'Black Tax' Credit
Claim:  African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins:  In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments.  This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years.  An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination.  Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . . . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . . . to be at $43,209 per household."  Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040  which asks you to list 'other payments'  simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same  hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes.  Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains.  Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits.  In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds.  He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks.  When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite.  One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, issued in January 1865 by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, which set aside a coastal strip of land from Charleston, South Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida, for the exclusive use of freed slaves, with each freed-slave family receiving a 40-acre chunk of this holding. As Eric Foner noted in his history of Reconstruction: Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15  (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department  in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property.  One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land."  However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.   Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln.  (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.)   Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act:  An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.  (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.)  President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers.  Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders.  Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies).   Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike.  In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001.  And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 May 2011    Brown, Timothy.  "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax."   The Associated Press.  31 August 2000.     Deibel, Mary.  "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam."   The Washington Times.  7 October 2000  (p. A2).     Fennell, Edward.  "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie."   The [Charleston] Post and Courier.  24 September 2000  (p. B1).    Foner, Eric.  Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  ISBN 0-060-91453-X  (pp. 70-71, 245-246).     Foner, Eric and John Garraty.  The Reader's Companion to American History.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.  ISBN 0-395-51372-3  (pp. 987-988).      Josar, David.  "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations."   The Detroit News.  28 August 1996  (p. D1).     Kessler, Glenn.  "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery."   The Washington Post.  13 April 2002  (p. A1).     La Hay, Patricia.  "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal."   The Arizona Republic.  9 August 1997  (p. A1).     McLeod, Ramon.  "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  13 April 1996  (p. A17).     Moore, Linda.  "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  15 September 2000  (p. C2).     Oubre, Claude F.  Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership.  Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.  ISBN 0-807-10298-9.     Sherrod, L.G.  "Forty Acres and a Mule."   Essence.  April 1993  (p. 124).     Stiehm, Jamie.  "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations."   The Baltimore Sun.  12 February 2002.     The Associated Press.   "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam."   6 October 2000.     Chicago Sun-Times.  "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance."   17 July 1996  (p. 47).     Chicago Tribune.  "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS."    23 February 1997  (p. C7).     Reuters.  "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims."    15 April 2005.
The fate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh hung in the balance in early October 2018 as the Senate Judiciary Committee awaited the results of an FBI investigation into allegations that he had committed a sexual assault some 30 years before -- allegations that Kavanaugh angrily denied in his Senate testimony. The Senate was already sharply divided along party lines on the urgency of pushing ahead with the confirmation, with Democrats demanding a full and unimpeded investigation into the charges and Republicans accusing the Democrats resorting to delaying tactics and attempting to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. Public opinion was divided as well, with 45 percent of Americans saying they believed Kavanaugh's accuser (Professor Christine Blasey Ford) and 33 percent saying they believed Kavanaugh in an opinion poll taken four days after their testimonies. poll This clash of opinions played out on social media as uncivil debates raged in which each faction claimed the moral high ground and accused the other of lies and hypocrisy. A meme shared on 1 October took aim at Kavanaugh by calling out a GoFundMe account supposedly established in his and his family's name:   The implication, of course, is that as a presumably wealthy and privileged member of the Washington elite, Judge Kavanaugh doesn't need a fundraising account. Other social media users made the same point: Yes, a gofundme page has raised over $100,000 for poor Brett Kavanaugh. Thats right, some people think he needs money even though he has a job, government body guards, and will either soon be a Supreme Court justice, or he will get a six figures book