2004 Long Island Black Friday Rumor
Claim:  Minutes of emergency response agencies' meeting reveal that on 26 November 2004 four Long Island shopping malls will be hit in a terrorist attack using chemical weapons.  Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Hello all, Some information has come to me.  It has not been released to the general public, but it's something we all need to be aware of. A couple of weeks ago someone was seen taking photos of my ambulance company in Bay Shore. This same person was seen outside Exchange Ambulance in Islip doing the same. The police were notified and the person was apprehended outside Southside hospital, again taking photos. He is a man of Middle Eastern descent and is being held for investigation. It seems that he was gathering information about our response capabilities in a mass casualty attack. The NY Field Office of the FBI held a meeting at Bay Shore Fire Department for officials from the local PD, EMS and FD's. They have information from this man and from their own intelligence that a mass attack is planned for Long Island. On Black Friday (November 26) 4 Long Island Malls are supposed to be hit simultaneously with chemical weapons. This would be the first time a chemical weapon is used in the United States. Forces from NYC and Washington DC would be diverted to aid here on Long Island leaving these areas vulnerable. A second attack would take place in these areas. Ever since 9/11 EMS has undergone extensive training on howto deal with a terrorist attack and to think it could really happen here is terrifying. There is also concern about car bombings as a large number of vehicles have gone missing in Nassau and Suffolk counties. Ambulances, taxi's, commercial vans and airport limos have been reported stolen.  These vehicles look perfectly innocent driving through our neighborhoods and no one would think twice about seeing them. This is not an internet scam. The officers at my department were at this meeting and I saw the minutes myself. I figure it's pretty serious if the FBI made an appearance to share what they know. I'm not sure why this isn't being released to the public. I can only assume that if this got out, no one would shop and it would be devastating to our economy. I do not want to spread panic, only information. Take from this what you will, but I needed to let you all know. I love you all and I felt I needed to share this with you. I know it's hard to believe. I can't believe that an Al Qaeda operative was only a few blocks from my home. Origins:  We first happened across this e-mail in mid-October 2004. At this time, the identity of its author is not known to us, nor is that of whomever penned the following preface that appears on a number of the forwards: The following email was sent to me last night by a personal friend.  She is the directly involved with the ambulance corp.  I am sending this email to the Red Cross to inquire.  Nonetheless, please read it and try and shop around Nov. 26, not THE 26th. Her email is not a "forward to 10 people" It is personally written and personally sent to her friends based on facts she is personally aware of. We searched for news articles that made reference to a man of Middle Eastern appearance being detained under the circumstances described, but to no avail. We also did not hear scuttlebutt about a potential terrorist assault on Long Island set for 26 November 2004 from sources other than just the one e-mail, which is noteworthy, given that supposedly at a meeting at the Bay Shore Fire Department on Long Island the FBI informed any number of police, fire, and emergency personnel of it. (It was not really plausible that everyone in the room, with the exception of one letter-writer, would have stayed entirely mute about an upcoming chemical attack on their neighborhoods, preferring to keep a secret over potentially safeguarding themselves and their loved ones by making the risk known.) Common knowledge has it that Black Friday (the term for the day after American Thanksgiving) is biggest shopping day of the year. (Which is somewhat true  though as far as actual sales go, it lags behind the four days that make up the two weekends just prior to Christmas, in terms of number of shoppers loosed on the stores it might well be.) It therefore follows that mall-targeting terrorists looking to cause the greatest harm to the greatest number would select that day over any number of  biggest shopping day others. Doug Einsfeld, chief of Exchange Ambulance of the Islips, said the e-mailed warning was a hoax. About two months prior to the rumor's emergence, the volunteer ambulance corps and local law enforcement had conducted a terror drill based on a scenario involving a chemical attack at Long Island malls taking place on the day after Thanksgiving. Einsfeld concludes that printed information about the drill, circulated internally and to police and fire officials, must have been used as a basis for the alert. He confirms that a man was seen taking pictures outside the volunteer ambulance corps' building.The FBI was notified and did investigate, but no evidence of the man intending any harm was uncovered. Regarding the e-mail's claim of the errant shutter bug's being taken into custody, Suffolk Police Third Squad Det. Sgt. Thomas Groneman said no such arrest was made. As for the claim of the man being of Middle Eastern appearance, Einsfeld said he saw the man only from behind and couldn't tell his ethnicity. This was not the first time it had been whispered that terrorists were plotting to kill shoppers. In October 2001, a fiction about the revelation of a planned strike in malls on Halloween by one of those involved in a letter to his girlfriend swept the nation. There was nothing to that story, but it nevertheless kept people away from the stores that day. letter to his girlfriend Adding to the plausibility of the Long