Have July 4th Events at Military Installations Been Called Off?
Claim:  President Obama has canceled July 4 celebrations at U.S. military bases to save money. OUTDATED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] Supposedly the president has cancelled 4th of July celebrations for the troops on military bases to save money.   Origins:  This item about President Obama's having cancelled Independence Day celebrations at U.S. military bases scheduled for 4 July 2013 began circulating a few days before that holiday.  It is true that some of the U.S. military bases which typically stage larger July 4 shows cut back or canceled their 4th of July celebrations that year, but those bases individually chose to do so due to budgetary constraints, not because President Obama directed all U.S. bases to skip celebrating Independence Day that year to "save money." The mandatory $85 billion budget cut imposed by sequestration as of March 2013  an outcome for which Congress and the President shared some measure of blame due to their inability to resolve deficit reduction issues  affected many federal departments, including the military.  Therefore, some U.S. military bases had to make the choice of scrapping annual fireworks shows (which can cost upwards of $100,000) or other Independence Day events in order to allocate funds to more vital areas:  sequestration The Fourth of July won't have a patriotic boom in the sky over some military bases because budget cuts and furloughed workers also mean furloughed fireworks. Independence Day celebrations have been canceled at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and at the Army's Fort Bragg, both in North Carolina. The annual July Fourth celebration also has been scrapped at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Ga. The reason is money  namely the lack of it. The failure in Washington to follow up a 2011 budget pact with additional spending cuts meant $85 billion across-the-board cuts that began  in March. Budgets tightened, the military took a major hit and many federal workers absorbed pay cuts through forced furloughs. When the decision was made to forgo fireworks at Camp Lejeune, the commanding general, Brig. Gen. Thomas Gorry, said the cancellation would "ensure that we can mitigate the fiscal challenges we are currently facing." Last year's Independence Day at the base cost about $100,000, including $25,000 for the fireworks. The big issue is paying the overtime to personnel for security, transportation, logistics and safety. Base officials said they couldn't justify paying overtime when federal workers are losing pay while furloughed. Marines and their families at Lejeune will instead be able to participate in some free activities  golf, bowling, skeet shooting, archery and movies. Other bases that are canceling ceremonies to mark the nation's birthday:  Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where the annual Jammin' July 4th put on by the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw and local city and county officials has been scrapped. The base plans a smaller "freedom bash" on July 3 with pool games, face painting and bouncy castles.   The Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, which is scaling back by canceling the fireworks and instead hosting a daytime celebration featuring the Pacific Fleet Band and the Air Force Band of the Pacific.  New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Last updated:  8 June 2015    Kerr, Jennifer C.   "A Fourth of July with No Fireworks for Some Military Bases."   The Washington Post.  1 July 2013.
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here During the first 2020 U.S. presidential debate held in Cleveland on Sept. 29, Democratic nominee Joe Biden said he does not support the Green New Deal, a resolution introduced in Congress by members of his own party proposing strategies for dealing with climate change, but instead backs the Biden Plan for doing so, which is laid out on his campaign website. Biden's disavowal came on the heels of an attempt by his opponent, U.S. President Donald Trump, to tie him to the Green New Deal, claiming it would cost $100 trillion if implemented. Biden's responses (which begin one hour and 20 minutes into the below video clip) were as follows: That is not my plan. The Green New Deal is not my plan. [] The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. Were not going to build plants that in fact are great polluting plants. [] No, I dont support the Green New Deal. I support the Biden Plan that I put forward. The Biden Plan, which is different than what [Trump] calls the radical Green New Deal.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?475793-1/trump-biden-debate These statements sparked criticism from Republicans like Omar Navarro, who ran three unsuccessful bids for Californias 43d Congressional District in 2016, 2018, and again in 2020. On Sept. 30, Navarro shared a screenshot from Bidens website that described the Green New Deal as a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges Omar Navarro  three unsuccessful bids   The language in the tweeted screenshot above was indeed found on Bidens website as of Sept. 30, but was taken out of context and doesn't reflect the differences between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal, which we will discuss below. The Green New Deal resolution was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 7, 2019, in response to Trumps 2017 announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The 14-page proposal sets forth a number of policies aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions produced by American companies, creating high-wage jobs for Americans, and to set an overall framework for environmental justice and resiliency against climate change-related disasters. It is important to note that the Green New Deal is nonbinding, and if it