Costco 'Anniversary' $75 Coupon Scam
In November 2019, a survey scam was spread via Facebook purporting to offer free $75 Costco coupons in celebration of the company's anniversary to users who clicked particular links and then followed the instructions found there:  The scam provided links which led to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Costco) displaying a Bud Light logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing the pages and writing thank you in the comments field:  Users who followed instructions were then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, address, e-mail address, date of birth, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least six "Reward Offers" that usually involve applying for a credit card or signing up for some sort of paid subscription service. Those intent upon snapping up free stuff via such lures should keep in mind that there is often a further downside to the process beyond their personal disappointment and the financial enrichment of the scam artists preying upon their gullibility: All too often such adventures in clickjacking also result in the download of trojans and other viruses onto the computers of those looking to score the promised goodies. Costco themselves says of such schemes that: There are numerous posts circulating on Facebook stating that we are giving away $100 to $1,000 Costco Cash Cards to all Facebook users. While we love our fans and members, Costco is not giving away Costco Cash Cards to Facebook users, and is not associated with this program. The Costco $150 coupon offer is a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that also depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony coupon to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam 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 scammers 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)[.]
An Internet meme circulating in August 2016 paired two racially charged statements previously attributed separately to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump:  While neither attribution was new, the conjunction of the two statements created the impression that Trump must have at some time opined that no black person would be President of the United States again any time soon because "laziness is a trait in blacks." There is a public record of Donald Trump's having stated, more or less, that no black person would be president again any time soon because of the poor performance of his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama:  When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered: interview TRUMP: Well, I think he's been a very poor president. I think he has done a very poor job as president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly. KARL: But what did you mean? What  TRUMP: Wait a minute. The world is  we don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade. Mexico's doing unbelievably against us in trade. You look at what's going on with Japan. You look at what's going on with Vietnam. You look at Saudi Arabia, makes $1 billion a day and we defend them. We get nothing. KARL: I understand your critique. But why do you say that means we won't see another black president for generations? TRUMP: Because I think that he has set a very poor standard. I think that he has set a very low bar and I think it's a shame for the African American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels. You look at what's gone on with their youth. I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country. I thought he'd do a fabulous job for the African American citizens of this country. A source attributing the statement "Laziness is a trait in blacks" to Donald Trump dates to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that that source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere. book As one might expect, O'Donnell's account, Trumped!, paints an unflattering portrait of its subject overall but offers this anecdote specifically as evidence of Trump's low opinion of the African Americans in his employ: "What do you think of him?" Donald asked. I said I was familiar with his abilities, and he had shortcomings. "To be honest, I don't think he's the best we can have," I said. "I'd like to see him either come up to speed, where he can help me a lot more, or maybe there's something else he can do." Instantly, Donald was enthused. "Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He's not responsive. And isn't it funny, I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else." I couldn't believe I was hearing this But Donald went on, "Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?" He looked at me square in the eye and waited for my reply. "Donald, you really shouldn't say things like that to me or anybody else," I said. "That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn't even be having this conversation, even if it's the way you feel." "Yeah, you're right," he said. "If anybody ever heard me say that ... holy shit ... I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that's the way I feel." Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997)Playboy magazine interview -- "The stuff ODonnell wrote about me is probably true," Trump said at the time -- he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: denied MR. TRUMP: I never said it. I don't even know ... MR. RUSSERT: Donald Trump ... MR. TRUMP: I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired, we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff. This is like Jon Lovitz on "Saturday Night Live," the liar. "I went to Harvard. Yeah, I went to Harvard." This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense. MR. RUSSERT: You've never said anything like that? MR. TRUMP: I've never said anything like it, ever. As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed "with some skepticism." noted Kessler, Glenn. "Did Donald Trump Really Say Those Things?"
  The Washington Post.  25 July 2016. O'Donnell, John R. and James Rutherford.  Trumped! The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump -- His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall.
  New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.  ISBN 0-67173-735-X. Reilly, Ryan J. "Donald Trump: No Black Presidents for Awhile Because of Obama."