Island tale were reports from the summer of unusual interest in that area's emergency vehicles. On 12 August 2004, the New York State Association of Fire Chiefs circulated this memo: THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FORWARDED BY THE NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE FOR YOUR INFORMATION.August 12, 2004 The following alert was released by Westchester County Department of Emergency Services based on information fron New Jersey authorities and should be practiced by all agencies. Within the past week, the Office of Counter-Terrorism received three reports of suspicious activity concerning ambulances. The most recent incident involved an individual who attended an open-house at an ambulance squad in Middlesex County. The man, who claimed he was from Pakistan and a physician, asked a series of questions to the squad members that related exclusively to the operation of the emergency vehicles, including the speed at which the vehicles responded to calls and the use of the lights and sirens.  The individual appeared very nervous, did not ask about patient care, and left the premises when asked to complete a membership application. The second incident occurred at a hospital in Essex County and involved an inquiry made by a male of Middle-Eastern appearance who was first observed standing near an ambulance at the emergency room doors while writing notes in a small notepad.  When confronted by the vehicle's operator, a firefighter/EMT, the man asserted that he was employed as an ambulance mechanic. He then asked where a nearby fire department serviced its vehicles.  The man provided an illegible New York driver's license when asked to produce identification before leaving the premises. Lastly, OCT received information concerning an unusual attempt by three men of Middle-Eastern appearance to join a volunteer ambulance squad. The men expressed to squad members an "abnormal interest" in operating the emergency vehicles, and further insisted that the process by which they obtain the appropriate credentials and certifications to join the squad be expedited at their personal expense. Due to the recent threat elevation to ORANGE (HIGH) for the financial sector and intelligence relating to the threat of Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs), any suspicious activity relating to emergency vehicles is of particular concern and should be reported to law enforcement immediately. As demonstrated by recent attacks in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere, terrorist operatives worldwide continue to rely on VBIEDs as a method of attack.  This tactic has been used here in the past, notably in the 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City bombings.  The World Trade Center and Oklahoma City attacks were carried out with rented vehicles, highlighting the need for awareness among the car, truck, and  limousine rental community of the potential for vehicle-borne attacks in the United States. As always, report all suspicious activities and individuals to the toll-free terrorism tip-lines.New York State: 1-866-SAFE-NYSNew York City: 1-888-NYC-SAFE It was feared in the summer of 2004 that those mysterious men might have been weighing up the possibilities of fashioning ambulances or firetrucks into rolling bombs by loading them with explosives or chemicals and using them to breach security barriers at hard-to-reach targets, the underlying assumption being emergency vehicles would be allowed near or into locations ordinary cars and trucks would be turned away from. Also considered was the possibility of such vehicles being used to launch a second wave of attack on the heels of an initial terror strike when all was confusion and no one would think to try to prevent an ambulance or fire truck from going to the aid of the injured. Long Island, which lies off New York City, is 118 miles long and 20 miles across at its widest point, and is connected to the Big Apple by three expressways.  It is home to a population of 2.65 million. Regarding the entities mentioned in the warning e-mail, the Exchange Ambulance of the Islip's is a volunteer non-profit service consisting of approximately 100 members. It is located on Long Island and serves the towns of East Islip, Islip, Islip Terrace. Southside Hospital  is Long Island's largest community hospital, having 377 beds. Exchange Ambulance Southside Hospital The region believes itself adequately prepared for a terrorist attack, including an event in Manhattan that could immobilize the area and cut off the Island from the mainland for days or perhaps weeks. Emergency workers on the island have engaged in a number of simulation drills for disaster events including train derailments with mass casualties, detonations of dirty bombs containing chemical, biological, or radioactive agents, hostage takings, and evacuations of specified areas. As Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy said in August 2004, "We are cognizant that we are in close proximity to the No. 1 target in America." Which could well be what triggered this rumor  that sense of proximity could have worked to cause someone to jump at shadows, misremembering an alert from the summer about suspicious characters as a current matter (especially in light of another man being seen taking photographs) and misunderstanding the paperwork generated around a summer 2004 disaster preparation drill as minutes of a meeting in which a specific warning was issued.  Barbara "minute- and second-guessing" Mikkelson Last updated:  7 November 2004    Sources:   Guart, Al.  "'Mideast' Snoops Spurring Ambulance-Bomb Alert."   The New York Post.  29 August 2004  (p. 12).     Kelleher, Jennifer Sinco.  "Terror E-mail a Hoax."   Newsday.  7 November 2004.     Rather, John.  "2 Counties Buff Disaster Plans."   The New York Times.  22 August 2004  (Long Island Weekly Desk, p. 5).