deal. pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco  Alex Morash (@AlexMorash) September 29, 2018 September 29, 2018  Why are people giving money to SUPER WEALTHY #Kavanaugh & #DrChristineBlaseyFord ??? Both are RICH, should be GIVING MONEY, NOT GETTING!!! RT @thehill: GoFundMe campaign for Kavanaugh raises over $500,000 https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0 #Kavanaugh #DrChristineBlaseyFord @thehill https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0  Trixy Wh (@trixywh) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018  Whether or not it addressed an actual financial need on his part (press reports suggest that Kavanaugh, though by no means poor, is less well off as several current members of the Supreme Court), a number of Kavanaugh supporters did launch GoFundMe accounts in his name in late September and early October. The most successful of these had raised more than $600,000 by 5 October. It was opened by John Hawkins of North Carolina, who runs a partisan news and opinion website called Right Wing News. reports successful John Hawkins Right Wing News In an introductory note on the GoFundMe page, Hawkins explained the thinking behind it as follows: Like many decent people from both parties, I have been disgusted by the unsubstantiated 36 year old smears aimed at Brett Kavanaugh. We live in a country where innocent until proven guilty is supposed to mean something; yet Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is being dragged through the mud while his family is facing non-stop death threats. This is a horrible way to treat a good man who has dedicated his life to public service. So many unethical people are giving unprovable 36 year old accusations the same weight as 6 FBI background checks, hundreds of hours of hearings and testimony under oath. It is disgraceful. What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit. All of the money collected will go to Brett Kavanaugh's family or alternately, if they refuse to accept it, to a charity of their choice. I have already reached out to a contact who should be able to put me in touch with Brett Kavanaugh's family. If he can't do it, I have plenty of other contacts who should be able to make it happen. I will update this page after I have talked with his family. I hope you will show your support for a good man who has been treated very, very badly. Hawkins posted updates chronicling his efforts to get in touch with the Kavanaugh family to discuss disbursing the funds. After many unsuccessful attempts he finally spoke to one of the judge's staffers, who told him that although the family is aware of the GoFundMe account and "extremely appreciative" of the donations, it would be a while before they could address the question of whether or not Kavanaugh, as a political appointee, can accept the money. On 30 October, Hawkins posted an update which included an "official statement" from Kavanaugh's representatives saying he would not accept the funds: "Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose." GoFundMe accounts were also started for Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The most successful of those had accumulated more than $540,000 in donations as of 5 October. A note from Ford posted on the GoFundMe page expressed her appreciation to all those contributing: accumulated I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening. And some journey it has been and continues to be. We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing. Thanks to you, I am able to feel safe, my family can be together, and my children can continue to go to school. On 21 November, Ford announced the closure of the GoFundMe account, pledging to donate any unused funds to trauma survivors: The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence generously loaned to us. With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete. Adams, Becket.  "Kavanaugh Declines $600,000 Raised in His Defense."
 Washington Examiner.  31 October 2018. Albrecht, Leslie.  "Brett Kavanaugh's GoFundMe Page Raises $603,770, Surpassing $540,000 Raised for Christine Blasey Ford."
  Market Watch.  5 October 2018. Bekiempis, Victoria.  "Christine Blasey Ford to Give Donations to Charity for Trauma Survivors."
 The Guardian.  27 November 2018. Goldstein, Steve.  "Brett Kavanaugh May Become the 'Poorest' Supreme Court Justice."
  Market Watch.  14 July 2018. [29 November 2018]: Added information about the closure and disposition of the largest GoFundMe accounts in Kavanaugh and Ford's names. Phishing bait:  E-mail solicits recipients to create CDC Vaccination Profiles. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] CDC [vaccination@cdcdelivery.gov] You have received this e-mail because of the launching of State Vaccination H1N1 Program. You need to create your personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The Vaccination is not obligatory, but every person that has reached the age of 18 has to have his personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. This profile has to be created both for the vaccinated people and the not-vaccinated ones. This profile is used for the registering system of vaccinated and not-vaccinated people. Create your Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile using the link: create personal profile   Origins:  Swine flu is currently a strong concern among many people, especially with the vaccine's being difficult to obtain in many places.  Therefore, an e-mail like the one displayed above (which was spammed to many recipients in December 2009), seemingly originating with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and informing readers that they must go to the CDC's web site to create a "Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile," was bound to catch people's attention. However, this message is just a phishing lure and did not originate with the CDC: That organization does not send out unsolicited e-mail, there is no requirement that everyone under 18  register a personal vaccination profile with the CDC, and the return address on the messages uses an apparently non-existent domain  (cdcdelivery.gov).  