democratic Senate candidates were to increase existing payments up to $2,000  not to issue a new check for $2,000 in addition to the amount already approved. Because Biden and Ossoff's statements are consistent with the package Democrats ultimately proposed, but because their timeline for getting those payments out the door was too optimistic, we rank the claim that Biden's proposed $1,400 checks are a broken promise as "false." On 18 January 2017, web site GotNews posted an article reporting that U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is perhaps most famous for participating in the Civil Rights Movement at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pay property taxes on a $1 million townhouse located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C.: article Trump-hating Democratic Georgia congressman John Lewis didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse on Capitol Hill, despite being in Congress for decades, where the salary for a Representative starts at $174,000 per year. Lewis was in the news recently for saying he doesnt see President-elect Donald J. Trump as a legitimate president because of the #RussianHackers Democratic conspiracy theory. The article displayed a table showing annual property tax payments for the home in question and a legal notice from 2010 alerting Lewis of a court action against him (the case was later dismissed). It's unclear how this table supposedly documents that Lewis "didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse," given that it lists tax payments due on the property for each of the last several years and shows nothing owing other than the most recent payment (for the last half of 2016):  Moreover, a different view from the same D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue web site shows that the taxes on Lewis' property have indeed been collected, as due, for each of the last several years:  We contacted Lewis's spokeswoman, Brenda Jones, who told us that he bought the home years before property values soared, that he still owns it, and that he is not behind on his taxes: He pays property taxes annually, just as all homeowners in DC do, and his taxes are paid and up to date. Any report that he avoids paying taxes grasps at straws and is a desperate and unnecessary attempt to tarnish his credibility, instead of debating the substance of issues he has raised. Neither the home in question, nor any properties under Lewis' name, appearedon a database search of properties seized and placed on sale for failure to pay property taxes. database A second item of alleged proof offered by GotNews.com was a 2010 "notice of pendency of action," a legal notice ofcourt actions relating to real property. The document appears to be a notice of a foreclosure hearing. That case, however, was dismissed on 11 February 2011: notice  According to current public records available as of 19 January 2017, Lewis still owns the property, confirming that the case was dropped. It was purchased in 1988 (for an unknown price) and is currently valued at $865,790. An explanation offered by Lewis's office states that in 2010 he nearly lost his home to foreclosure but was able to stop the process: explanation Rep. Lewiss Washington, DC property was purchased decades ago for a fraction of its current value today. As most Washingtonians and any real property expert know, property values in the city have risen exponentially in the last 10 to15 years. Rep. Lewis is delighted that he made a wise investment years ago, and that his propertys value has skyrocketed. He also realizes he likely could not afford to purchase his own home were he seeking to buy it today. In 2010, he was subjected to attempts to foreclose upon his home, like many Americans during that period. He is fortunate that he was able to stop that process, though many Americans, including many hundreds of his constituents, were not as successful. His property taxes are paid and currently up to date. GotNews.  "Trump-Hating Democratic @RepJohnLewis DIDNT PAY TAXES On His Nearly $1 Million Fancy DC Townhouse."
18 January 2017. Seipel, Brooke."Rep. John Lewis: Trump Isn't a 'Legitimate President.'"
The Hill.13 January 2017. Wootson, Cleve R. "In Feud With John Lewis, Donald Trump Attacked 'One of the Most Respected People in America.'"
The Washington Post.15 January 2017. In October 2022, we received reader mail about a "Whole Foods Market Research" scam. The scam arrives in the form of an email, text, or mailed letter, and claims that the recipient has been chosen to be a secret shopper for Whole Foods Market. The goal of the scammer is to get the recipient to deposit a check into the recipient's bank account. However, unbeknownst to the recipient, the check is fake. The scammer is to quickly task the recipient to buy gift cards and then provide the identifying details on the front and back. Alternatively, the scammer might ask the recipient to initiate a wire transfer or money order to send back a partial amount of the funds from the check. The scammer claims that the recipient can keep a portion of the funds for the work. However, again, the check is fake, so recipients are spending their own money to buy gift cards for the scammers. We reviewed one example of this scam that arrived as an email. It came from wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com, which was not an official Whole Foods email address. It claimed to come from a person named Jerry A. Wallace, a purported human resources (HR) representative. A previous version of this scam named Wallace as a "project manager," according to scampulse.com. We found no evidence of a person with this name being a real employee for Whole Foods. according to scampulse.com  The original email, which contained several store name misspellings, read as follows: wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com wrote: Attn: (name removed) You submitted your information to one of our recruitment agencies to work as a Whole Foods Market Research representative. Your details have been verified and you have been shortlisted as one of our representatives. Here is your unique I.D. number MS6953, your details have been stored in our database. Our company has recently been contracted to do a quality survey on Target, King Soopers, Walmart Stores, Best Buy, Post Office, CVS, Rite Aid, Ebay, Kmart, Pizza Hut, Kroger, Walgreen, Dillons