were to pass, nothing outlined within its pages would become law. 14-page proposal nonbinding Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his 2020 bid for the presidency, in turn criticizing Trump's handling of environmental affairs. It is true that the Biden Plan (archived here for reference) includes elements of the Green New Deal and is similar to it in that both plans agree that the U.S. needs to act urgently and epically to meet the scope of the climate change challenge, and that the environment and the economy are completely and totally connected. The Biden Plan addresses many of the issues outlined in the Green New Deal, with the addition of specific actions that a Biden administration would take should he be elected in November 2020. cornerstone Biden Plan here We dug through both proposals to understand the nuances between the two, where they differ, and where they are the same. Generally speaking, both policies establish a similar framework but differ in the specifics of how policymakers should go about enforcing and reaching defined goals. For example, both plans highlight the importance of clean, safe drinking water and community-driven projects that promote social and environmental justice in areas disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change.  The greatest difference between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal lies in their stances on the Paris Agreement, an international agreement established in 2015 with the central aim of coordinating and strengthening the global response to climate change and keeping the global temperature rise in this century below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Whereas the Biden Plan promises a recommitment to the Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal does not mention it at all.  Paris Agreement When it comes to clean energy, the Green New Deal and the Biden Plan are similar in that they aim to achieve 100% clean energy and net-zero emissions, but the former sets forth a 10-year mobilization deadline, whereas the Biden Plan sets a goal of no later than 2050. Both plans establish priorities for investment in clean energy innovation and research; however, the Biden Plan is far vaguer. The Green New Deal goes into greater detail, specifying that those investments should include infrastructure and industry, sustainable farming and land-use practices, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, manufacturing public transit, removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry, and the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies. Other key areas of overlap between the two plans include creating resiliency across the nation and committing to international policy and trade that employ strong labor and environmental protections. According to his website, the Biden plan will be paid for by rolling back Trump tax incentives and will require a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next decade, leveraging the additional private sector and state and local investments to total more than $5 trillion. This estimated cost is significantly lower than the $100 trillion bill that Trump claimed the U.S. would foot during the debate. However, serious disagreement exists over how much implementation of the Green New Deal might actually cost.  website After its 2019 introduction by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Republican leaders and some media publications cited research by the right-wing think tank American Action Forum that speculated the Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion, or an estimated $600,000 per household, in its first 10 years. (A supplementary brief from the organization outlining the projected costs can be found here.) But a number of financial experts have countered that research, suggesting that it is more likely that the Green New Deal would cost significantly less, and in some estimates half as much. In fact, a September 2020 study published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science suggested a total overall cost of just over $16 trillion over 15 years. media publications American Action Forum here financial experts estimates Energy Research & Social Science Though both the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal provide similar general frameworks for moving towards a cleaner economy and combating the effects of climate change at a national level, subtle differences exist between the two. Although Biden stated outright that he does not support the Green New Deal, it is apparent from his own policy statements that he supports elements of it that have been incorporated into his own plan. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture." Green New Deal Friedman, Lisa.  "What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained."
  The New York Times.  21 Feb. 2019.  116th Congress 1st Session  "Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal."
  7 Feb. 2019.  Muyskens, John, Uhrmacher, Kevin.  "Where 2020 Democrats Stand on Climate Change."
  The Washington Post.  8 April 2019.  Relman, Eliza.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Her Green New deal Climate Plan Would Cost At Least $10 Trillion."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Re, Gregg.  "Green New Deal Would Cost Up To $93 Trillion, Or $600G Per Household, Study Says."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, et al.  "The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas.  "An Initial Analysis of the Green New Deal."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Sherman, Amy.  "The Green New Deal Would Put a $600,000 Tax Burden on Every Household."
  PolitiFact.  27 Sept.. 2019.  McDonald, Jessica.  "How Much Will the Green New Deal Cost?"
  FactCheck.org.  14 March 2019.  Galvin, Ray and Noel Healy.  "The Green New Deal in the United States: What It Is and How to Pay For It."
