Was Deutsche Bank the source of funding for Auschwitz, Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and ISIS?
On Nov. 11, 2020, Bloomberg reported that strategists at Deutsche Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, recommended levying a tax against people who plan to continue working from home, arguing that "remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege. At least on Twitter, this was a poorly received take. One particularly viral response alleged that the bank "funded Auschwitz, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and ISIS." reported response     As we show below, the tweet is a largely accurate recounting of history, though the assertion that the bank funded ISIS overstates what is publicly known at this time. In 1999, during negotiations to merge with the New York-based Bankers Trust, the Germany-based Deutsche Bank disclosed that it had helped finance the construction of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz. As reported by Reuters at the time, Deutsche Bank's historian, Manfred Pohl, described the bank's loans to companies involved in multiple aspects of Auschwitz, including loans for construction of the camp and its incineration units, as well as to a company involved in the production of the deadly Zyklon-B gas, which the Nazis used to murder millions: reported Manfred Pohl, head of Deutsche Banks historical institute, said newly uncovered documents showed the bank had links with firms that built the camp in Poland. It also had credit links to one company that made incineration units and funded another whose subsidiary made the Zyklon-B gas used in the camp. On examination of credit records, we determined that branches . . . had credit links to local companies which were active at the construction site . . . in Auschwitz, Pohl said at a media briefing in Frankfurt. Pohl told reporters that the existence of these loans would have been known to high-ranking managers of the bank. "It is clear that this was known as high up at the main office in Katowice. It is not certain whether it was known in Berlin," Pohl said, though he added these loans would have had to be approved in Berlin to go ahead. Deutsche Bank has had a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump since 1998. As reported in The New York Times, "Over the course of two decades, the bank lent him more than $2 billion  so much that by the time he was elected, Deutsche Bank was by far his biggest creditor." Speaking to Reuters in November 2020, one bank official said that the Trump Organization currently has around $340 million in outstanding debt from the bank: reported Reuters Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the presidents umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to filings made by Trump to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in July and a senior source within the bank. The three loans, which are against Trump properties and start coming due in two years, are current on payments and personally guaranteed by the president, according to two bank officials. According to that Reuters report, the bank is looking to distance itself from the president moving forward. Their relationship with Trump "cemented Deutsche Banks reputation as a reckless institution willing to do business with clients nobody else would touch," they wrote. "It has made the company a magnet for prosecutors, regulators and lawmakers hoping to penetrate the presidents opaque financial affairs." Regardless, Trump's history with Deutsche Bank is factual and well known. Reuters According to a 2019 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, "the relationship between Deutsche Bank and Mr. Epstein officially began on August 19, 2013" and eventually involved his opening and funding "more than 40 accounts at the Bank." 2019 report Controversially, they entered into business with Epstein after his 2008 arrest for the solicitation of a minor and after other media revelations about Epstein's alleged trafficking of underage women for sex. Some of these Deutsche Bank accounts were involved in suspicious transactions including, according to The New York Times, "suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames and people who had been publicly identified as Mr. Epsteins co-conspirators." according In July 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $150 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services "to settle allegations that it maintained weak internal controls, including processing hundreds of transactions for Jeffrey Epstein despite the billionaires troubled history." The bank has since apologized for its association with Epstein. apologized In the banking world, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are notifications made by financial institutions to the United States government about potentially suspicious or illegal activity. A transaction labeled suspicious in these reports does not necessarily indicate illegal activity, however. SARs issued about transactions involving Deutsche Bank have been used to link them to ISIS in multiple investigations. made In December 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on SARs showing that Deutsche Bank had been engaged in business with a corrupt Cyprus bank named FBME that "served as a major conduit to terrorism, organized crime, and chemical weapons." The SARs revealed that "Deutsche processed hundreds of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions for FBME clients  including a Kremlin-linked network of Russian slush funds funneling money to financiers of the Syrian regime and a businessman trading oil with ISIS." The reports do not indicate, however, that Deutsche Bank knowingly participated in illegal activity. reported In September 2020, the existence of an even larger trove of SARs obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was announced. The collaboration  a project named the FinCEN files  led to hundreds of stories in newsrooms across the world. One story, published by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), identified further transactions that could point to a potential involvement of Deutsche Bank in the movement of funds to, from, and within ISIS held territory. FinCEN files story The files, ARIJ said, "reveal suspicious money transfers of at least $4 billion flagged by Deutsche Banks US branches and Bank of America to a number of Iraqi banks between June 15, 2014 and June 30, 2015." Though the files do not indicate which bank branches were used, they reported, "the transactions were sent and received during the height of the Islamic States reign and its control over several Iraqi bank branches." The report notes that "many of the banks in northern Iraq were in areas of IS [Islamic State] influence, and such transfers could be the proceeds of the illicit oil and gas trade that the organisation largely relied on in its areas of control." said While suggestive of an at least unwitting role for Deutsche Bank in ISIS related finances, these reports are not strong enough evidence to support the statement that Deutsche Bank "funds" ISIS. Because there is some truth to the ISIS claim, and because the other assertions are true, we rank the overall claim made in the viral tweet as "true."
In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook:   Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading. common one generally misleading Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.  Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. undocumented persons "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. rejecting A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. 2017 study PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons." Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money. Frazee, Gretchen.  "4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy."
  PBS News Hour.  2 November 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie, and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments."
  December 2007. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.  "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration."