OR 7Eleven e.t.c. We have shortlisted a few representatives from various states and cities to visit any of the stores listed above randomly, to buy merchandise and share their experience via our feedback Checklist/Assessment form. You will receive an envelope containing a Cashier's Check and the Instructions Letter. The Checklist/Assessment Form will be sent/attached to your mail. Please signify your interest with a Yes, I'm Ready. Thank you. Best Regards,Whole Foods Market ResearchHR Personnel :- Jerry A. WallaceCell :- (216) 239-2582 We called the phone number listed in the email. After several rings, a voice message was played that said, "The TextNow subscriber you are trying to reach is not available. Please leave your message after the tone." The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) previously published a full report on this scam back in 2020: full report People spotted signs of a fake check scam in the bogus Whole Foods secret shopper offer (which was from a scammer, not really Whole Foods). Thats when someone sends you a check and convinces you to deposit it and quickly send them money. In this scam, the recruiter would send shoppers a check for more than $2,000 and they would: fake check scam 1. Cash or deposit the check immediately.2. Buy gift cards with most of the money.3. Keep about $450 as their pay.4. Scratch the coating off the gift cards to show the PIN codes.5. Send pictures of the cards front and back (with the codes) to the recruiter. If anyone ever tells you to deposit a check, withdraw money, and send it to someone, thats a scam. When the check later turns out to be fake, the bank will want the money back. And if anyone tells you to go buy gift cards and share the PIN numbers, thats a scam, too. Once the scammer has the PIN, they also have all the money from the cards. The FTC said this scam can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. They also added, "If you already cashed a fake check and sent money to a scammer, find out how to report to gift card, wire transfer, and money order businesses." ReportFraud.ftc.gov find out how In sum, both we and the FTC advise consumers to not respond to any emails, texts, or mailed letters that invite recipients to work as a secret shopper for "Whole Foods Market Research." How To Spot, Avoid, and Report Fake Check Scams. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 29 Jan. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-report-fake-check-scams. Imposter H-SON LIMITED Reports & Reviews. Scampulse.com, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.scampulse.com/imposter-h-son-limited-reviews. Small, Bridget. Fake Offers for Secret Shopper Jobs. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 3 Mar. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2020/03/fake-offers-secret-shopper-jobs. Tressler, Colleen. Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 5 Sept. 2018, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2018/09/anatomy-fake-check-scam. A viral post claiming that the logo for the Levi's brand of jean represents a slave being torn apart by horses likely refers to a speech ostensibly delivered by William Lynch on the bank of the James River in Virginia in 1712 to a group of slave owners: MUST READ!!!!! I'm Done Wearing "Levi Jeans". This was just brought to my attention, Back in slavery days they would "Beat" and "Kill" the strongest Black Man On The Plantation. They would do so in front of his family and every other slaves on the plantation. After He'd been beaten, they would tie two "ROPES" one to each of his "LEGS" and those ropes were tied to "TWO HORSES" they would then proceed to beat the horses making them run in opposite directions. Eventually the horses would rip his legs from his body...... The Logo on "Levi Jeans" shows how this process went. You see the two "Slave" owners whipping the horses and the ropes visibly connected from the horses to the mans legs. It's supposed to be amusing and to show how hard it would be to actually tear a pair of these jeans that's why the words "Quality Clothing" appears over both of the horses. Smh I've been wearing these jeans for years, WELL NOT ANYMORE!  While many historians believe that reports of this speech are a hoax, it is widely shared as an accurate depiction of how slave owners attempted to control their slaves: "Take the meanest and most restless (slave), strip him of his clothes in front of the remaining male (slaves), the female, and the (slave)infant, tar and feather him, tie each leg to a different horse faced in opposite directions, set him a fire and beat both horses to pull him apart in front of the remaining (slaves)." speech While those tactics might possibly have been employed by some slave owners at the time, no evidence suggests the Levi's jeans logo is an homage to this horrible concept. The primary selling point of the pants manufactured by the company Levi Strauss founded in 1853 was that they were not subject to tearing as other manufacturer's pants were due to the company's use of patented copper rivets to reinforce points of strain where pants typically tore, primarily the pocket corners and the base of the button fly.  The Levi's "two horse" logo was created in 1886 in an attempt to illustrate that most important of selling points to 19th century buyers: created Recognize the animals above? They've been part of the Levi's brand since 1886. But what you see here is something new  the freshest version of what we call the Two Horse patch. When you're a company that prides itself on both heritage and innovation, you want to tell that story as vividly and compellingly as possible. And for us, the Two Horse logo does just that. As the company Historian, let me share a bit of history. In 1873, Jacob Davis and company founder Levi Strauss invented the first blue jeans using their patented process of securing clothing at "points of strain" with rivets. The result: strong jeans that could stand up to the hard work thrown at them by miners and other hard-working individuals of the time. Levi Strauss & Co. knew the patent would expire in 1890, so we needed to quickly make sure consumers understood how good  and strong  the company's jeans were. But how do you tell that story in a way that consumers could quickly grasp? Well, one of the answers was the image of two horses  each pulling in the opposite direction on the same pair of jeans, trying in vain to tear them apart. Given that the Levi Strauss clothing company's original location and market base was an area of the United States where slavery was not legal (the company was founded in California, a free state, which was bordered by other non-slave states and territories), it's unlikely Levi Strauss would have depended upon his customer base's recognizing a supposed Southern plantation slavery practice to understand the brand's logo.  