  Energy Research & Social Science .  September 2020. In May 2012 the web site Breitbart published a copy of a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by the literary agency Acton & Dystel showcasing their roster of writers, among whom was a young man named Barack Obama.  This booklet was of particular interest because it included a brief biographical sketch which described the future President as having been born in Kenya: Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.  Is this booklet evidence that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya?  Not even the site that published it made that claim, noting in a disclaimer that: Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. ... [W]e discovered, and now present, the booklet described below  one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.  It is evidence  not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times. The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself: Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients. "You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me  an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more." A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii. article A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya."  As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard.    Butterfield, Fox.  "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review."
  The New York Times.  6 February 1990. Stableford, Dylan.  "'Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991."
  ABC News.  18 May 2012. Taranto, James.  "Counterfeit Kenyan."
  The Wall Street Journal.  18 May 2012. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., believes the governments economic policies over the past few decades have cut the legs out from underneath America's middle class. At the AFL-CIO National Summit on Raising WagesJan. 7, Warren spoke about growing income inequality, particularly since the 1980s, when the trickle-down economics policies gained traction under former President Ronald Reagan. She argued that this theory -- that giving tax breaks and other economic benefits to corporations and the wealthy will benefit the poor by improving the economy overall -- hasnt worked. Warren, a former law professor and expert on the economic challenges of the middle class, cited a number of statistics to support her point, including: Well, since 1980, guess how much of the growth in income over the last 32 years -- how much of the growth in income did the 90 percent get? Zero. None. Nothing. In fact, it is worse than that. The average family not in the top 10 percent makes less money today than they were making a generation ago. We wondered if that was true -- that the bottom 90 percent of earners in America have a lower income than they had more than 30 years ago. The statistic comes from data compiled by well-known economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, who study income inequality. TheirWorld Top Incomes Databasespecializes in cataloging the highest level of incomes over time in more than 20 countries. To check out Warrens claim, we looked at average income data from 1979 to 2012 for the top 10 percent and bottom 90 percent of earners. (The time frame Warren used in her speech was a generation, which is vague, but in context its clear shes talking about since the 1980s.) The Saez-Piketty data comes from millions of tax returns filed over the past century. The data supports her claim. Adjusted for inflation, the top 10 percent of earners in the United States made, on average, $144,418 in 1979 and $254,449 in 2012. Thats about 76 percent growth. The bottom 90 percent of earners, on the other hand, made $33,526 in 1979 and $30,438 in 2012. Thats adecreaseof about 9 percent. This chart generated on the Saez-Piketty top income database shows the growth of the top 10 percent of earners average income over time, compared to the relatively stagnant progression of the bottom 90 percent of earners average income. Compare this to the 30 years prior, where -- according to Saez and Pikettys data -- the average income for the bottom 90 percent of earners grew alongside the top 10 percent, albeit at a slower pace. However there is some context to consider. Mainly, not everyone approves of the Saez-Piketty approach to cataloging income. Their approach uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. Because the richest Americans earn a lot of capital gains and pay a lot of taxes, this arguably magnifies their income. On the other hand, the approach lowballs the income of lower-level earners -- the bottom 90 percent in this case. The income calculation does not include government payments, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and the earned income tax credit. Salim Furth, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also noted that the data looks at tax units -- individuals or married couples filing together -- rather than households, which may artificially lower average incomes. For example, a young adult living with his parents are two separate tax units; together they are one household or family. The Saez-Piketty data captures that the young worker has a very small income, but not the fact that he lives in a house with multiple incomes. Also, tax law has changed over the past 50 years to increase the number of units, Furth said. Of the general trend in income growth, he said, Data sources that are more widely used show solid, though not fantastic, income growth for most of the income distribution through 2007. There are big losses in the Great Recession, and then an incomplete recovery since then. TheCongressional Budget Officeproduced a report in November 2014 showing that the bottom 