Clicking through on the "create personal profile" link provided takes the user to a phony CDC look-alike site within the .IM (Isle of Man) domain, which offers a page that includes a "Download Archive" link which (if clicked) triggers an executable file:  Activating that file results in the installation of malwarewhich gives scammers access to the user's computer: malware The link provided in the email takes you to a very convincing imitation of a CDC web page where you are given a temporary ID and a link to your "vaccination profile." The link is in fact to an executable file that contains a copy of a Trojan most commonly identified as Zbot. This Trojan once installed on your PC, this Trojan will create a security-free gateway on your system and will proceed to download and install additional malware without your authorization. It also enables a remote hacker to take complete control of your computer. This malware can log your typed keystrokes and send confidential personal and financial data (including banking information, credit card numbers, and website passwords) to a remote hacker. The CDC  has posted a notice on its web site advising that:  notice CDC has received reports of fraudulent emails (phishing) referencing a CDC sponsored State Vaccination Program. The messages request that users must create a personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The message then states that anyone that has reached the age of 18 has to have his/her personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. The CDC has NOT implemented a state vaccination program requiring registration on www.cdc.gov. Users that click on the email are at risk of having malicious code installed on their system. Last updated:  1 December 2009 In June 2014 Facebook users began seeing posts pointing to a purported video clip entitled "You Will Not Use Head & Shoulders Shampoo After Watching This Video," which supposedly graphically illustrated the deleterious effects of using that popular  brand of shampoo.  (Later versions substituted Dove brand shampoo for Head & Shoulders.)  The static image accompanying the posts was the one displayed above, which allegedly pictures some form of bizarre injury or infection that befall a user of that brand of shampoo. The image itself is a hoax, a fabrication that imitates a notorious fake photograph of a supposed 'breast rash caused by South American larvae' (created by merging a picture of a lotus seed pod with a picture of a human shoulder) which has been circulating on the Internet since 2003 and that was earlier used as the subject of a Twitter jape: breast rash lotus seed pod  The referenced video does not exist, and the purpose of the hoax was to serve as a lure in leading users to yet another survey scam: those who clicked through on the teaser link hoping to view the Head & Shoulders video were instead taken to a screen that forced them to first share the link with others on Facebook and/or verify their age by completing a survey that promised a $100 VISA Gift Card for its completion: survey   Of course, getting that "free" $100 gift card required  as explained in tiny type at the bottom of the survey page  that participants first sign up for several different offers, each of which required them to purchase something, subscribe to something, or apply (and be accepted for) a credit card or loan: Purchase Requirements. Incentives are split into two tiers: Tier 1 incentives with a value of $100 or less and Tier 2 incentives with a value more than $100. To qualify for a Tier 1 incentive you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold and 1 Platinum offer. To qualify for a Tier 2 incentive, you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold, and 6 Platinum offers. You must complete all offers within 30 days from when you complete your first offer. Completion of offers usually requires a purchase, subscription or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. The best way to handle such scamming come-ons is to give them a wide berth: do not click through on associated links, don't share those links on Facebook, and do not participate in any related surveys. 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 April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 The Raimondo administration wants to see more efficiency when it comes to spending on Medicaid, the joint state and federal program that provides health insurance to the very poor and people with disabilities. Roughly every dollar spent by the state is matched by the federal government. Duringa March 2, 2015, presentationto the Reinventing Medicaid Working Group, the state's secretary for health and human services, Elizabeth Roberts,displayed a slidewhich said that nearly a third of all state tax dollars goes to Medicaid. More than 30 cents of every state tax dollar goes to Medicaid, the slide said. It also contained a pie chart in which Medicaid is shown eating up 31.5 percent of those tax dollars. The slide lists the source as the state budget for the 2013 fiscal year. But on March 31, 2015, groups that want to create a single-payer health insurance system in the statechallenged that statistic and othersbeing used by the Raimondo administration in itspush for Medicaid reform. The Rhode Island chapters of Physicians for a National Health Program and HealthCare Now said the actual percentage isn't 31.5 for fiscal 2013, but closer to 22. We decided to see who was correct. Because Roberts specifically mentioned state tax dollars, for this fact check, we will only look at general revenue funds raised by the state, not federal funds shared with the state or restricted funds. When we contacted Roberts' office, spokesman Michael Raia said the source of the information was listed incorrectly. The 31.5 percent is based on the current fiscal year of 2015. According to data from the House Finance committee, this year the state is slated tospend $1.084 billionof its unrestricted money on Medicaid. That's 