All the more so since the logo wasn't even unveiled until more than twenty years after slavery had been abolished all throughout the United States. Also note that in the Levi's logo, the ropes leading from the horses are attached to the hip area of the pants  if the image were supposed to be a literal graphical representation of pulling a man's legs apart, the ropes would be tied much farther down on the legs  (below the knee, close to the ankle).  As noted above, the image is intended to reinforce Levi Strauss' patented rivet solution to one of the most troublesome points of tearing in pants, the pocket corners (which are up near the hips, not down the leg): Levi Strauss took Facebook in an attempt to dispel this rumor: Facebook   The Levi's "two horse" logo symbolizes nothing more sinister than Levi's original rivet patent and the attendant strength of their jeans. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has tried to sprinkle sugar on what many government workers see as the bitter pill hes proposing in his controversialbudget-repair bill.Lets see if what he is sprinkling is as sweet as he says it is.For many state and local government workers, losing collective bargaining power is the bitter pill. The bill also would require most public employees to pay more for pensions and health insurance.The hit would be $5,400 per year for a state employee who earns the average wage -- $50,000 -- and chooses the least-expensive family plan for health insurance, Walkers administrationsays.The sugar, at least the way the Republican governor presents it, is in another provision of the bill. It would prohibit union dues from being withheld from public employees paychecks. That means state and local government workers would have to pay their unions directly.According to Walker, if workers opt out of the union, they could save a fair amount of money.On Feb. 20, 2011, on the Fox News Sunday program, Walkersaidfor those workers who don't want to be a part of the union, if you don't want that deduction each month out of the paycheck, they should be able to get that $500, $600 or in some cases, $1,000 back that they can apply for their health care and their pension contribution.Walker made asimilarstatementthree days earlier on Fox televisions On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. And Washington Post columnist George Willwrotethat Walker told him that many employees could save $500 or $600 per year in union dues and that teachers could save up to $1,000.Lets find out if the governors figures are correct.Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie sent us adocumentthat he said came from the state payroll department. Payroll would know the amount of union dues for state workers, since it withholds them from state workers paychecks.The document indicates that annual union dues are as low as $208 for certain legal employees and $300 for apprenticesheet metal workers; dues are as high as $3,180 forplasterersand $3,465 forplumbers.The exact range, however, could be different because dues for some employees are a percentage of their pay, and the document does not spell out those amounts. Moreover, the document does not specify how many employees pay the various dues amounts that are listed, and it does not provide any averages. We asked Werwie for more information, but he had not responded by publication time.So, we contacted some of the major public employee unions to ask what their members pay annually in dues. Our list is not comprehensive, but it does cover tens of thousands of state and local government workers.General employeesMost of the 23,000 state workers who are members of American Federation of State, County and Municipal EmployeesCouncil24pay $420 per year in union dues, though some pay $492, said Bob Allen, spokesman forAFSCME-Wisconsin.They tend to be front-line workers such as correctional officers, administrative support staff, probation and parole officers and custodians, he said.Members of Local 1914 -- one of the units of Council 24 -- pay $470 per year, according to theduespageon that locals website. Those300membersare state employees in Eau Claire, Chippewa, Rusk, Clark and Taylor counties, and hold non-academic jobs at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.Members ofAFT-Wisconsinwho earn over $34,000 per year pay about $510 per year in dues, said president Bryan Kennedy. AFT says it represents 17,000 public workers in 500 different classifications.Health care workersAnnual dues for the 15,000 members of theProfessional Patient CareUnitof Service Employees Union International range from about $192 for home care workers to $864 or more for senior nurses, said president Dian Palmer.TeachersMilwaukee Public Schools teachers paid $995 in dues in 2010, while educational assistants who worked more than 20 hours per week paid $469, according to thefiguresfrom the website of theMilwaukee Teachers Education Association.That unionsaysit represents more than 8,200 employees, including 6,000 teachers.Green Bay public school teachers pay $834 in dues, said Lori Blakeslee, spokeswoman for the Green Bay Education Association.The typical Wisconsin teacher who belongs to the states largest teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, pays $450 per year for the state and national portions of their dues, said WEAC spokeswoman Christina Brey. But the additional amount in local dues paid varies and Brey said she did not know what the range is. Both Milwaukee and Green Bay belong to WEAC.Lets return to the statement.In pushing his budget-repair bill, Walker said state and local government workers could stop paying union dues and take home $500 to $1,000 more per year in pay. He didnt say most or many, but his statement suggests that a significant number of public employees pay dues in that range. And we found thousands of public employees who do.We rate Walkers claim Mostly True.