Kathie Tovo, facing Austin City Council Member Randi Shade in a June 18 runoff, says in aTV adthat debuted in April: Were in a budget crisis, but the council may give $4 million a year to subsidize a race track. Thats the wrong priority.City Hall coughing up for vroom-vroom?First, lets brake to define subsidy. Merriam-Websters Online Dictionarysaysits a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public. Offered examples are expenditures for public transit or to farmers in case of crop failure.To back her claim, Tovos campaign pointed us to an eight-pagefact sheeton her website touching on money that could flow to support Formula One races to be held on a track being built east of Austins airport.According to the sheet, state Comptroller Susan Combs has agreed to provide $25 million a year for 10 years from a state trust fund to cover an annual sanctioning fee that local F1 organizers must pay to the British-based international race organization.The fund reimburses event organizers with some of the extra sales, hotel, alcohol and car rental tax revenue attributable to the event itself  i.e., money that the state theoretically would not have collected if the event had not been held. In the past it has been used to attract NFL Super Bowls and the Major League and NBA All-Star games.Per a 2009 state law, though, the states $25 million a year can only be spent if a local city or county government puts up $1 for every $6.25 in state aid. The law specifies that in order to get the state aid, local organizers need a local city or county to agree to endorse the event.So, $4 million a year is to be ginned up locally with the money would be dedicated to covering costs of staging the event -- police overtime, say, or erecting traffic barriers -- municipal expenses that might otherwise be charged to the promoter.Subsidy case closed?Not by the lights of Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. A June 8 Austin American-Statesman newsarticlequotes Leffingwell saying during a June 7 City Council work session: The city will never put any money into the Formula One project.During the session, Richard Suttle, the projects Austin lawyer, said the first of the 10 payments will come from a local organizing committee, which in turn expects to get the money from the Formula One promoters. A city employee noted that the subsequent local contributions of $4 million will come from tax revenue the state expects to reap in connection with the races.Next, we asked Tovos camp why the $4 million amounts to a subsidy if the first installment is to come from a non-governmental source and future payments are expected to reflect tax revenue that presumably would not exist without the races.Jim Wick, Tovos deputy campaign manager, replied: What you have happening right now is the mayor and some members of the council are trying to figure out how to structure this so that it doesnt appear the city (is) giving the promoters of this event a subsidy. It looks like fuzzy accounting.Shade campaign spokeswoman Lynda Rife pointed out by email that the trust fund money can be spent on the races -- not construction of the track itself. Also, each race is expected to generate more than $4 million in new tax revenue that wouldn't come to the city without the event taking place.Rifes email continued: If we dont generate that $4 million in new tax revenue from the event, then the city doesnt have to pay the whole $4 million. The city is not on the hook, if the event doesnt meet the performance standard, she said.Notably, the city can use its contribution to the trust fund to pay race-related expenses. According to Rodney Gonzales, deputy director of the city's Economic Growth and Development Services office, any amount not spent to cover hosting expenses would remain in the trust fund the next year and could not be spent for other municipal purposes.Time to wave our checkered flag.Maybe we missed a hairpin turn or two, but its clear the council is gearing up to vote on an agreement committing tax revenue to a trust fund devoted to supporting the F1 races.Subsidy? Sure, though Tovos statement skirts the expectation that the area will draw tax benefits equal to or exceeding the local expenditures. We rate it Mostly True. On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are 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 August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians.  shared widely The post, which typically began "For all the caring parents out there" and often warned "THEY WILL BE REMOVING YOUR KIDS & YOU CANT [sic] DO OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!" consisted of an imagined conversation between a school teacher and a parent, as follows: Teacher: Sorry we have had to take your child to a testing centre [sic] as they were showing symptoms of corona (that means they could have a cold, temperature, a cough)Parent: Right so where is my child?HT [Head teacher]: I'm sorry I can't disclose that informationP [Parent]: Is my child ok?HT: I can assure you your child is in safe hands, in the mean time you need to self-isolate with your family for 14 daysP: No I'm coming to get my child nowHT: I'm sorry but if you arrive at the school we will have no choice but to call the police and have you removed from the premises.P: is this a joke? that is my childHT: I'm sorry but under the new covid act we have the power to remove your child without your consent if we feel the have symptoms.P: So when will I see my child nextHT: We will have a child service officer contact you. Now imagine this was a call from your Childs Headteacher I suggest every parent on my facebook gets off there [sic] ass and do some real research on the legislation of the covid act 2020 regarding the laws for children in school!!!!   Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term "head teacher" (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of "testing centre." The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the "COVID Act," claiming that the law authorized school authorities to "remove" children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19.  shared A "Coronavirus Act" was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the "COVID act" were also false in that context. did not false The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the "Coronavirus Act" or the "COVID Act" or "COVID-19 Act," so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent.  database As a result, the "COVID Act" Facebook post shared widely by users in the United States in August 2020 was not only based on an earlier set of claims that originated in an entirely different jurisdiction (the U.K.), but it also did not inadvertently refer to a different recently enacted law that authorized school officials to quarantine pupils. The post's claims were false. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents' consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that: federal court precedents wrote "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference [...]. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency." Like all rights, the right of parents and children to live together is not absolute, and can be curtailed, suspended, or outweighed by competing rights or by a broader public interest. For example, while the law recognizes an individual's fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness  like COVID-19  is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the "state police powers doctrine," which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere. elsewhere Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults. involuntarily terminate However, because parental rights are regarded as fundamental, any law or official action that abridges those rights can be subjected by the courts to what is known as "strict scrutiny." Roughly speaking, this means that an especially high standard of justification is required any time the state seeks to curtail a fundamental right, and the state has the burden of proving that its actions or policies are not unconstitutional. strict scrutiny Carlton Larson, Martin Luther King, Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis, told Snopes the type of law described in the Facebook post shown above would be very unlikely to survive that kind of judicial scrutiny: professor Such laws would restrict the fundamental right of parents to raise their children [...]. To infringe such a right, the government would have to satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Typically, this means if there are less restrictive alternatives available, the government must first use those. Fighting Covid would clearly be a compelling state interest, but this doesn't seem narrowly tailored. Quarantining at home with parents seems just as safe as quarantining in some government-run facility. So I suspect a court would quickly declare any such law unconstitutional. Similarly, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, a law professor and director of the Child Rights Project at Emory University, told Snopes that: director The U.S. Constitution protects parents from having children removed from parental custody without a showing that the parent is either unfit or poses an imminent danger to the child. The scenario you describe [the conversation presented in the viral Facebook post] is not consistent with any laws, either state or federal, of which I am aware. In the case of a parent suspected of extreme child abuse or endangerment, the authorities might prevent that parent from taking the child home from school, until an investigation and court hearing could establish the facts. In a medical emergency, if a child's quarantine or hospitalization were deemed necessary, the parent would be involved in any decisions and would have decision-making authority over where and how the child was to be quarantined. Rahman, Grace.  "Can Children Be Detained Without Their Parents' Consent If the Authorities Think They Have Coronavirus?"
 Full Fact. 13 August 2020. Goldhamer, Marisha. "Canadian Children With COVID-19 Symptoms Can Quarantine With a Parent or Guardian."