31.5 percent of the$3.445 billion in general revenue funds. (The state budget enacted that year totaled $8.78 billion, including restricted revenue and federal money for Medicaid and other things.) That made us curious. What were the numbers in 2013, the year cited incorrectly by Roberts? The Rhode Island Health Care Association, one of the groups questioning the numbers, referred us to the executive summary ofGov. Lincoln Chafee's budget for the 2015 fiscal year. Page A-5 listed $3.216 billion in general revenue for that year and page 71 of the budget'stechnical appendixsays the Office of Health and Human Services (OHHS) actually received $772 million from the general fund. That would be 24 percent, close to what the critics claimed. But in the 2013 enacted budget,20 percent of the state's Medicaid money was spent by other departments, including Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) and the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). That makes the 24 percent too low. When all of the states spending for Medicaid out of its general revenues is accounted for, the percentage comes out to around 31 percent. Our ruling Roberts said more than 30 cents of every state tax dollar goes to Medicaid. She cited a specific percentage of 31.5 percent and said it came from the 2013 fiscal year. It's actually from the 2015 fiscal year. But the percentage from 2013 is very close to that. Roberts may have gotten the source year wrong, but it turns out that either year produces the same result. We rate her statement asTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) While most of the leading Republican presidential candidates attended a Fox News-hosted debate in Iowa on 28 January 2016, Donald Trump boycotted the event (as a protest over Fox's allowing Megyn Kelly, whom Trump felt had asked him "unfair questions in a previous debate, to serve as a moderator) and instead hosted his own event as a fund-raiser for veterans. Trump instructed supporters to visit the website of the Donald J Trump Foundation for Vets in order to make donations to the cause. Some potential donors were skeptical, however, as the receiving entity was listed as the Donald J Trump Foundation and not a veterans' charity: website  The Donald J Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. An email confirmation with a summary of your donation will be sent to the email address provided above. Around half of the $5.6 million raised by Trump during his veterans' charity event on 28 January 2016 was initially paid to the Donald J Trump Foundation, before then being distributed to veterans groups. The rest of the funds raised were donated directly to veterans charities, without first passing through the foundation. It's inaccurate to say that the money ended up in the candidate's personal account or was used to fund his presidential campaign. charities The handling of the donations became part of the focus of a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney Generals office against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump in June 2018. The lawsuit alleged that the joint operation of the fundraiser by the Trump foundation and the Trump's presidential campaign, among other examples, constituted improper political activity. When the case was finally settled in 2019, the New York Supreme Court noted that "the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans."  settled In response to queries over the matter, on 31 May 2016 Donald Trump held a press conference to announce that he eventually gave "close to six million dollars" to veterans groups and that the press "should be ashamed of themselves" for asking questions about the money he donated. "I have never received such bad publicity for doing such a good job," Trump said in a press conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan. He issued a list of the veterans groups who received the money, saying that "As of this moment, [the total amount donated] is $5.6 million. All of the money has been spent." Trump said he didn't release the names of the veterans organizations sooner because he wanted to respect their privacy and asserted that the money for a number of these groups had already been delivered some time earlier. Trump's list of checks already issued read as follows: 22Kill: $200,000. Achilles International : $200,000 American Hero Adventures: $100,000 Americas for equal living: $100,000 Americas vet dogs: the veteran canine corp Inc: $75,000 AmVets: $75,000 Armed Services YMCA: $75,000 Bob Woodruff Family Foundation Inc: $75,000 Central Iowa Shelter and Services: $100,000 Connected Warriors Inc: $75,000 Disabled American Veterans Charity: $115,000 Fisher House Foundation: $115,000 Folds of Honor Foundation: $200,000 Foundation for American Veterans: $75,000 Freedom Alliance : $75,000 Green Beret Foundation: $350,000 Higher Heroes USA: $75,000 Homes for our Troops: $100,000 Honoring Americas Warriors: $100,000 Hope for the Warriors: $65,000 Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund: $175,000 Canines for Warriors: $50,000 Liberty House: $100,00 Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation: $1.1m (including $1m from Trump himself, he says) Navy Seal Foundation: $465,000 Navy Marine Corps Relief Society: $75,000 New England Wounded Vets Inc: $75,000 Operation Home Front: $65,000 Project for Patriots: $100,000 (this check is check is ready to go but Trump is still vetting the group, he says, awaiting an IRS determination letter. They have to give us that final document. Puppy Jake Foundation: $100,000 Racing for Heroes, Inc: $200,000 Support Siouxland Soldiers: $100,000 Task Force Dagger Foundation: $50,000 The Mission Continues: $75,000 National Military Families Inc: $75,000 Veterans Airlift Command: $100,000 Veterans Count: $25,000 Veterans in Command Inc: $150,000 Vietnam Veterans Workshop Inc: $75,000 Warriors for Freedom Foundation: $50,000 And I believe were going to have some more coming in. MacGuill, Dan.  "Was Donald Trump Fined for Stealing Money Intended for Veterans?"