  2017. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here As some high-profile Republicans condemned former U.S. President Donald Trump for inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, news reports surfaced citing anonymous sources close to Trump who said he was considering dismantling American partisanship by forming a new "Patriot Party." Capitol insurrection Some of his supporters quickly drafted logos and slogans for the political group, as well as started organizing in far-right corners of social media sites.   One Trump supporter even went so far as to file paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to establish a formal system for fundraising for the Patriot Party  an effort Trump's official campaign later disavowed. (See our fact check regarding claims that Trump was indeed creating an alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties here.) here Meanwhile, Snopes received several inquiries about the origin of the "Patriot Party" name. One Twitter user alleged activists against fascism actually organized as "The Patriot Party" in the 1960s, decades before Trump supporters attempted to appropriate the title. "The first Patriot Party in the 60s was ... Antifa. I cannot stop laughing," read the Jan. 19 tweet, which included a screenshot of a Wikipedia page that alleged "poor, rural whites in the Appalachian South and Pacific Northwest" formed the radical socialist organization that advocated alongside the Black Panthers. tweet Wikipedia page Black Panthers Based on our analysis of numerous newspaper clippings between 1960 and early 2021, the allegation was true: Though neither the organization nor its members used the name "antifa," a far-left political organization of predominately white Americans called the Patriot Party formed at the end of the civil rights movement to advocate against racism and fascism. Additionally, dozens of hate groups contained the term "Patriot" in their names, and supporters of Texas billionaire Ross Perot, who railed against the country's two-party system during two failed campaigns for president in the 1990s, attempted to start the third party before Trump politics existed. In the late 1960's, a leftist group called the Young Patriots Organization (YPO) formed in Chicago to fight racism and capitalism in solidarity with similarly-minded activists of color, according to the news archives. The group intended to radicalize poor white residents who moved to the Midwest city from Appalachia. It was a poor people coalition, Hy Thurman, a founding member of the YPO, later recalled, according to The Washington Post. Poor people organizing in their own community against racism and supporting the Black power movement at the time. The Washington Post The group had a working partnership with the Black Panthers and Young Lords, a predominately Puerto Rican group. For example, a leader of the YPO spoke at the July 1969 "Conference for a United Front Against Fascism" organized by the Black Panthers, according to Jacobin, a New York-based socialist magazine. Additionally, video footage showed a a YPO member introducing Black Panther Bobby Lee at a rally as someone who's "fighting for some of the same causes we're fighting for." Jacobin footage showed Black Panther Bobby Lee In 1970, amid an internal disagreement over mobilizing strategies, some YPO members broke away from the main organization to start their own group called the Patriot Party, according to the Post. the Post. Donning Confederate flags and Black Panther memorabilia, the socialist radicals quickly opened chapters in cities nationwide, including in southern states. The Post reported: "Like the Panthers, the Patriot Party sought to reach people in poverty-stricken neighborhoods by offering free health clinics, a free breakfast program and even its own 'liberation schools' that sought to impart revolutionary ideals to children. In Eugene, Ore., the group distributed free firewood to rural whites who relied on wood stoves for warmth." A 1970 pamphlet, a portion of which is the feature image for this report, said the group was pushing for "an immediate end to police brutality," freedom for "all oppressed white people" held in prisons, and an end to all sexism and racism. Another bulletin from that year outlining the group's mission said it loved America, and the declaration of Independence, and that the Constitution is "groovy." 1970 pamphlet Another bulletin The Patriot Party, however, dominated news headlines nationwide in early 1970 after police arrested 12 members (all between the ages of 17 and 27) during a raid of an apartment on Manhattan's Upper West Side. The apartment reportedly served as the group's headquarters, where authorities said they found weapons, including guns and knives, and leftist literature, according to the archives. "The door was stomped in by the fascist pigs of America in true fascist style," attorney Arthur Turco, one of the Patriot Party members, later said during the court proceedings, with the Panthers and the Chicago Seven backing him up. "They busted in without a search warrant. The guns we had were legally registered." later said Chicago Seven The suspects told officers they were indeed part of the Patriot Party that attempted to convince working-class white Americans to abandon racist beliefs and instead fight capitalism, according to The Associated Press and Post. The Associated Press   Prosecutors charged all 12 members with illegal possession of dangerous weapons, according to The New York Times. The Washington Post reported, citing a book titled "Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times": The New York Times Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times Members were frequently arrested on charges of possessing illegal drugs or weapons  like the Panthers, the Patriots emphasized the importance of being armed  and the ensuing legal battles prevented them from focusing on their goal of organizing the working class. [...] Within just a few years of its formation, the Patriot Partys activities were reduced to distributing a left-wing newspaper, and the group soon effectively ceased to exist. Following the dissolve of the leftist "Patriot Party," a group of anti-Semitic, white supremacists in North Carolina appropriated the name for its own agenda. A 1985 court order prohibited Frazier Glenn Miller  who represented a new, militant breed of Ku Klux Klan leaders and is pictured below  from operating the Carolina Knights of the KKK as a paramilitary organization that threatened, harassed, intimated or harmed people on the basis of race, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Frazier Glenn Miller Carolina Knights of the KKK As a result, he rallied followers under a new name  the White Patriot Party  and resumed "Klan business as usual," the SLPC said.   At least four Marines and some Army soldiers in North Carolina had attended rallies or other events by the White Patriot Party, whose members trained with guns and wore military-style uniforms, The New York Times reported. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in fall 1986: "Leaders of the White Patriot Party long maintained that they were building a 'white Christian army' that would help in the violent formation of an all-white Southern state by the end of the century."   