Mr. T Death Hoax
In May 2016, a message reporting that actor Mr. T (the stage name of Laurence Tureaud), best known for his portrayal of B.A. Baracus on the 1980s television series The A-Team, had passed away was widely circulated on Facebook: Wow.. I was shocked...R. I. P. Mr. T You were an inspiration to everyone. Show respect and share to let people know. Like if you liked Mr. T ??   However, no news outlets have reported on the action star's alleged passing, and reports of his death are belied by the fact that Mr. T is still active on his social media accounts and recently made an appearance at a Fairfield Hotel event. accounts event Fake Facebook obituaries for non-dead celebrities are an example of "like farming," a popular social media scheme aimed at getting more likes, shares, and comments: like farming Facebook's algorithms in particular emphasize popular content, and therefore gathering "likes" and "shares" receives a high premium. Sometimes, it's just an annoyance  maybe that kid really does want a hundred thousand "likes" so that a Victoria's Secret model will go to a school dance with him, so he's inundating people with appeals (although that's doubtful at best)  but more often, the intent is scammy. Like-farmers will gather clicks, which denote popularity, then scrub the original content and replace it with something else (usually a scammy ad of some sort) to bypass Facebook constraints. Facebook has moved to quash this behavior by adjusting their algorithms, but of course, some scammers' efforts always get by the online gatekeepers. efforts Although Mr. T did not pass away in May 2016, one factor that may have contributed to the spread of this death hoax is that the actor celebrated his64th birthday on 21 May 2016. birthday
Duringa speechin which he warmed up to U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryan, gave a shout-out toVince Lombardiand even name-droppedKanye West, president-electDonald Trumpalso reaffirmed his promise to cut taxes. Trump appeared Dec. 13, 2016 with vice president-electMike Penceand a host of Badger State Republicans, including Ryan, at the Wisconsin State Fair Park Exposition Center. This stop on his multi-state thank-you tour was mostly a campaign-style rally, but there was some policy, too. Midway into his remarks,Trump said: Were going to undertake one of the great tax reforms and simplifications in American history. This includes a massive tax cut for themiddle-classand middle-class families from Wisconsin, too. Were also going to lower ourbusiness tax rateso that new companies will come to our shores and hire workers in cities like right here. Is that OK? Thats what we want. Were going to bring our rates down from 35 percent, were going to try to get it down to 15 percent. So, right now -- and by the way the jobs will pour in -- so, right now, were the highest-taxed nation in the world. And when we finish, well be one of the lower taxed, one of the lower. Whether the president-elect keeps his promises on taxes will be something to be determined by PolitiFact Nationals Trump-O-Meter, whichwill be launchedin 2017. But we can answer now whether Americas business tax rate is the highest in the world. Top U.S. rate: 35% The corporate income tax rates in the United States range from15 to 35 percent. And that 35 percent top rate -- at least as a statutory rate (more on that below) -- is relatively high. The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishesthe top corporate tax ratesfor the35 countriesthat belong to its organization, which includes most advanced, industrialized nations. The U.S top rate of 35 percent ranks first, just ahead of France, 34.4 percent; Belgium, 33 percent; and Australia and Mexico, 30 percent. On the low end: Switzerland, 8.5 percent; Ireland, 12.5 percent; Latvia and Canada, 15 percent; and Germany, 15.8 percent. Sometimes references are made to a combined corporate tax rate, which includes federal and state corporate taxes; the U.S. combined rate is38.9 percent. But Trump was referring to the 35 percent federal rate, the one he vows to reduce. There are, however, two clarifying points to make. Other nations, and what is paid To back Trumps statement, his campaign cited aForbes articlethat noted the United States has the highest corporate rate among industrialized nations. But Trump didnt limit his statement to industrialized nations. The accounting firm PwC tracks the top federal corporate tax rates for155 countries.That listshows five other countries that also have a top rate of 35 percent: Argentina, Chad, Congo, Malta and Zambia. And there are two countries with higher top corporate tax rates: United Arab Emirates, 55 percent; and Puerto Rico, 39 percent. It also needs to be understood that Americas 35 percent top rate is the statutory rate -- before deductions -- but U.S. companies arent actually taxed at that rate. Tax deductions -- on health insurance, pensions and investment returns, for example -- allow corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits. Indeed, aMarch 2016 reportby the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability, although larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. And aMay 2016 paperby Reed College economics professor Kimberly Clausing found U.S. multinational firms have used tax planning to generate effective tax rates that are far lower than the statutory rate, and often in the single digits. Our rating Trump said Americas federal business tax rate is the highest in the world. The top corporate tax in the United States is 35 percent, highest among the worlds industrialized nations. But five smaller nations have the same rate and two smaller ones, United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico, have rates above 35 percent. Also, the 35 percent U.S. rate is only the starting point, given that corporations can use exemptions and deductions to effectively reduce that rate and pay lower taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. Gov. Rick Perry casts his leading Republican challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, as a fiscally irresponsible lawmaker whod bring a free-spending approach to state government.Amplifying that theme, Perrys campaign said Nov. 30: Hutchison has voted nine separate times to raise the national debt ceiling.We wondered if that was so.Perrys camp compiled votes  undisputed by Hutchison  showing that since joining the Senate in 1993, Hutchison has voted nine times to raise the ceiling. But shes also voted five times against raising the ceiling.Our request for an explanation of Hutchisons votes didnt generate an immediate reply from her. If she does pipe up, well update this item. UPDATE: Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky offered a statement Jan. 28 suggesting that Hutchison's aye votes while George W. Bush was president reflected her support for his across-the-board tax cuts and spending initiatives including commitments to fight terrorism, provide prescription drugs to senior citizens and rebuild after 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike. Sadosky said: She has voted against efforts to increase the debt ceiling when it is necessitated by wasteful spending like that seen in the stimulus bill and in the annual discretionary