  Agence France-Presse. 14 August 2020. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Kirkpatrick vs. County of Washoe et al. -- Opinion."
  9 December 2016. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Wallis vs. Spencer -- Opinion."
  14 September 1999. U.S. Supreme Court. "Santosky vs. Kramer -- Opinion."
  24 March 1982. Mac Guill, Dan. "Could People Be Fined for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine in US?"
  Snopes.com. 11 August 2020. U.S. Children's Bureau. "Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights."
  December 2016. One of the several forms of political clickbait that has sprung up in the online world in recent years the false attribution of controversial and inflammatory political statements to various celebrities, a form that has already appropriated the name of notables such as Sandra Bullock, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore. Yet another expression of this misleading technique for generating clicks is attributing the sentiment that "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush and Obama put together" to celebrities ranging from actress Michelle Pfeiffer to singer Dolly Parton: Sandra Bullock Bruce Willis Demi Moore   Neither of these women (nor any other prominent entertainer) gave voice to this thought; it was actually a paraphrase of an opinion expressed by Brett Decker, a former Wall Street Journal editor and the author of the book Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama Is Hastening Americas Decline and Ushering a Century of Chinese Domination, while discussing economic policy during a radio interview on 5 January 2018: expressed Decker rejected narratives crediting former President Barack Obamas economic policies with recently developing economic figures during Trumps presidential tenure, framing such assertions as absolutely crazy: You look at the unemployment numbers, and its 4.1 percent. I look at Obama and Bush kind of combined, when I look at this block of sixteen years. Anyone that says this is inheriting some kind of Obama economy, he had eight years, and in 2010, the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent, absolutely crazy ... This idea that it has anything to do with Obama is absolutely crazy. Trump in one year is already better than sixteen years of those guys [i.e., George W. Bush and Barack Obama] put together, said Decker, pointing to a current 17-year high in consumer confidence. Kraychik, Robert.  "Brett Decker: Trump in One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together."
  Breitbart.  6 January 2018. In late March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, scams abounded on the internet. One such scam reported that consumers could get a $100 coupon during the pandemic for use at Starbucks cafes by simply clicking on a link. Here is a screenshot of a Twitter post promoting the bogus offer:     Although the links shared with the posts no longer appear to work, we are rating this offer a "Scam" because no evidence exists that the coupon was real. The web address for the "coupon," for example, was not from an official Starbucks website. We asked Starbucks to confirm the offer was a scam but didn't receive a response in time for publication. However, the "offer" being made echoes similar coupon scams that promise "free" or discounted goods from well-known brands if users click on a site  collecting people's private information in the process  but then don't deliver on the promise. As we have reported in the past on such scams: reported These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: general tips On Feb. 3, 2024, a photograph circulated on social media allegedly showing a view of Russia from Alaska. "Russia is 2 miles away from Alaska," one post on Reddit captioned the image, while another post on X (formerly Twitter) claimed that "Russia is 55 miles away from Alaska." post post Russia is 2 miles away from Alaskabyu/NicoleN_Pillow1899 inBeAmazed Russia is 2 miles away from Alaska u/NicoleN_Pillow1899 BeAmazed  "Is it real?" one Reddit user asked. We found that the image was also shared on Instagram and featured in a BuzzFeed article. asked Instagram article In short, the photograph is authentic, but it does not show Russian territory visible from Alaska. The photo was featured in a 2018 BBC article with the title "American lone sailor held in far east Russia near Alaska" and an article by TASS, a Russian press agency, with the credit of " ," which translates to "Yuri Smityuk." We found the photograph was captured by Russian photographer Yuri Smityuk. The caption to the image shared by IMAGO, a German photo agency, read (emphasis ours): article article read CHUKOTKA, RUSSIA  JUNE 24, 2018: Mechigmen Spit near the Lorino whaling settlement. There are 1200 people living in the village which is the centre of Russia s subsistence whaling and walrus hunting. Lorino maritime hunters have an annual catch limit of 60 gray whales and 1 bowhead whale. Therefore, the photograph was not captured in Alaska, contrary to what some social media users claimed. However, it is true that Russia's Big Diomede Island and Alaska's Little Diomede Island are about 2.5 miles apart. (The Russian and Alaskan mainlands are approximately 55 miles apart at their closest points.) 2.5 miles mainlands   (Google Maps) Given that the so-called Yesterday and Tomorrow Islands are so close to each other, it is possible to see Russian territory from Alaska, as can be seen in the Getty Images photograph below: photograph   (Getty Images) For reference, here's what the Diomede Islands look like from from above:   (Getty Images) In January 2011, we investigated whether vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house," during the 2008 presidential campaign. investigated Anchorage, Mailing Address: 605 West 4th Avenue Suite 105, and AK 99501 Phone: 907 644-3661 Contact Us. How Close Is Alaska to Russia? - Alaska Public Lands (U.S. National Park Service). https://www.nps.gov/anch/learn/historyculture/how-close-is-alaska-to-russia.htm. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024.