In January 1987, a federal grand jury in Raleigh, North Carolina, indicated Miller and four other members of the White Patriot Party on charges of conspiring to obtain weapons and explosives stolen from a National Guard armory, The Associated Press reported. They were allegedly plotting to blow up the SLPC headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama, and murder Morris Dees, a lawyer who co-founded the anti-hate organization. "What we have are dangerous individuals who are fanatics who might do anything, especially now. They hate the federal government. They feel oppressed and intimidated by what we are doing and there is a tendency to strike back," former U.S. Attorney Sam Currin said at the time. U.S. Attorney Sam Currin In the 1992 presidential race between Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton, Texas billionaire Ross Perot amassed a following as an independent presidential candidate who criticized both major parties for chasing fame instead of effectively legislating. Ross Perot He captured almost a fifth of the popular vote in the three-way race, making him one of the most successful independent candidates in American history, according to BBC. according to BBC The Jan. 24, 1993, issue of The Morning Call, a local newspaper for Pennsylvania's Allentown, reported: The Patriot Party was born last night. Ross Perot's core supporters in Pennsylvania yesterday held their first convention as an independent party, choosing the name "Patriot Party" on a 43-16 vote at the Harrisburg Hilton Hotel. Perot distanced himself from the third-party movement, however, and later campaigned for Republican congressional candidates. Still, the new political group sought campaign donations, candidates, and voters to try to legally establish itself as a major competitor with the Republican and Democratic parties that championed free-market economics and greater government accountability. "The movement toward favoring the existence of a third political party existed long before Perot came on the scene," National Chairman Nicholas Sabatine III said in fall 1994. "Mr. Perot didn't create the anger, the frustration the cynicism that exists in the minds of Americans around the country." Perot launched a presidential campaign again in 1996, this time as a candidate of the "Reform Party." Reform Party This report was updated to clarify that Perot ran as a presidential candidate for the Reform Party in 1996. President Joe Bidens proposal for an$1.9 trillion economic rescue packagecalls for more than doubling the federal minimum wage, which was last raised over a decade ago. The plan has stirred up online chatter about the impact of a proposed $15-an-hour federal rate, with one conservative commentator warning that it would send prices soaring. If you want $15 minimum wage, dont complain when your Taco Bell order costs $38 for a burrito, said Jordan Rachel, a Turning Point USA contributor,in a Jan. 16 tweet. Business groups have long opposed sharply higher minimum wages on the grounds that they would hurt employment and raise consumer prices. But $38 for a burrito? That seemed like a hefty price at any restaurant, let alone a fast-food chain like Taco Bell, which still has several $1 items on its value menu. So PolitiFact decided to put Rachels claim to the Truth-O-Meter. We reached out to Turning Point USA and a spokesperson for Charlie Kirk, the organizations founder, about Rachels claim, and we got no response. Soon after we sent our inquiries, Rachels tweet about Taco Bell disappeared from the platform. We did, however, hear back from Taco Bell. The company, part of the Yum! Brands family of restaurant chains, told us that it already does business in places where local laws set a higher wage than the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum. In those places, burrito prices havent skyrocketed. Taco Bell and our franchisees have already adapted to many minimum wage increases on a local level, and we are committed to maintaining our leadership in value on a national level, Taco Bell said in a statement to PolitiFact. For example, at our company-owned restaurants in New York City, where the minimum wage is $15 an hour, our Bean Burrito is $1.89 plus tax and Crunchwrap Supreme is $4.49 plus tax. Several economists we talked to described Rachels warning about $38 burritos as far from accurate and easily countered by evidence. A price of $38 is clearly absurd, said Orley Ashenfelter, a Princeton University economist who has used the price of McDonalds Big Mac sandwiches to compare wages worldwide. The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 per hour since 2009, but 29 states and Washington, D.C., haveminimum wagesabove the federal level, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures. Some cities and counties have already bumped their rates to $15 or higher. And arecent reportfrom the National Employment Law Project said that by the end of 2021, 40 more cities and counties will have a minimum wage at or above $15 than at the end of 2020. Efforts to increase the federal rate haveacceleratedin recent years. The House in 1999 voted to raise the hourly minimum to $15 by 2025  the bill stalled in the Senate  and Bidenpromisedduring his campaign to seek a $15 floor. That pledge made its way into Bidens coronavirus relief proposal released Jan. 14. On Jan. 15, some 1,000 fast-food workerswent on striketo protest low wages. They and other proponents of raising the minimum wage say doing so would lift low-income workers out of poverty, while opponents warn of hamstringing businesses and forcing layoffs. Prices at Taco Bell restaurants and other chains vary by location. And experts said it would be reasonable to expect increased prices with a bump to a $15 federal minimum wage. But Rachels warning of a $38 burrito isnt supported by evidence. I can think of no economic justification that would lead to a prediction anywhere close to the estimate of a $38 Taco Bell burrito, said Steven Fazzari, a professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. A simple way to gauge the potential impact on prices is to look at places where the minimum wage is already $15 or more per hour, experts said. Plenty of cities work as benchmarks, including New York,Washington, D.C., Seattle and San Francisco. In San Francisco, for example, the minimum wage is $16.07 per hour. But the burrito prices there are not much different from cities with lower minimum wages. Sometimes theyre the same. Some of Taco Bells most expensive burritos show no price difference whatsoever between places with very high and very low minimum wages, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, who called Rachels claim easily disproven. Burtless compared prices for two different types of burritos at San Franciscos710 Third St. Taco Bellto prices for the same burritos at aTaco Bellin Alexandria, Va., where the states minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, equal to the federal minimum. In Alexandria, a Bean Burrito goes for $1.29, while a Burrito Supreme costs $4.19. At the San Francisco location, a Bean Burrito sells for $1.99, and a Burrito Supreme costs $4.19. Two screenshots from Taco Bell's website show the prices listed for a Bean Burrito and a Burrito Supreme at Taco Bell locations in Alexandria, Va., and San Francisco, on Jan. 20, 2021. The most expensive burrito on