80 percent of earners (measured by households rather than tax units) saw income increases of about 16 percent between 1979 and 2011. The top 81-99 percent, on the other hand, saw increases of about 56 percent over the period. And the top 1 percent alone saw their household income grow 174 percent. That report also found that if it includes government benefits in its income calculation, all income brackets saw even more income growth. Still, this data shows that top earners incomes are growing at a faster pace than everyone elses -- which supports Warrens broader point. Richard Burkhauser, an economist at Cornell University, pointed us to a paper he co-wrote on income inequality that compares Saez-Piketty-style data to other income measurements. The results are consistent with the Saez-Piketty data until households are adjusted for size, and capital gains taxes and government payments are factored in. With those controls, incomes have grown across the board, and income inequality has also grown -- but not at as dramatic a rate as the Saez-Piketty data implies. Ultimately, Burkhausers report concludes that different measurements work for different policy questions. If Warrens talking specifically aboutmarket income-- that is, income earned before taxes and before government payments -- the Saez-Piketty data is appropriate, and undoubtedly income inequality has grown substantially in recent years, and the middle class is struggling. If the question is, alternatively, whether government programs are doing something to close the gap and help the middle class -- other measures show that programs like food stamps and Medicaid are helping to a certain extent, at least for people who qualify. (And of course not everyone in the bottom 90 percent of earners does qualify.) Arguably, in a speech directed at working and middle-class Americans at a summit on raising wages, the context of Warrens remarks give credence to the fact that she was referencing data that emphasizes earned income over government-provided income. In the speech, Warren wasnt advocating for new government programs that give out payments to individuals in need. She was making a policy argument against the idea of trickle-down economics and in favor of broad economic policies that she believes would improve Americans job-earned income, like raising the minimum wage and breaking up the Wall Street banks. We can make new choices, she said. And one way to make those choices is to talk openly and honestly and directly about work, about how we value work, and how we value those who do the work. Our ruling Warren said, The average family not in the top 10 percent makes less money today than they were making a generation ago. According to one measurement, the bottom 90 percent of American earners had a lower income in 2012 than they had 30 years ago. By other measurements -- mainly ones that include government payments such as Social Security -- incomes have grown across the board. However, this data still supports Warrens overall point that income inequality is growing. Additionally, given the context of her speech at a forum about wages, it makes sense that Warren would reference data that gives more weight to pre-tax income. Shes arguing that middle-class wages havent increased enough over the past couple decades. We rate Warrens claim Mostly True. Help fund PolitiFacts Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response. Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2). Since the 2020 elections, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has attackedU.S. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, for allegedly engaging in business practices by means of which Hunter allegedly benefited from his father's position. But just a few years ago, according to an internet rumor, Carlson was asking for the younger Biden's help in getting his son into college. attacked A meme going around claims that an email shows Carlson thanking Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown University on behalf of his son, Buckley.  This claim is accurate. In 2014, when Joe Biden was serving as vice president, Carlson and his wife, Susie,reached out to Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown University. Their email communication was revealed through forensic analysis of a laptop once owned by Biden that he had purportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The laptop was obtained by Trump's then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and its contents pushed out to the New York Post in 2020. The correspondenceon Biden's hard drive, a copy of which was also in the possession of the FBI, was largely used to investigate his overseas business dealings during his father's time in the White House, but also have illuminated more about the Carlson-Biden relationship. reached out revealed laptop once owned by Biden correspondence The emails were given to The Washington Poston a hard drive by activist Jack Maxey, who received it from Giuliani. The Washington Post revealed the details of Carlson's and Biden's communication in May 2022, and was able to confirm with the help of forensic analysis and interviews with people familiar with the communications that this and other emails on the hard drive were real. The Washington Post So what did Carlson actually say? The Post shared an image of a few of the emails in which he thanks Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown "on Buckley's [his son's] behalf." He added, "So nice of you. I know it'll help." The Post Image via Washington Post Carlson's wife wrote to Biden in 2014: "I realize you don't really know Buckley. Maybe you could meet or speak to him and he could send you a very brief resume with his