 14 November 2019. UPDATE [Nov. 14, 2019] Updated to report 2019 settlement of the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General alleging improper political activity. In 2021, social media users began circulating photographs purporting to show "electric powered cars in boneyard" near Paris, France, that supposedly housed hundreds of derelict electric vehicles, the automobiles supposedly having been abandoned and left to decay because their battery storage cells had "given out" and were too expensive to replace:   Although the photographs are real; the accompanying description is misleading in multiple ways. This item is, in effect, an example of a failed business model rather than a failed technology. Back in 2011, the Autolib program offered the service of providing thousands of electric vehicles in the Paris area under a car-sharing program. Subscribes to the service were able to use the any of the fleet of 4,000 BlueCar cars as they wished, paying a fee each time depending upon how long they used the vehicle. At its peak in 2016, the program boasted 110,000 subscribers. However, Autolib slid from that peak into decline, due to a number of factors: Four thousand cars for over 100,000 subscribers meant many users were unable to find vehicles when they wanted them; users frequently left the cars dirty inside and damaged; and competition from ride-hailing apps such Uber eroded the customer base. By 2018, Autolib was running debts of tens of millions of euros and the program was discontinued in June of that year. running debts of tens of millions of euros program was discontinued in June In the end, most of the BlueCars in better condition were purchased and re-sold to new users or scrapped for parts. But a private company eventually stored some of the cars in not-so-good condition in a lot in an industrial area near Romorantin in Loir-et-Cher, as seen above -- not because the vehicles' storage cells had failed, but because the Autolib car-sharing program proved not to be a viable long-term business model. purchased and re-sold to new users or scrapped for parts It is also not the case that the abandoned Autolib BlueCars' batteries are "draining toxins into the ground." As noted in reports on the subject, the batteries have been removed from the pictured vehicles: reports Despite protests from the Bollor group, the multinational had to evacuate the 4,000 unwanted autolibs from the Paris region and urgently store them. They were then sold in several batches and two companies now hold most of the remaining fleet: the Breton company Autopuzz, former subcontractor of Bollor, which resells these vehicles throughout France, and the company Atis Production, whose manager Paul Aouizerate does not want to reveal his plans for the Autolib parked in Loir-et-Cher. The businessman also regrets the publication of photos of his vehicles in early March, shared by a blogger passionate about electric cars, who was amazed at such a landscape. The images became widespread on Facebook and Twitter, with internet users questioning how these cars can be reused and wondering about the potential risk of soil pollution they pose. Our vehicles are properly stored. The firefighters are aware that the construction site is well organized. All batteries have been removed, [and] the connections are isolated [said Paul Aouizerate, Atis Production Manager]. Madison Mayor Paul Soglin wants to require city contractors to publicly disclose donations theyve made to super PACS or advocacy groups operating in Wisconsin. That has drawn objections from a conservative public interest law firm, theWisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. It contends the liberal mayors proposed ordinance is unconstitutional and violates a bedrock principle of our democracy that government cannot play favorites among citizens, including public contractors, based on their political beliefs. So why does Soglin want to mandate the public disclosures by firms doing business with the city? Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty offered this answer in a June 4, 2012post on its website: Theproposed ordinance, according to Mayor Soglin, is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. Is that what Soglin has said is a goal of the legislation? Asked to back up the groups claim, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty president and general counsel Rick Esenberg pointed to a May 8, 2013story in Madisons Capital Timesthat quoted Soglin extensively about his motives. The article stated that actions by Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature that ran contrary to the wishes of Madison and Soglin were on the mayors mind  when he drafted the ordinance. Legislative action since Gov. Scott Walkers election  including Act 10 in 2011 curtailing the collective bargaining power of most public workers, and more recently, legislation setting levy limits for municipalities and restricting cities powers in tenant-landlord law  got Soglin wondering if companies supporting Republican causes would rather lobby against the city or do business with it, the Cap Times story said. It added: Hes betting that exposing such activities might prompt some companies to curtail them. Those passages suggest pretty strongly that Soglin believes that some