the menu, the Crunchwrap Supreme, costs $4.19 in Alexandria and $4.49 in San Francisco, a difference of about 7%. We find absolutely no evidence that a higher minimum wage will boost Taco Bell burrito prices by anything that comes remotely close to 807%, the price increase implicitly predicted by Jordan Rachel, Burtless said. Bryan Stuart, an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University, said burrito prices in major cities like New York City and San Francisco likely represent an upper bound on the average burrito price if the federal minimum wage goes to $15. Thats because the price of a Taco Bell burrito depends on more than just worker salaries. The price of burritos depends on the cost of land, taxes, etc., and many of these costs are higher in cities that have a minimum wage at or above $15, Stuart said. Ashenfelter, the Princeton economist, said labor costs represent between 20% and 30% of the final consumer price. He said new research of his, on McDonalds wages and Big Mac prices, estimated that a 10% increase in the minimum wage would raise Big Mac prices by 1.4%. That suggests that Taco Bell burritos could cost more in some places under Bidens proposal  which would increase the federal minimum by more than 100%  but nowhere near $38. Rachel said a $15-an-hour minimum wage would raise the price of a Taco Bell burrito to $38. This claim is countered by available evidence, including the current burrito prices at Taco Bell locations in cities and counties where a $15 minimum wage is in effect. Four economists characterized the claim as a far-off estimate at odds with economic theory. We rate Rachels statement False. 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 December 2020, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, the FBI and other federal agencies began to warn of fraudsters exploiting interest in the newly released vaccine. INTERPOL, as well, issued an Orange Notice alerting law enforcement to "potential criminal activity in relation to the falsification, theft and illegal advertising of COVID-19 and flu vaccines." approved warn Orange Notice One area where these scams have reportedly proliferated is the so-called dark web. Broadly speaking, the dark web refers to unindexed content on the internet that can not be searched for and that, among other things, contains several anonymous marketplaces and forums that purport to sell a wide range of illicit material. On Feb. 8, 2021, CBS News reported that "in just the last six weeks, the number of vaccine ads on the dark web has exploded," adding that "the asking prices have doubled or even quadrupled." reportedly refers reported For a Dec. 25, 2020, segment on PlanetMoney, NPR spoke to Chad Anderson, a senior security researcher at the cyberthreat intelligence agency Domain Tools. "We're a cyberthreat intelligence data company," he explained, "so we scan the entire Internet as many times as we can every single day and give insights to customers based upon what we see." Back then, he argued the vaccine ads popping up on the dark web were clearly scams. NPR Chad Anderson "For one thing," NPR correspondent Stacey Vanek Smith explained, "the Pfizer vaccine requires a very intense cold storage chain. The vaccines have to be kept at negative 70 degrees Fahrenheit." And also, she added, "the COVID vaccine ads are mixed in with ads for all kinds of other things, and Chad says that tends to be a red flag." At the time of this reporting, the only two FDA-approved vaccines are the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. Both shots are mRNA vaccines, and as such they both require this high level of refrigeration for transport. explained Snopes reached out to Anderson to ask if ads for vaccines on dark web marketplaces still appeared to be scams, as of February 2021. "Just went and took a look at the last of the 'reputable' markets [on the dark web] and I still don't see any COVID vaccines for sale on there," he wrote to us by email, adding that he did see some ads for the largely discredited treatment hydroxychloroquine, but not much else on the COVID-19 front. One problem with the dark web, however, is that there is no requirement for "reputable behavior" and few safeguards against predatory behavior. Several media reports have cited a dark web market named Agartha as having ads for COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed it does  several hundred of them, according to a recent analysis by Snopes  but these ads are all comically obvious frauds. One ad listed under "opiates," for instance, asked for "mutual trust" in its effort to sell some "Moderona" vaccine: media reports   Other ads claim to be able to ship the Pfizer vaccine, which as a reminder requires extreme refrigeration for storage, by FedEx at no additional cost. Many ads, like the one below, don't even specify what vaccine product they purport to sell. Instead, the ad appears to be a bait-and-switch for a seller peddling other drugs ranging from marijuana to fentanyl:   According to DomainTools' Anderson, "Agartha is considered an entire scam market." He added that "I've never thrown money into my user wallet on there, but I have heard from others that the moment you do it's immediately siphoned off to another wallet that I would assume is the wallet of those running the site." CBS News, in its reporting, cited the work of cybersecurity company Check Point. That firm attempted to purchase COVID-19 vaccines from various dark web sellers, even sending a Bitcoin payment to one. "A few days after the Bitcoin transaction, Check Point received a message from the vendor saying the vaccine had been shipped, CBS reported. "Then a few days later, that vendor's account completely disappeared from the site." They never received any product in return, and the firm concluded that none of the sellers they found actually had any vaccine to sell.  reported Overt fraud aside, a possibility remains that as more easily transportable vaccines are approved and produced, a dark web black market for vaccines could develop. "As time goes by, and more people get access to legitimate doses, there's always the possibility that some of that real product could make its way onto the dark web," CBS reported. "More providers will lead to looser shipping restrictions," Anderson agreed. reported The risks from engaging in these transactions are multifaceted. Outside of a potential loss of money, there are risks of receiving unknown and dangerous drugs instead of a vaccine or having identifying information stolen. "In addition to the dangers of ordering potentially life-threatening products," a December 2020 Interpol news release stated, "an analysis by the INTERPOLs Cybercrime Unit revealed that of 3,000 websites associated with online pharmacies suspected of selling illicit medicines and medical devices, around 1,700 contained cyber threats, especially phishing and spamming malware." In other words, even if these listings were not overt scams, it's not worth the risk. stated Because at this time there are several ads for COVID-19 vaccines on various dark web markets of low repute, but that none of them appear to be legitimate, we rate the claim that the vaccines are for sale as "false." In September 2019, we received inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely-shared tweet claming that the United States had been ranked the "118th safest country in the world" in 2019, a decline of 53 places in just one year. The claims originated with a September 3 tweet by @ResisterSiano, a left-leaning, anti-Trump Twitter account, which said: "The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. [I don't know] how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole." The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. Idk how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole.  