interests and grades attached." She also wrote: "Tucker and I would be so grateful if you could write a letter or speak to someone in the Georgetown Admission's Office about Buckley." Biden wrote back that he would be honored to help. "I will do anything you would like me to do," he said. Carlson described his son's interest in squash and fly fishing and wrote, "He loves Washington for all the right reasons, I think, and really wants to go to school here." When Biden agreed to write a letter for Buckley, Susie responded with, "Tucker and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. Always!" Carlson admitted that he was once close with Biden in a phone interview with the Post. He said: "Hunter Biden was my neighbor. Our wives were friends. I knew him well. I talked to him many times about addiction, something I know a lot about. And I've said that. I think that Hunter Biden is an addict and that's why his life is falling apart, and I feel bad for him. I've said that many times, and I mean it." admitted He refused to discuss the emails, however, pointing (with apparent irony) to claims that the timing of the laptop's emergence in 2020 had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Previously, Carlson had dismissed and mocked claims of a Russian disinformation campaign as an effort by the establishment and tech giants to protect Joe Biden's 2020 election campaign. It is unclear if Biden ended up writing a letter, but Carlson's son did end up going to the University of Virginia. refused "I can't confirm these emails. The emails that you're referring to were described by our intel community as Russian disinformation," he said. He added that he could not verify the emails as he did not have access to the account. said Hunter Biden declined to comment to the Post. Since 2020, Carlson has regularly skewered the younger Biden on his show, accusing him of getting "lucrative jobs  because he had an important father." skewered He did say there were certain lines he would not cross, pertaining to the laptop. In October 2020, he said: "Much of the material on the laptop is of limited relevance to the public. [...] And by the way, if we're being honest, some of the exchanges between Hunter Biden and his father, and they are on there, too, reveal that whatever you say about them, Joe Biden really loves his son, and they're touching." But following the 2020 election, Carlson's anti-Hunter Biden rhetoric grew, and he even poked fun at his addictions in an October 2021 segment:"So again, let's say you were a crackhead through your 40s, made a lot of pornographic videos mostly of yourself, your genitals covered in M&Ms, and then once you got to your 50s, decide, 'Hey, I want to be Andy Warhol. You probably couldn't do it unless your dad happened to be the president, and that's how Hunter Biden pulled that off." grew "A Look at the Time Tucker Carlson Asked Hunter Biden for a Favor." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/look-time-tucker-carlson-asked-hunter-biden-favor/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. Pengelly, Martin. "Tucker Carlson Tried to Use Hunter Biden to Get His Son into Georgetown." The Guardian, 20 May 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/19/tucker-carlson-hunter-biden-georgetown-emails.Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. 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 In June 2020, as professional sports in the U.S. worked on strategies to return to work amidst the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, an image was circulated on social media that supposedly showed the NFL's new COVID-19 series helmets:   This is not the official design of the NFL's helmets for the 2020 season. This is a piece of fan art showing what the helmets could look like if the sport returns during the pandemic.  This image did not originate with any of the NFL's official channels, nor was it shared by Nike, the company that is providing the uniforms for the NFL this year. This image originated on the Stadium Facebook page, where it was shared with the caption: "NFL players might sport #COVID19 helmets this fall ... What do you think? ?" The keyword in the previous sentence, of course, is might, but even that implies too strong of a connection between this image and the NFL.  The above-displayed image was created by manipulating a real picture released in 2012 of Nike's latest NFL uniform designs:   While the COVID-19 series NFL helmet shown above is an unofficial concept design, the NFL is reportedly working on new helmet face guards to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.  The Mercury News reported: reported With an eye toward getting back on the field during a pandemic, the NFL is working on a helmet face guard that might provide the same sort of protection as a surgical mask. Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, who heads up the leagues competition committee, said the issue was raised during a conference call about a month ago. A lot of players have played with a clear shield to protect their eyes, McKay said Tuesday during a video conference call with Atlanta media. This would be extended even further. Thom Mayer, who is medical director of the NFL Players Association, said league engineers and sports equipment company Oakley are testing prototypes of a modified face mask that might contain surgical or N95 material. As of this writing, the NFL has not released any images showing what these COVID-19 helmets could look like.  Bousky, Patrick.  "Nike Unveils New Chicago Bears Uniforms, Monsters of the Midway Look Stays." 
  Bleacher Report.  3 April 2012. Mercury News.  "COVID-19 Has NFL Considering Helmet Face Guards That Work Like Surgical Masks."