contractors faced with being identified as pro-Republican or pro-conservative will reconsider their political activity under his proposal to require them to publicly report their now-private donations to advocacy groups. Deeper into the Capital Times interview, Soglin made another reference to the right side of the political spectrum. He mentioned the Koch Brothers, the billionaire industrialists who founded the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, a tea-party organization that supported Walker in his 2012 recall win. Its unclear how much the group raises and spends because as a tax-exempt organization the group, like many others, does not have to disclose its donors. Soglins additional comments from the article: I think it would be a good idea to know if the bidders are contributing to political efforts which go into organizations that may be lobbying for certain kinds of outcomes or working against the interests of the city. It is simply the idea that sunshine is good. If a company bidding on a city contract also is lobbying for state or federal regulations that make their product required in their industry, the public ought to know about it. At the same time if theyre supplying the city while they're behaving like theKoch brothers, it would be good for the public to know it. Its a bit ironic when someone wants a contract with government, yet supports organizations that hate government and try to make it inefficient. So that is what is in the article. To be sure, the language of the proposed ordinance itself doesnt say Soglins intent is to squelch donations. It says information on donations is essential to the operation of a democracy, informing voters and governments about the activities of those attempting to influence the operations of government. Indeed, the proposal would require disclosure of donations to groups of any political stripe -- it does not single out conservatives or Republicans. Rather, the ordinance specifies that firms and minority owners disclose donations made to tax-exempt 501(c)(4) advocacy or super PAC organizations operating in Wisconsin the prior two years. Contractors would face a one-year ban from receiving city contracts if they fail to disclose any donations to advocacy groups within 30 days of getting a contract. When we reached Soglin, he acknowledged the ordinance might cause some firms hoping to continue as city contractors to stop making donations to groups that oppose the views of he and other city leaders. I will not say that this will leave things exactly the way things are, he said. But Soglin added this: He said the contractors were free to exercise their First Amendment rights and that he hopes they continue to make such donations, saying, I want to know where they stand. He said his goal was to unmask donations, for example, by firms whose ownersmake private donations to advocacy groups working to unseat sitting aldermen. Or to identify firm officials who give to groups supporting private-school vouchers and other programs and decisions he and city officials have opposed. I think the public has a right to know, said Soglin. What would happen if left-leaning city officials discover that contractors are fighting the views of city officials in private? Soglin said no city officials will take into account political donations when officials are deciding on awarding a contract. That language is also included in the ordinance. But Scott Resnick, the Madison Common Councils president pro tem, told us in an interview that aldermen would, in fact, use the information on donations made to groups supporting Republicans in state government when evaluating whether firms should be rewarded future city contracts. So we want to know if you were putting money towards that before we sign another contract with you, he said. This would be one more data set that will be used to make decisions on awarding contracts. In the view of Wisconsin Institute for Law & Libertys Esenberg, the ordinances statement that political activity would not be held against firms at contract time shows the provision has no legitimate government purpose. Curiosity is not a valid governmental purpose, nor is the exposure of private contributions to the public for use by you or others in the political arena, Esenbergwrote to Soglinon June 3, 2013. Soglin, Esenberg said, leaves the listener no other choice but to think that he favors an outcome in which contractors curtail their political activity. He wants to out these people as conservatives or libertarians, and they wont want to be outed that way in Madison, Esenberg said. Our rating The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty contended that, according to Soglin himself, the proposed ordinance is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. The group cites a newspaper interview that paraphrased Soglin saying that could happen in some cases as a result of his legislation. Soglin told us the same thing, but said his goal was limited to transparency. His statements make pretty clear he looks forward to forcing contractors to choose between trimming their political activity or disclosing it and facing the consequences. And he predicts some will stop making donations. We rate the statement True. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013