Sergio (@ResisterSiano) September 3, 2019 September 3, 2019  Those claims were further promulgated when a Facebook user posted a screenshot of the tweet, garnering thousands of shares within a week:  The claims constituted a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the findings of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, an Australia-based non-profit organization, in collaboration with the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and analysis firm associated with the Economist magazine. The originator of the tweet confirmed they had based their claims on the 2019 GPI in another tweet in which they wrote that "the United States ranked 118th in safety in 2019" and included a link to a summary of the report on the website World Population Review. tweet summary The GPI tracks the overall "absence of violence or fear of violence" in more than 160 independent countries and territories around the world. The overall GPI score is based on 23 separate indicators which, taken together, describe the presence and impact of internal and external conflicts, the impacts of violent crime and instability (including homicide rates, terrorism, the proportion of refugees and internally displaced people within a given population, and so on), as well as the levels of militarization and the availability and prevalence of weapons within a country or territory, among several other factors. The full list of 23 indicators can be viewed below, and a more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the 2019 GPI (starting on page 84): page 84   The GPI is not simply a measure of "safety" within a country, and it cannot be claimed, in a straightforward or reliable way, that a country which ranks 100th, for example, in the GPI is therefore "the 100th safest country in the world." It is probably more apt (though still imprecise) to describe the index as a rough approximation of each country or territory's overall peacefulness, a term which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also factors such as militarization and the presence, impact, and intensity of national and international conflicts. Notwithstanding these important distinctions, safety and security do form an important component of the GPI, and "Societal Safety and Security" is one of the index's three main strands, along with "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict" and "Militarization." "Societal Safety and Security" does include some indicators which a reader might typically associate with "safety," such as the level of violent crime, the impact of terrorism, and the homicide rate, but it also takes into account several factors which a reader would not typically associate with "safety," such as political instability and the ratio of police to population. Conversely, "ease of access to small arms and light weapons" -- a factor which many observers in the U.S., in particular, might associate with public safety -- is included in the "Militarization" strand, and not "Societal Safety and Security." More broadly, the overall GPI score takes into account several other factors which a reader would not typically consider when making a straightforward assessment of the "safety" of a given country, such as: a country's financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions; the prevalence of refugees and internally displaced persons within the population; military spending as a percentage of GDP, and others. Bearing in mind the aforementioned nuances and complexities inherent in the GPI and its methodology, the following is a breakdown of the United States' rankings (both overall and for each of the three strands), from 2015 to 2019: U.S. Rankings in Global Peace Index, 2015-2019(Out of 163 countries/territories, unless otherwise stated.) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019  Even if we set aside for a moment the inherent nuances in the GPI and the indicators of which it consists, those rankings lay bare several factual inaccuracies contained within the tweet. First, the U.S. did not rank 118th in the 2019 GPI, by any measure, and it's not clear what the basis was for citing that number. The United States' overall ranking was 128th, and when it came to "Societal Safety and Security" -- the strand which arguably represents "safety" most closely -- the U.S. ranked considerably better, at 59th out of 163 countries. On "Societal Safety and Security," therefore, only around 36 percent of countries performed better than the United States, which somewhat undermines the claim that "the overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the U.S." Furthermore, no justification exists for the claim that the U.S. "fell 53 places in one year," although the U.S. did rank lower by every measure in 2019 than the year before, and 2018 represented a decline in rankings by every measure from the year before that. The actual decline in U.S. rankings between 2018 and 2019 was: seven places in the overall rankings; two places under "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict"; 12 places under "Societal Safety and Security," and one place under "Militarization." Notwithstanding these factual inaccuracies, and the over-simplistic invocation of the concept of "safety," there is a justification for saying that based on the many and varied factors that go into the GPI, the United States was ranked the 128th most peaceful country in the world in 2019, an even lower ranking than 118th. That is to say, the United States could reasonably be described as being in the bottom 23 percent of the world's nations when it comes to overall peacefulness (which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also international conflict and militarization). That ranking placed the U.S. below Central American nations such as Honduras (123rd), Nicaragua (120th), Guatemala (114th) and El Salvador (112th), as well as the African nations of Niger (126th), the Republic of the Congo (121st), and Kenya (120th), and historical rivals such as China (110th) and Cuba (91st). The U.S. ranked significantly below many of its European and NATO allies, such as the U.K. (joint 45th), Germany (22nd), and Canada (6th), but notably did outrank Russia, which was placed at 154th out of 163 countries and territories. Despite a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the GPI, the index's actual findings would no doubt be just as worrying to many Americans. WorldPopulationReview.com.  "Safest Countries in the World 2019."
  28 August 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit.  "Global Peace Index 2019."
  12 June 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2018."
  June 2018. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2017."
  1 June 2017. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2016."
  June 2016. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2015."