Diomede Islands | Bering Strait, Russia, & Alaska | Britannica. 18 Dec. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/place/Diomede-Islands.
Mikkelson, David. "Did Sarah Palin Say: 'I Can See Russia from My House'?" Snopes, 29 Jan. 2011, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sarah-palin-russia-house/.
Yesterday and Tomorrow Islands. 27 Jan. 2018, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/91638/yesterday-and-tomorrow-islands. With national attention focused on a showdown in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to reduce state worker benefits, the issue led to some spirited back-and-forth between union-backer Donna Brazile and conservative columnist George Will during the round-table discussion on ABC'sThis Week.Brazile called the workers who have flooded the state capitol to back union workers an organic movement.Just like the Tea Party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, 'No more,' no more budget cuts on the back of working people. Brazile said.Will responded, Donna, what you call the grassroots is a tiny minority of this tiny minority of Wisconsin people who work for the government. Three hundred thousand public employees in Wisconsin went to work -- while the teachers were clutching their little signs that say it's all about the kids, they're abandoning their classrooms, lying to their supervisors, saying they were sick, and going off to protest in defense of perquisites, which if the governor cuts them as much as he plans to do, would still leave them better off than their private sector counterparts.We decided to check Will's claim that perks or non-wage compensation such as health and retirement benefits) -- if cut as much as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has proposed -- would still leave public employees better off than those in the private sector.Walker's plan would require state workers to pay 5.8 percent of their pension contributions and to double their share of health premiums to 12.6 percent.Our colleagues at PolitiFact Wisconsin have been all over many of the issues in this contentious debate, and back on Feb. 8, they fact-checked a claim Gov. Walker made in his firststate of the stateaddress,that most state employees could pay twice as much toward their health care premiums, and it would still be half the national average.Here's some of what our friends at PolitiFact Wisconsin found:* AKaiser FamilyFoundationstudy that concluded that employees nationally -- public and private -- pay an average of 29 percent of the cost of the premiums. Among just state and government workers nationwide, the average was 25 percent for family coverage. * A U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics2010 health care benefitssurveythat put the employee share at 32 percent for family coverage. Its 21 percent for single coverage. * Astudy by The Segal Co., a private benefits firm, that looked just at state government workers and found that a majority pay between 20 percent and 60 percent of their premium costs for family coverage.In other words, no matter how you slice it, the 12.6 percent share of health care premiums that Walker proposes employees pay is well below what most pay in the private--and public--sectors.That gets us halfway there. The second piece is pensions. Again, Walker's plan would require state workers to pay 5.8 percent of pension contributions. This one is a little more difficult to compare. Most public employees have a pension plan. But fewer than one in five private-sector employees has access to a pension plan. And those who do typically don't contribute anything to it. Much more often, private employees have access to employer-sponsored retirement benefits (such as 401(k) plans), rather than pensions. And a third of the private sector workforce has no access to an employer sponsored retirement plan at all.The 401(k) has become the de facto retirement benefit in the private sector, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.Typically, Brainard said, employers will match about 3 percent to 5 percent of an employee's salary. Employeesmaycontribute to their 401(k), but they aren'trequiredto contribute.So Wisconsin public employees may berequiredto contribute more to the their retirement plan than those in the private sector, but that doesn't mean they're at a disadvantage compared to the private sector. In fact, experts say theywillbe better off.According to a survey prepared by Brainard in October 2009, The retirement security of working Americans presently appears shaky outside the public sector, due not only to the nations heavy use of a retirement plan model that has been found to be undependable in its ability to provide reliable retirement income, but also due to low relative rates of participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans. Conversely, For most states and local governments, retirement security of retired workers is a policy that is being achieved.As always, Brainard said, there are exceptions, such as for those government employees who don't work long enough to become vested