  20 May 2020. On Nov. 20, 2021, Twitter user @delaneykingrox tweeted that film actor Harrison Ford improvised "I know" to Carrie Fisher's "I love you" in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back," just before his character, Han Solo, is frozen in carbonite. She also claimed that the originally scripted line for Solo to respond to Princess Leia was, "I love you too." tweeted frozen in carbonite claimed She tweeted the thread to talk about "on the nose" dialogue, which she defined as "communicating what is obvious to the audience with no subtly or subtext." tweeted     There are a number of rumors out there about "The Empire Strikes Back" that aren't true. For example, there's the fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 that's received nearly 10 million views on YouTube. (A video with genuine audience reaction audio from 1980 does exist, but it only had several thousand views.) rumors fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 As for this fact check, it's true that Ford improvised Solo's line, "I know," in "The Empire Strikes Back," and that the originally scripted line was, "I love you too." While many fans might debate that the trophy for the best line in the franchise would go to Darth Vader's "I am your father," there would perhaps also be a handful of people who would vote for Solo's "I know." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdlRmWd_R7AIn a 2011 sitdown with "Cowboys and Aliens" director Jon Favreau, Ford explained that he wasn't a fan of "I love you too," which was the original line in the "Empire Strikes Back" script from story creator George Lucas. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan also drafted the screenplay. Lucas also served as an executive producer on the film but did not direct it. The film was directed by Irvin Kershner. directed In the interview, Ford called Lucas "a powerful producer at the time," after the success of "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." "George had artfully contrived for Han Solo to say, 'I love you too,'" Ford said. However, the actor called it a "lost opportunity" and told Favreau: "You want your badasses to be a badass until the end." On the set of the film, Ford said he asked a question of Lucas and perhaps other members of the cast and crew. "What's the last thing a woman wants to hear when she says, 'I love you'? She says 'I love you,' and I say... 'I know.'" said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xdWpo4bh8According to Ford, they shot one take with the line, "I love you too," but said it was "just for protection." That recording has never been made public. "We shot one just for protection where I spoke the line as written," Ford said. "And George, I think, this is fair enough to say, he went apeshit. He thought it was horrible and that it would get a bad laugh. So I was obliged to sit next to him when he tested it for the first screening. There was a laugh, but it was a laugh of recognition. And so, he generously let it stay in the movie."  Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." (Photo by Lucasfilm/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images)  In a separate interview that appeared to be recorded years before 2011, Kershner remembered that there were perhaps more takes with either the "I love you too" line or "I know," but didn't specify which one. remembered "We tried take after take after take. Nothing satisfied me," Kershner said. "And finally, I said, 'Harrison, don't think about it. Don't think about it. Let's shoot it. Ok, action.' And he dropped in and I said, 'cut.' I said, 'yeah, that's a great line. That's Han Solo.'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_tGKSnMUEIn sum, yes, Ford improvised Solo's "I know" that was spoken in response to Leia's "I love you" in "The Empire Strikes Back," an exchange that perhaps could be considered as a pivotal scene in one of the most beloved onscreen love stories of all time. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. On the third night of the Democratic convention, Vice President Joe Biden took vigorous exception to the Republican message of a nation teetering on the brink. Not only do we have the largest economy in the world, we have the strongest economy in the world, Biden said. We have the most productive workers in the world. And given a fair shot, given a fair chance, Americans have never ever ever let their country down. Does American have the most productive workers? Not quite. We checked the numbers and found that we rank third, not first. Productivity is a measure of how much value comes out of each hour worked. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks the performance of the worlds higher income nations. When the OECDcompares the GDP per hour workedacross 47 countries (using dollars corrected for inflation and the purchasing power in each nation), it consistently reports that Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than the United States. This table shows the top six countries since 2010. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Luxembourg 78.4 78.2 76 78.4 79.3 81.2 Norway 77.8 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.9 79.7 United States 61.9 62.1 62.2 62.2 62.4 .. Belgium 61.8 61.6 61.4 61.7 62.2 .. Ireland 58.2 60.7 61 60.2 62 .. Netherlands 59.6 60.1 59.9 60.1 60.6 61.3  For 2014, the most recent year for which we have complete data, America ranks third, as it has since 2010. For each hour worked in Luxembourg, that country gains $79.30. In Norway, the amount is $78.90. In the United States, the value is $62.40. We reached out to Bidens press office and were told that when hes made this comparison before, he has referred to other larger economies, which means the United States ranks first. He left out that qualification this time. Our ruling Biden said that America has the most productive workers in the world. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks how much value comes out of each hour worked in the worlds higher income nations. According to its data, Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than America. That ranking has been in place since 2010. Third is not first. But to place in the top three out of the worlds 47 most wealthy nations is still an achievement. Biden is wrong on the details, but the general point is correct. We rate this claim Mostly True.