  June 2015. On 21 August 2017, the conservative non-profit organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) posted a meme juxtaposing a 42-year-old quote by then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan with a 2016 photograph of anti-fascist protesters in Dover, England, intended to create the impression that "antifa" demonstrators represented fascism coming to the the United States in just the way that Reagan had predicted decades earlier:   That quote was taken from a December 1975 interview of Reagan conducted by Mike Wallace for the 60 Minutes news magazine television program:  We've found no record of anyone, other than Reagan himself, having made the "profound" statement that "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." Most likely the future President was recalling a variant of a maxim (commonly misattributed to author Sinclair Lewis) holding that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis TPUSA shared the Reagan meme on their official Facebook feed at a time when anti-fascist activists, or "antifa," had garnered both notoriety and heightened media scrutiny following violent incidents at white supremacist rallies in Berkeley, California, and Charlottesvile, Virginia (in April and August 2017, respectively). After white supremacists (who have adopted the moniker "alt-right") were widely condemned for an outbreak of deadly violence at a protest in Charlottesville, some conservatives responded by claiming "antifa" protesters deserved equal condemnation. antifa The bottom image in the TPUSA meme (which has been shared thousands of times) wasn't taken in the United States, despite the implication created by its inclusion here. The photograph was taken in Dover, England, on 30 January 2016 by Press Association photographer Gareth Fuller and depicts anti-fascists who clashed with nationalists during an anti-immigration rally in the Kent County town. rally The connection between "liberals" and the "antifas" suggested by this meme isn't quite so apt, as most "antifa" activists are anarchists and/or subscribe to political philosophies that are much further left on the political spectrum than those of mainstream "liberals." Likewise, although the Reagan quote sought to draw a connection between liberalism and fascism, the latter is generally considered to be a form of extreme right-wing ideology. anarchists extreme !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/ucxbq"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video": "v3t27p","div": "rumble_v3t27p","autoplay":2}); ITV.  "Far-Right and Anti-Fascist Groups Clash at Protests in Dover."
  30 January 2016. Penny, Daniel.  "An Intimate History of Antifa."
  The New Yorker.  22 August 2017. Beinart, Peter.  "The Rise of the Violent Left."
  The Atlantic.  September 2017 issue. KentOnline.com.  "Dover Riots of January 30, 2016  Police Hunt for Far Right and Anti-Fascist Thugs Goes On."
  30 January 2017. Sepulvado, John, and Bert Johnson.  "Californian Who Helped Lead Charlottesville Protests Used Berkeley as a Test Run."
  KQED-TV.  14 August 2017. McCreesh, Shawn.  "Antifa and the 'Alt-Left': Everything You Need to Know."
  Rolling Stone.  18 August 2017. Claim:  Zuccotti Park is owned by Brookfield Properties, which has other political connections.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2011] Whaaaaaaaaaaaat a coincidence! Hey, this is great! Imagine the odds of this happening. Do you know the park in NYC that the Wall Street protesters are occupying? Zucotti Park. DId you know this park is not owned by the city? It is owned by Brookfield Properties. Who was just hired by Brookfield Properties as an attorney? Vice President Joe Biden's son. Who sits on the board of Brookfield Properties? Mayor Bloomberg's live-in girlfriend. Now, guess what company just recieved some of the last of the Obama Stimulus $$$$$$$. Thaaaaaaaaaaaaat's right, Brookfield Properties. Isn't life great! Hey, on a completely unrelated note, Wisconsin is shaping up to be the swing state in the 2012 presidential elections. Not Florida. Not Ohio. But Wisconsin. Now, guess who owns the company that will be tabulating the electronic votes in Wisconsin. Thaaaaaaaaaaaat's right, the biggest contributor to Obama, George Soros. Whaaaaaaaat a coincidence! Remember what Stalin said. "He who votes does not have power. He who counts the votes has power".  Origins: Between Broadway, Trinity Place, Liberty Street and Cedar Street in Lower Manhattan, New York City, sits 33,000 sq. ft. Zuccotti Park.  Created by U.S. Steel, it was originally named Liberty Plaza Park.  After undergoing renovations in 2006, the park was renamed by its current owners, Brookfield Office Properties, to Zuccotti Park in honor of John Zuccotti, the U.S. chairman of Brookfield Properties, who was also the chairman of the Real Estate Board of New York, former first deputy mayor of the City of New York, and former chairman of the New York City Planning Commission. Brookfield Office Properties Zuccotti Park In mid-September 2011, "Occupy Wall Street" protesters began using Zuccotti Park as a rallying area and campground in part because it held the desirable combination of being a public plaza required to stay open 24 hours a day yet also a privately owned park not subject to the same curfew restrictions as New York's other public parks.  Thus the protesters could occupy the park around the clock and could not be removed by the NYPD except at the behest of the park's owners, Brookfield Office Properties. removed  Robert Hunter Biden, the son of Vice-President Joseph Biden, is an attorney who was a founding partner of Oldaker, Biden & Belair (now known asOldaker Law Group), a law and government relations firm, and who is now a partner at Rosemont Seneca Partners, an alternative investment and market advisory firm, as well as counsel to the Boies, Schiller, Flexner law firm. Oldaker Law Group Back in 2002 and 2003, Oldaker, Biden & Belair was retained to undertake some lobbying efforts on behalf of Brookfield Office Properties.  However, we could not find evidence of any professional or business connection between Hunter Biden and Brookfield Office Properties since 2003.  Biden quit working as a federal lobbyist in 2008, and we found no connection between Brookfield Office Properties and either of the firms with which he is currently associated. 2002 2003 lobbyist  Diana L. Taylor is often described in the press as being the "girlfriend" or "domestic partner" of New Yorks mayor Michael Bloomberg (a former Republican who ran for a third term as mayor in 2009 as an independent candidate).  Ms. Taylor is a managing director at Wolfensohn & Company, an investment and advisory firm, and also sits on the board of directors of Brookfield Office Properties. girlfriend board  In September 2011, the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office finalized a partial guarantee (80%) of a $168.9 million loan to Granite Reliable Power for the development of a wind turbine farm (windpark) in New Hampshire "consisting of 33 Vestas V90 3.0-MW turbines, said to be enough to power 20,000 homes and offset 124,000 tons of carbon annually." guarantee Granite Reliable Power windpark The Granite Reliable Power  wind farm project is headed by Brookfield Renewable Power and Freshet Wind Energy.  The former outfit is wholly owned by Brookfield Asset Management, which is also the parent company of Brookfield Office Properties. Brookfield Renewable Power Brookfield Asset Management  The state of Wisconsin utilizes a variety of electronic voting systems, including those provided by Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, Populex, and Vote-PAD.  