in a pension.But Will's comment, as it relates to pension is largely accurate, Brainard said. Overall, the retirement plan typically provided to Wisconsin public employees --whether or not they are contributing 5.8 percent -- provides a larger retirement benefit than private sector employees get.We'd like to cite one more survey, one by theWisconsin Legislative Councilwhich found that even among major public employee retirement systems, most required employee contributions of more than 5 percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for government workers with a required plan contribution, the average contribution is 6.3 percent of earnings. So Walker's proposal is in line with the norm for government workers.Now, we'd like to drop one big disclaimer into this whole analysis. Many experts contend that while state workers get better benefits, they get paid less than folks in the private sector. PolitiFact Wisconsin took a closer look at that issuehere. The point is that it's important to consider an employee's total package of wages and benefits when comparing public and private sector compensation. But that's not the issue before us here. Will clearly stated that he was talking about just the benefits side of the equation. And with regard to the changes Walker has proposed -- requiring greater employee contributions to pension and health care -- Will is right that they would still leave public employees better off than those in the private sector. We rate Will's comment True. FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015. After rejecting Medicaid expansion in 2013, the Florida Legislature is taking a serious look at it this session. The program pays for health insurance for the very poor. On March 10, astate Senate panelapproved aproposalthat would allow Florida to accept $50 billion in federal dollars to expand coverage to about 800,000 low-income residents. The plan would establish a state-run private insurance exchange for residents who earn less than $16,000 a year or $33,000 for a family of four. Though the bill won unanimous support of the GOP-dominated Senate Health Policy Committee, it faces an uphill battle in the more conservative House. Also, it would require the federal government to grant Florida a waiver. The feds might object to parts of the Senate proposal that require beneficiaries to pay a monthly premium based on their salary, ranging from $3 to $25. During the Senate hearing, the Florida Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Mark Wilson said he had met with legislators to discuss the chambers ideas for a Medicaid proposal. We recommended a 32 percent cap on state expenditures, we are coming close to 30 percent right now, he said. It's the biggest expenditure at the state and wed like to protect taxpayers with a 32 percent cap. Does Medicaid come close to eating up nearly one-third of the state budget and is it the states biggest expenditure? Medicaid and the state budget Medicaid is a joint state and federal program aimed at providing health insurance to the very poor. The 2010 Affordable Care Act encourages states to expand eligibility and agreed to pay 100 percent of the expansion for the first three years, declining to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.Twenty nine statesadopted the expansion -- six including Florida are considering it, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Republican Gov. Rick Scott initially opposed Medicaid expansion butswitched his positionin 2013 when he came out in support of it. But Scott didnt lobby the GOP-led Legislature, which ultimately rejected the expansion. In 2014, Democratic challenger Charlie Crist attacked Scott for not pushing for it and argued it would have led toincreased jobsin Florida. Edie Ousley, a spokeswoman for the chamber, sent PolitiFact Florida state budget documents, as well as information from groups such as Florida TaxWatch, to show how much of the budget is devoted to Medicaid. We also examined documents we received from the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research. The original 2014-15 Medicaid appropriation was$23.6 billionfrom all state and federal funds. The total budget for all funds was about $77.08 billion, which means that Medicaid accounts for about 30.6 percent of the budget. On March 4, the state released its latest revision for how much is needed for Medicaid this year and concluded it was $23.52 billion -- about 55 percent is federal dollars and 45 percent is state money. For all funds, Medicaid is the largest program, Amy Baker, the states chief economist, told PolitiFact Florida. But education programs -- including K-12 and higher education -- have received on average slightly more than 52 percent of all state general revenue appropriations since 1997-98. The second-largest policy area is human services. Over this same period, the human services portion of the budget has grown from 25 percent to nearly 30 percent, primarily because of the states Medicaid program growth, Baker said. Nationwide, Medicaid accounts for about 20 percent of state general