  Huffington Post.  15 August 2015. As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garicinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on web sites such as Running Evolutions.com and The Platinum Beard:  Running Evolutions.com The Platinum Beard   Student from Cornell University Cuts 31lbs On University Budget! Amanda Haughman, a student at Cornell University, was able to drop 31lbs off her waist in 1 month without ever using a dime of her own money. Amanda is studying nutrition sciences at Cornell, and for a required research project Amanda thought it would be perfect to use university funds to find out how to 'hack' her weight loss. According to Amanda, "the most expensive piece of it all was actually finding what worked. But the actual solution only cost about $5." "I had struggled with my weight my whole life. I tried things like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, which just didn't work as good as they promised. I am a single Mom with a kid at home and I am also working towards my degree, so I don't have any time to be at the gym. When I was assigned this big research project, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to get a deeper look at the natural weight loss opportunities that are out there, and that is when I found out about combining Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and apple cider vinegar. The best part of it all, I can tell that my daughter is proud of me." - Amanda Haughman These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia: Rachel Graham Today Ask Rachel Graham how shes managed to lose almost 100 pounds in one year and the formula is simple: Healthy food and exercise. No secrets. No gimmicks. No quick fixes. Shes also honest about the impact of going from 235 pounds to 144 pounds, especially the loose skin on her stomach, thighs and arms.  [...] I want people to know that it is 110 percent possible, Graham told TODAY. I used to feel as though it wasn't. That I didn't have what it takes, and that it was just too far out of reach... If you want to make changes, it is completely possible with healthy food and exercise. This weight loss advertisement also fabricated an interview with CNN and claimed that the network ran a segment on this Cornell student's "amazing discovery":   We sat down with Amanda to ask her more about how she found out about Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and whether or not that is all that she used to lose 31lbs so quickly. CNN: Tell us, how did you know where to start? Amanda: To be honest, I really didn't. I was given a budget for the project by the university, and I spent nearly all of it researching everything under the sun. I looked into other previous research, case studies, and even successful weight loss stories of others.   This story never appeared on CNN.  Not surprisingly the Platinum Beard post links to a site selling Garcinia Cambogia. The Running Evolutions article links instead to what is apparently borrowed content from Barry's Boot Camp, a personal training program. We reached out to Barry's Boot Camp for comment, but have not yet received a reply.  Although we can't speak to the effectiveness of drinking apple cider vinegar with Refresh Garcinia Cambogia, we can say that this text did not originate in a genuine news article. This is an advertisement that used a fabricated interview, falsified claims, and an unrelated photograph to sell a diet product. Pawlowski, A.  "Mom gets real about weight loss: Here's how she shed 90 pounds in a year."
  Today  3 October 2016. As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. In February 2020, as fears surrounding the outbreak of a new coronavirus and a potential pandemic triggered the worst one-day drop in U.S. stocks since 2011, a chart began circulating via social media purportedly showing the "8 Largest Dow Jones Drops in American History." one-day drop What was notable about the chart was that all of the listed stock market drops had supposedly occurred during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump:  The chart was accurate as far as it went, replicating information from the Wikipedia "List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average" page about the greatest single-day drops in the Dow: page  However, this chart only displayed net (or absolute) losses in the Dow, and obviously a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at 25,000 is far less severe than a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at only 5,000. As we detailed in another article, a chart of the largest single-day percentage (or relative) changes in the Dow shows that none of the top 10 single-day percentage drops in that stock index has occurred during the Trump administration: article Biggest one-day percentage stock index losses  (Sources: The Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data The largest single-day percentage drop in the Dow took place on Oct. 19, 1987  a day commonly known as Black Monday  when the Dow fell 508 points for a loss of 22.6% of its value. Black Monday Wikipedia.  "List of Largest Daily Changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Wikipedia.  "Black Monday (1987)."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Associated Press.  "Virus Anxiety Triggers Biggest 1-Day Market Drop Since 2011."
  Snopes.com.  28 February 2020. MacGuill, Dan.  "Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?"