Financier George Soros holds no ownership stake in any of these companies Wisconsin Election Systems & Software Dominion Voting Systems Populex Vote-PAD  The quote about voting attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin is most likely an apocryphal one. apocryphal  On 15 November 2011, a New York judge upheld the city's dismantling of the Occupy Wall Street encampment, ruling that the protesters' first amendment rights didn't entitle them to camp out indefinitely in the plaza. Last updated:  15 November 2011    Hoppock, Julia.  "Hunter Biden Quits Lobbyist Work."   ABCNews.com.  13 September 2008.    Taylor, Kate.  "Diana Taylor, Bloomberg's Girlfriend, Criticizes Obama."   The New York Times.  30 September 2011.    [New York] Daily News.  "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Stripped of Their Power."   28 October 2011. Claim:  Participating in one-day boycott of gasoline on 15 April will help lower gasoline prices.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, March 2012] Don't pump gas on April 15, 2012. KEEP SENDING THIS.  Let's all try this, wonderful if it helps. I'll do it!  If running low, just get your gas the day before on April 14 or the day after on April 16. Every little bit helps. In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On April 15th 2011, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $1.20 a liter/$3.87 is most places. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on April 15th and let's try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.  [Collected on the Internet, 2007] DO NOT PUMP GAS ON MAY 15TH... On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day. If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) repost this bulletin repost it with "Don't pump gas on May 15th, 2007"    [Collected on the Internet, 2006] No Gas on May 15th On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day..  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1st  HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHIND " DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THESE TWO NATIONS SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED.  THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC.  WHO PAYS IN THE END?  WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD.  FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.  MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE SEPTEMBER 1ST A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA  SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.  SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Last year on April 30, 1999, a gas out was staged across Canada and the U.S. to bring the price of gas down, and it worked. It's time to do something about it again. Only this time lets make it for three days instead of just one. The so-called oil cartel decided to slow production to drive up gasoline prices. Lets see how many CanadianAmerican people we can get to ban together for a three day period in April, NOT TO BUY ANY GASOLINE, during those three days. LET'S HAVE A GAS OUT. Do not buy any gasoline from APRIL 7, 2000, THROUGH APRIL 9, 2000. Buy what you need before the dates listed above, or after, but try not to buy any during the GAS OUT. If you want to help, just send this to everyone you know and ask  them to do the same. We brought the prices down once before, and we can do it again. Come on North America lets stand together. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Even if you receive this 100 times keep passing it around, this way you know everyone is being informed and no one will forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Origins:  The above-quoted pieces advocating one-day gasoline boycotts are proof that some bad ideas never go away; they just keep getting recycled year after year. This year's e-mail (proposing a one-day "gas out" on 15 April) is yet another recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999.  All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness.  A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little active participation and had no real effect on retail gasoline prices.   The recycling of the same campaign in subsequent years hasn't drawn enough interest to even be considered newsworthy. The premise behind all these messages is inherently flawed, because consumers' not buying gasoline on one particular day doesn't affect oil companies at all.  The "gas out" scheme doesn't call upon people to use less gasoline, but simply to shift their date of purchase and buy gas a day earlier or later than they usually would  The very same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don't lose any money.  By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the "gas out" calls for isn't consumers' swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by a couple of days at most. Because the "gas out" doesn't call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one.  Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without. Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the "gas out" messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain: the independent service station operators, who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. (Independents are at the mercy of a very volatile oil market and operate on thin profit margins, and even a single day's disruption of supply or demand can wipe out many days' worth of hard-earned profits.)  As such, the "gas out" is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person. Either apathy or an outbreak of common sense has made previous "gas outs" non-events with very low levels of participation, as documented by these snippets of news accounts from across North America: Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died.  Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices.  Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic.  In Seattle, there were so many cars waiting to get into [a] Texaco station ... yesterday afternoon that it caused a backup five cars deep into [the] right-hand lane.  Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth.  A planned nationwide boycott protesting the high price of gasoline didn't have much effect on local gas stations.  "We were expecting something substantial," said Mark Johnson, the owner of a Chevron station. "We haven't really noticed much of a difference."  Irving stations in sunny Halifax said the boycott had no effect on business. "It's been busy as a bugger here," said Bruce Riley, manager of one station. "We haven't been busier in the last two weeks," added the manager at another Halifax outlet.  Gas stations [in Ottawa] reported "busier than ever" conditions at the pumps on the day of The Great Internet Gas-Out. Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand.  No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal.  Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing. An event like a "gas out" can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message.  In this case, though, the only message being sent is: "We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can't even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost." What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices?  Those who really want to send a "message" to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row. Other articles about gasoline prices:      Petition to President Bush      Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists     Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down  Last updated:  11 March 2013    Deibel, Mary.  "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say."   The [Albany] Times Union.  27 April 1999  (p. A2).     De Marcol, Donna.  "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal."   The Washington Times.  1 May 1999  (p. C11).     Heaster, Jerry.  "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty."   The Kansas City Star.  30 April 1999  (p. C1).     Howe, Kenneth.  "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  1 May 1999  (p. A1).     Sands, Aaron.  "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas."   The Ottawa Sun.  1 May 1999  (p. A4).     Simmons, Cindy.  "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump."   Associated Press.  1 May 1999.     Surman, Matt.  "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change."   Los Angeles Times.  1 May 1999  (p. B6).     Associated Press.  "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'"   1 May 1999.     Calgary Herald.  "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott."   1 May 1999  (p. E5).     Indianapolis Business Journal.  "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump."   3 May 1999  (p. B9).     Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps."   1 May 1999  (p. B3).     The Toronto Star.  "Gas Boycott Sputters."   1 May 1999. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is pushing a proposal to cap the sizes of large banks. He appeared on ABC News'This Weekwith Jake Tapper to talk about that, as well as Democratic efforts to pass financial reform.Let me give you one statistic, if I could, Jake, Brown said. Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP, 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. ... We've got to deal with risk to be sure, but we've got to deal with the size of these banks, because if one of these banks is in serious trouble, it will have such a ripple effect on the whole economy. So we simply can't let them get this big and have this kind of economic power over Main Street, over a small business in Canton, Ohio, or a worker -- a manufacturing plant in Dayton. I mean, we just can't let this happen.Some very smart people disagree on Brown's point that big banks resist regulation by reason of their sheer mass.People likeSimon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, urge measures that would limit the size of the biggest banks. Meanwhile, people likePaul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winningNew York Timescolumnist, say that breaking up the banks isn't necessary to avert the next meltdown if the proper regulations are put in place.We were interested in Brown's statistic though: That 15 years ago the top six banks' assets totaled 17 percent of GDP, while today that's 63 percent.Brown's staff said he got the numbers from13 Bankers:The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, a book by Johnson and James Kwak, that describes the financial crisis and advocates steps for reform, including limits on the size of banks. Johnson also cited the number in an article in theNew Republic, co-written with Peter Boone, thatcriticizedPresident Barack Obama for not pushing rules that are tougher on big banks.The numbers are a fairly straightforward calculation. You take the bank's total assets, such as loans, cash and securities. (Remember that to banks, a loan is an asset, since they make money off loans.) Then you divide by GDP, which is gross domestic product, and is the total economic output for a country during a given year. Last year, the U.S. gross domestic product was $14.3 trillion.Johnson's book lists the six biggest banks of 2009 as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.The numbers in the book looked right to us, but we wanted to find an outside expert to confirm it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia agreed to run the numbers to see if they got the same thing.Sure enough, they found the same thing. The figures were off by a few percentage points because the researchers were able to use numbers from the fourth quarter of 2009 and compared them with the same quarter in 1994. Johnson's book cites numbers from the third quarter.Here's the information the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia sent us:Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 2009Bank of America Corp. - 2,224.5JP Morgan Chase - 2,032.0Citigroup - 1,856.6Wells Fargo - 1,243.6Goldman Sachs - 849.3Morgan Stanley - 771.5Total 8,977.5Nominal GDP 14.453.8Percentage 62.1%Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 1994Citicorp - 250.5BankAmerica Corp. - 215.5Chemical Banking Corp. - 171.4Nationsbank Corp. - 169.6JP Morgan - 154.9Chase Manhattan - 114.0Total 1,075.9Nominal GDP 7,248.2Percentage 14.8%A couple of experts we asked about these numbers noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were for years categorized as investment banks, and would not have been counted in the 1994 numbers. That changed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, when the two firms becamebank holding companiesso they could borrow from the Federal Reserve. The underlying point, though -- that there has been significant consolidation in the banking industry -- remains true, they said.Brown said, Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True. Five days after Scott Walker won re-election by a five-point margin, inciting speculation about whether hell run for president in 2016, the Republican governor appeared on NBCs Meet the Press. Several minutes into the Nov. 9, 2014show, Walker was asked by host Chuck Todd about Wisconsins economic record and whether it is something that translates nationally. Walker responded with statistics about how jobs have increased during his first term and unemployment has decreased. (He also went on tomake a number of claimsthat weve previously fact-checked). Todd interjected by returning to the national perspectiveand making a claim of his own. But Ive got to show you, he told Walker, as agraphic with figuresappeared on the screen, compared to the national average, when it comes to wage growth, it's below the national average, Wisconsin is. When it comes to job growth, it's below the national average. How Wisconsin's economy compares nationally could bear on Walkers viability as a presidential contender, a prospecthe has readily encouraged. So lets check both sets of figures. Federal statistics The graphic that flashed on the screen cited figures from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages report, which compared March 2013 to March 2014. On job growth, the Meet the Press graphic said Wisconsins rate from increased 1 percent, less than the national average of 1.7 percent. The so-called QCEW numbers are considered the most accurate source for jobs numbers, but lag behind real time by six to nine months. The graphic quoted the figures accurately, according to anews releasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Walkers office didnt dispute this part of Todds claim, but said most states had job growth during the period that was at or below the national average. The graphic also accurately cited the average changes in wage growth from March 2013 to March 2014 -- 2.9 percent in Wisconsin, which was behind the national average of 3.8 percent. It doesnt affect the accuracy of Todds statement, but we decided to use theBureau of Labor Statistics databaseto take a longer view on both job and wage growth to see how Wisconsin and the United States have compared during Walkers nearly four years as governor. The quarterly time frames dont match up precisely with Walkers time in office because, as we noted, there is a lag of several months in reporting the figures. But when compared March 2011 to March 2014, and December 2010 to December 2013, the results were essentially the same: Wisconsin has lagged the national average on job growth, but was slightly higher on wage growth. Our rating Citing statistics for the most recent year, Todd said Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth. The latest federal figures, comparing March 2013 to March 2014, show Wisconsins job growth rate at 1 percent, below the national average of 1.7 percent, and its wage growth rate at 2.9 percent, behind the national average of 3.8 percent. We rate Todds statement True.