fund appropriations while K-12 accounts for about one-third, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Medicaid eats up such a large chunk of the budget due to rising health care costs and growing caseloads -- and it continues to grow at a faster rate than education spending, said Arturo Perez, fiscal affairs director for the NCSL. TheNational Association of State Budget Officersfound that if they combined state and federal spending, on average about 26 percent of states budgets were for Medicaid in 2014. When combining those federal and state dollars, there is no question it is the biggest chunk of the budget in total -- no question, said Kurt Wenner, of Florida TaxWatch. George Washington University health policy professor Leighton Ku said that as far as state-based fiscal burdens, a better measure is to focus on how much of the state general fund goes to Medicaid. That level is about 20 percent of state general fund expenditures, he said. The general fund corresponds better to what state taxpayers contribute and takes out stuff like federal revenue. Still a lot, but much lower than 31 percent. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that Medicaid is a large component of state budgets, so there is reason for legislators to be concerned about the costs. But the majority of Medicaid costs that are paid by the federal government are not a burden to state taxpayers, but essentially an influx of federal funds to the state that promotes economic growth in the state, Ku said. Thus, the actual burden to state taxpayers is far less than 30 percent of their state tax dollars, he said. In terms of state/local expenditures, education costs are always much higher. Our ruling Medicaid is close to 30 percent of the state budget and the biggest expenditure at the state, Wilson said. There are two ways to look at Medicaid spending. The 30 percent figure is correct if Wilson counts both the state and federal dollars that go toward Medicaid, and it is the biggest expendituree. However, if we only count state dollars, then education eats up a bigger piece of the budget. It's important to understand that the federal government contributes to Medicaid, so the statement is accurate but needs additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. An image supposedly showing a "Beware of Artists" poster issued during the 1950s by Joseph McCarthy, a U.S. senator known for making accusations of treason and spreading fears of communism, is frequently shared on social media: frequently shared social media The poster reads, "Beware of artists. They mix with all classes of society and are therefore the most dangerous":   The McCarthy era certainly saw its fair share of propaganda posters, and artists  particularly filmmakers  were often the targets of Congressional investigations into "un-American activities." Although the poster displayed above may express the sentiments of that time, its phrasing did not originate in the 1950s. propaganda posters This warning about "dangerous" artists can actually be traced back to the 19th century. In 1845, Leopold I, King of the Belgians, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria in which he expressed a similar warning against artists (emphasis ours): letter expressed The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria. St. Cloud, 10th October 1845. My Dearest Victoria - All you say about our dear Albert, whom I love like my own child, is perfectly true. The attacks, however unjust, have but one advantage, that of showing the points the enemy thinks weakest and best calculated to hurt. This, being the case, Anson, without boring A. with daily accounts which in the end become very irksome, should pay attention to these very points, and contribute to avoid what may be turned to account by the enemy. To hope to escape censure and calumny is next to impossible, but whatever is considered by the enemy as a fit subject for attack is better modified or avoided. The dealings with artists, for instance, require great prudence; they are acquainted with all classes of society, and for that very reason dangerous; they are hardly ever satisfied, and when you have too much to do with them, you are sure to have des ennuis... Your devoted Uncle, Leopold R. We have not been able to determine who revised King Leopold's words into a more modern phrasing or exactly when posters bearing those words may have been created, but we found no record of such a poster's circulating during the 1950s. The earliest iteration of this image we've found (multiple online versions of this version employ different fonts, colors, and composition) only dates as far back as 2012. versions version different 2012 This "Beware of Artists" poster is a modern expression of a political opinion that has been extant since at least the mid-1800s. Queen Victoria.  The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty's Correspondence Between the Years 1837 and 1861.
  Longmans, Green, and Company, 1907. Schwab, Katherine.  "The NSA's Newly Declassified Propaganda Posters Are Wild."
  Fast Company.  6 August 2018.