  Snopes.com.  8 February 2018. Claim:  The Red Lobster chain is about to close its doors and go out of business for good.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, December 2013] Is Red Lobster closing?   Origins:  Red Lobster is the ubiquitous casual dining restaurant chain operated by Darden Restaurants of Orlando, Florida, which boasts over seven hundred outlets worldwide, including (in addition to the United States) operations in Canada, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Japan. In September 2013, the  Darden Restaurants corporation (which also owns the Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze, Capital Grille and Seasons 52 restaurant chains) reported disappointing financial results, including a 37.6% decrease in earnings per share and a $41 million drop in net earnings.  A fair chunk of those disappointing financial results were attributed to the poor performance of the Red Lobster chain, which saw a 5.2% decline in sales relative to the same quarter of the previous year, and a 3.8% decline in same-restaurant traffic.   These results prompted Darden, under pressure from investors, to announce in mid-December 2013 that they planned to separate themselves from the Red Lobster chain by selling it or spinning it off as a separate company: Under pressure from an activist hedge fund, Darden announced that it would dispose of the chain that gave it life  Red Lobster  as one of several steps meant to bolster its stock price. The company plans to shed Red Lobster through a tax-free spinoff to shareholders, but would be interested in a sale if it could raise more money. Darden's plan follows months of questions and pressure from investors and analysts over how it planned to bring back consumers after the recession. Darden is one of the biggest companies in the casual dining industry, with a market value of $6.7 billion, but its core chains have had stagnant growth. Though Red Lobster served as the basis for the Darden empire, it has become less important to the company over time. Members of the management team said that they expected same-restaurant sales for the chain to fall 4 to 5 percent this year. Separating the low-growth brand would let its new management team focus on running the company for its significant cash flows, while letting the rest of the company focus on its other brands' needs, including different marketing and pricing strategies. This announcement about Red Lobster's future was interpreted by some casual news consumers as meaning that the Red Lobster chain would imminently be going out of business, but a Darden spokesman quickly moved to quell such rumors: The Red Lobster restaurant chain brushed aside reports that it will be closing its doors. Rich Jeffers, a spokesman for Darden Restaurants Inc., which owns the chain, said the rumor may have started after the website LA Weekly published a story that the company faced an "uncertain future." A torrent of tweets and other online media followed with reports that the chain was closing. "We are not closing any restaurants," Jeffers [said]. The confusion may also be linked to Darden's announcement that it plans to sell or spin off the Red Lobster chain into a separate company. Several months later, in May 2014, Darden Restaurants announced that they had agreed to sell the Red Lobster chain to Golden Gate Capital for $2.1 billion: Darden Restaurants announced that private equity firm Golden Gate Capital has agreed to buy seafood chain Red Lobster for $2.1 billion in cash. In December [2013] the restaurant group revealed plans to release its oldest but worst performing segment into the wild. The initial plan was to create two independent companies, but after considering a number of structures  ranging from selling to a strategic partner to giving up the real estate assets while holding onto the brand  Darden concluded the Golden Gate deal would create the most value, the company said in a statement. Nonetheless, as The Motley Fool warned back in December 2013, Darden's shedding of Red Lobster could still possibly sound a death knell for the chain: The Motley Fool It's not so much that Red Lobster is a damaged brand, but rather that its results reflect all too closely the trends seen all across the casual-dining sector. Releasing it back into the wild on its own may only cause the restaurant chain to fail. It's clear Red Lobster can't compete on its own yet, and until it can find a way to bring diners back to the restaurant, it would be foolhardy to cast it off. It's possible that economic circumstances may lead to the closure of some Red Lobster outlets in upcoming years, or even the eventual demise of the chain itself. But those possibilities are currently only speculative and uncertain; there's no definitive reason to expect that the entire chain will be closing its doors anytime soon.   Last updated:  16 May 2014    Kim, Susanna.  "Red Lobster Says It's Not Closing Its 705 Restaurants."   ABC News.  27 December 2013.    McGrath, Maggie.  "Red Lobster and Olive Garden Drag Darden Lower."   Forbes.  20 September 2013.    Sharf, Samantha.  "Red Lobster Caught by Golden Gate Capital for $2.1 Billion."   Forbes.  16 May 2014. The New Testament's book of Colossians (one of the thirteen epistles traditionally attributed to Paul, this one addressed to Christians in the city Colossae) reads as follows (in verses 1:12-20 of the King James Version): Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. It is not uncommon for sermons and other Christian devotional/inspirational writings to cite this passage in comparison with some scientific concept: Just as gravity or atoms or molecules are the "glue" that holds the physical world together, so God or Jesus is the force that binds the spiritual world. An example involving laminin glycoprotein cited is one example of this form, with the addition of a graphic meant to illustrate how God's design is evident (in the shape of a cross) in the molecular structure of laminin  what literally holds us together (in a biological sense) was clearly created by He who spiritually holds us together: laminin A couple of days ago I was running (I use that term very loosely) on my treadmill, watching a DVD sermon by Louie Giglio ... and I was BLOWN AWAY! I want to share what I learned ... but I fear not being able to convey it as well as I want. I will share anyway. He (Louie) was talking about how inconceivably BIG our God is ... how He spoke the universe into being ... how He breathes stars out of His mouth that are huge raging balls of fire ... etc. etc. Then He went on to speak of how this star-breathing, universe creating God ALSO knitted our human bodies together with amazing detail and wonder. At this point I am LOVING it (fascinating from a medical standpoint, you know.) ... and I was remembering how I was constantly amazed during medical school as I learned more and more about God's handiwork. I remember so many times thinking ... "How can ANYONE deny that a Creator did all of this???" Louie went on to talk about how we can trust that the God who created all this, also has the power to hold it all together when things seem to be falling apart ... how our loving Creator is also our sustainer. And then I lost my breath. And it wasn't because I was running my treadmill, either!!! It was because he started talking about laminin. I knew about laminin. Here is how wikipedia describes them: "Laminins are a family of proteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding of basement membranes in almost every animal tissue." You see ... laminins are what hold us together ... LITERALLY. They are cell adhesion molecules. They are what holds one cell of our bodies to the next cell. Without them, we would literally fall apart. And I knew all this already. But what I didn't know is what laminin LOOKED LIKE. But now I do. And I have thought about it a thousand times since (already) ... Here is what the structure of laminin looks like ... AND THIS IS NOT a "Christian portrayal" of it ... if you look up laminin in any scientific/medical piece of literature, this is what you will see ... Now tell me that our God is not the coolest!!! Amazing! The 'glue' that holds us together ... ALL of us ... is in the shape of the cross. Immediately Colossians 1:15-17 comes to mind. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth , visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things HOLD TOGETHER." Colossians 1:15-17 Call me crazy. I just think that is very, very, very cool. Thousands of years before the world knew anything about laminin, Paul penned those words. And now we see that from a very LITERAL standpoint, we are held together...one cell to another....by the cross. You would never in a quadrillion years convince me that is anything other than the mark of a Creator who knew EXACTLY what laminin "glue" would look like long before Adam even breathed his first breath!!We praise YOU, Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This particular example is based on the work of Christian pastor/evangelist Louie Giglio, as seen in the following video clip:  Discussions about whether or not nature evinces signs of a purposeful (Christian) creator are theological/scientific debates that can (and do) fill volumes, so we'll just note a few items to consider: accidentally crucifixion And when the illustration is returned to its original orientation, many liken it to the appearance of a sword:  appearances  Davis, Kenneth C.  Don't Know Much About the Bible.
  New York: Eagle Brook, 1998.  ISBN 0-688-14884-0  (pp. 435, 440-441). K. Beck, I. Hunter and J. Engel.  "Structure and Function of Laminin: Anatomy of a Multidomain Glycoprotein."
  The FASEB Journal, Vol 4, 148-160. Clint Eastwood's Academy Award-winning work includes four Oscars: Best Director and Best Actor in a Leading Role for both 1993's "Unforgiven" and 2004's "Million Dollar Baby." Eastwood's work spans decades, and some of his roles were uncredited. For example, he briefly appeared in 1995's "Casper." Also, since at least September 2020 he appeared uncredited in none other than an online advertisement that read: "Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." appeared an online advertisement Of course, Eastwood had nothing to do with the dubious ad. Further, he was not dead. As of December 2020, Clint Eastwood was alive and filming a new movie during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 90-year-old actor was born on May 31, 1930. filming a new movie The misleading advertisements that falsely claimed Eastwood's net worth "left his family in tears" led readers to a seemingly endless, multi-page story on refinancegold.com. The headline for the slideshow-style article read: "Special Celebs & Their Incredible Net Worth." story Clint Eastwood's name finally appeared on page 225 after readers had clicked "Next" 225 times, right before the end of the story. The page included no mention of his family being left "in tears." Clint Eastwood ~ $375 Million  (Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images for AFI)  Clint Eastwood is Hollywoods 70s star who has had a long and fruitful acting career in succeeding decades, mostly portraying rough-and-tough characters in Western settings. These days, he is one a highly accomplished director. He is best known for his roles in the Dollars Trilogy and Dirty Harry films. With a $375-million net fortune in his bank account from his long career as an actor, producer and director in show business, he will never need to ask for a loan in his life ever again. We previously covered other misleading net worth advertisements for Alex Trebek, Sean Connery, Jaleel White, and Richard Gere. White and Gere were both still alive. Alex Trebek Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere On the TrustPilot.com reviews website, a user named Paul H. posted a one-star review for refinancegold.com, the website that created the misleading Clint Eastwood advertisement: posted a one-star review Hurtful Misleading Ad to Draw You In Their morally despicable ad to draw you to their website should warn you right off of having anything to do with this company. The hook was:"Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Left His Family in Tears" (accompanied by a pic of Clint looking distraught and at death's door - the sort of pic we could all be caught with at the wrong time of the day). I'm not particularly a fan of Clint Eastwood but as far as I know he's very much alive and not going bankrupt any time soon. I'm sure he doesn't need me to defend him, but this sort of ad is hurtful to those who love him, deceitful and without conscience. Avoid this company like the plague, how far can you trust people who are willing to draw you in with that sort of ad? Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us It's not uncommon for the human eye to pick out familiar-seeming shapes among clouds in the sky, nor for the human mind to experience, however briefly, the sensation that such a resemblance is more than just coincidental. There's a name for this general phenomenon: pareidolia. pareidolia It's also not uncommon, especially in this era of digital image manipulation and virality, for human beings to fabricate "eerie" photographs along the same lines to share on social media. There's also a name for this general phenomenon: hoaxes. A perfect example of the latter came to Snopes' attention in January 2023, in the form of a YouTube video (originally posted on TikTok) supposedly showing a cloud formation in the shape of shockingly detailed "praying hands." Watch: praying hands  Interestingly, in addition to the above video captioned "A strange cloud in the sky of America," a very similar video can be found elsewhere on YouTube with the caption, "The cloud appeared in the sky of Ukraine during the war." Here is a comparison between the two "cloud formations": very similar video  (YouTube screenshots) Note how artificial the "cloud hands" appear in both of these videos. Note, too, how similar to each other they appear as if they were both modeled after the same source image. We found other specimens with the same similarities. other specimens Clearly, these videos and photographs were the products of digital editing, not miraculous meteorological events. What source image might they have been modeled after? Our vote goes to this drawing of praying hands by the German artist Albrecht Durer, dating from about 1500: Praying hands by the German artist Albrecht Durer (1471-1528), circa 1500. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)  Definition of PAREIDOLIA. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pareidolia. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. "Praying Hands by the German Artist Albrecht Durer , circa 1500." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/praying-hands-by-the-german-artist-albrecht-durer-circa-news-photo/2635952. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. In March 2022, social media users, and in particular right-leaning commentators, protested what they characterized as a decision by Congress members to award themselves a 21 percent pay rise, while U.S. residents endured inflation and record high gas prices. record high gas prices For example, former Republican Congressional candidate Buzz Patterson wrote: candidate wrote While you are paying record prices at the grocery store and gas pump, our politicians in Congress voted for a 21% pay raise for themselves.   For his part, Donald Trump Jr.  the son of and adviser to former President Donald Trump  tweeted: "What the hell has Congress done to deserve a 21% raise?" Similar claims were made by various right-leaning commentators. tweeted were made various commentators On March 10, the right-wing FrontPage Magazine posted an article with the headline "Americans Can't Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise": posted an article   On Facebook, screenshots of that headline went viral, as shown in the image below: went viral   In reality, Congress members did not award themselves a 21 percent pay raise in 2022, but they did vote to increase their operating budgets and expenses by that much. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "false." What those claims actually referred to was something called the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), which the non-partisan Congressional Research Service describes as follows: describes as follows Members of the House of Representatives have one consolidated allowance, the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), with which to operate their offices... While Representatives have a high degree of flexibility to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, they must operate within a number of restrictions and regulations. The Members Representational Allowance (MRA), the allowance provided to Members of the House of Representatives to operate their DC and district offices, may only support Members in their official and representational duties. It may not be used for personal or campaign purposes. The MRA can be used to pay office staff, but does not include the salary of House members themselves, which has not changed since 2009 and is $174,000 for a typical member. Usually, representatives spend their MRA on travel, paying staff, printing services, office supplies, and so on. has not changed since 2009 On March 15, President Joe Biden signed into law the massive omnibus spending bill. H.R. 2471. Around halfway through the 2,700-page text of the bill, the following stipulation can be found: signed into law text of the bill Members' Representational Allowances Including members' clerk hire, official expenses of members, and official mail For Members' representational allowances, including Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, $774,400,000. In other words, the collective MRA for the House of Representatives is just over $774 million for the 2022 fiscal year. For the 2021 fiscal year, the MRA was $640 million, which means a year-on-year increase of $134.4 million, or exactly 21 percent, as highlighted by Roll Call. 2021 fiscal year Roll Call Senators, who also typically have a salary of $174,000, avail themselves of a roughly equivalent allowance, called the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA). For the record, that too increased in the 2022 omnibus spending bill: from $461 million in 2021 to $486.3 million in 2022  a 5 percent increase. SOPOEA $461 million $486.3 million Americans Cant Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise - Frontpagemag. https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/03/americans-cant-afford-gas-congress-just-gave-daniel-greenfield/. Accessed 16 Mar. 2022. Kelly, Stephanie. U.S. Gasoline Prices Edge Lower after Hitting Record High Last Week. Reuters, 13 Mar. 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-gasoline-prices-edge-lower-after-hitting-record-high-last-week-2022-03-13/. Legislative Branch Bill Boosts Members Representational Allowance, Capitol Police. Roll Call, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.rollcall.com/2022/03/09/legislative-branch-bill-boosts-members-representational-allowance-capitol-police/. Remarks by President Biden at Signing of H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The White House, 15 Mar. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/15/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-h-r-2471-consolidated-appropriations-act-2022/.