appropriations bills proposed by the Democratic-led Congress and presidency.We wondered anyway what any vote on the debt ceiling really means.Josh Gordon of The Concord Coalition, which was founded by the late Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass) to advocate for long-term fiscal responsibility, advised that votes to raise the ceiling might be portrayed as big deals to score political points. In reality, theyre not, he said, though they are necessary.If they didnt do it, the (U.S.) Treasury would no longer be able to borrow money, Gordon said. Everything from savings bonds to Treasury bills to very short-term financial instruments of the Federal Reserve would cease to be worth anything. It would basically destroy the economy.Unlike congressional votes on taxes or spending, Gordon said, lawmakers' votes to increase the debt limit aren't necessarily indicators of members' fiscal philosophies.Gordon said the fact all but two of Hutchisons votes to raise the ceiling occurred with Republicans in charge of the Senate was probably not a coincidence.Typically in Congress, the majority party bears responsibility for attending to essential business, including hikes in the debt ceiling if necessary. When the ceiling issue comes up, members of the minority party can vote no knowing the other side will muster the votes to do it. Hutchisons five no votes occurred when Democrats controlled the Senate. With Democrats holding the Senate majority, she voted for raising the ceiling as part of the Wall Street rescue plan approved in October 2008 and earlier voted for raising the ceiling in June 2002.Perry got all of Hutchisons yes votes right. We rate his claim as True. In mid-2015, thehistoric Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving Stone Mountain In June 2015, rumors claimed that a petition was being circulated that aimed to destroy the Stone Mountain carving permanently, but those rumors referenced a long-inactive petition that antedated the Charleston massacre.  Then a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain: Stone Mountain circulate That rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared the carving (along with parts of Southern history) would be permanently destroyed. Confederate symbols Southern history News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on 13 July 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed (and used the term "sand-blasted"): article The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park.     "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery," Rose said.      Rose said his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks and lands.       Rose told Petersen he would start with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.     "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said. The following day (14 July 2015) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document (which was undated and nearly impossible to read): article Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's web site, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook  page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter.       web site Facebook It's true Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose said that the Stone Mountain carving should be "sand-blasted off" the mountain in a June 2015 interview and that the following day the Journal-Constitution referenced a "statement" from the local NAACP chapter. However, we were unable to locate a purported statement released by that chapter (or the larger national NAACP organization) demanding such an action. Moreover, whether such an action is even possible or plausible (not to mention under consideration to any meaningful degree) is doubtful. 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 As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false. Claim:  A few sips of hydrogen beer enables Japanese karaoke nuts to sing soprano parts and shoot blue flames out of their mouths at dramatic moments.  Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 1994] January 1, 1994TOKYO (AP)  Here in the chic pubs of the Aoyama district, the latest fad inspired by beer makers struggling through a sluggish economy is the flammable suds of the new Hydrogen Beer. The latest craze among the environmentally conscious crowd of twentysomethings, the "Suiso" beer made by the Asaka Beer Corporation has been extremely popular at karaoke sing-along bars and discotheques.  Hydrogen, like helium, is a gas lighter than air. Because hydrogen molecules are lighter than air, sound waves are transmitted more rapidly; individuals whose lungs are filled with the nontoxic gas can speak with an uncharacteristically high voice.  Exploiting this quirk of physics, chic urbanites can now sing soprano parts on karaoke sing-along machines after consuming a big gulp of Suiso beer.  The drink comes in a transparent hexagonal bottle imported from the maker of the new American drink, Zima," according to Hideki Saito, marketing director of Asaka Beer Corp. While the bottles are imported from Tennessee, the labels are made with a 100% biodegradable polymer. The bottle caps are equipped with a safety valve to prevent excess build-up of pressure in high temperatures.  The flammable nature of hydrogen has also become another selling point, even though Asaka has not acknowledged that this was a deliberate marketing ploy. It has inspired a new fashion of blowing flames from one's mouth using a cigarette as an ignition source. Many new karaoke videos feature singers shooting blue flames in slow motion, while flame contests took place in pubs everywhere in Tokyo on New Year's eve.  So far, Asaka beer has insisted that the quantities of hydrogen used in the drinks is too low to create potential for bodily harm. In the factory, the carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the beer is partially extracted and replaced with hydrogen gas. Mr. Saito maintained that the remaining carbon dioxide mixed with hydrogen prevents the rate of combustion from increasing dramatically. Carbon dioxide is a nonflammable gas that is naturally contained in the exhaled breath of humans.  However, the company has hesitated from marketing the product in the US due to legal complications.  Each bottle of Suiso beer sells for approximately 1,200 yen, or 11 US dollars. The bottles are packed in special crates lined with concrete to prevent chain explosions in the event of a fire. Origins:  Initially making the rounds in 1994, this bit of fiction is still in circulation on the Internet and continues to pop up in the media. Additional spurious details   about an injured participant engaging in a lawsuit against the brew's manufacturer and a karaoke bar wereadded to the story in late 1998.  Folks will believe most anything, provided someone sticks "AP" at the front of it. Though it was decked out to look like it, the above wasn't a real wire service story. (Even so, this tale has suckered a fine selection of highly-respected newspapers, including The New York Times in March 1996, the Boston Globe in November 1997, and The Washington Post in September 1999. It has also appeared in a widely-used introductory-level college chemistry textbook.) There is no Asaka Beer Corporation. Due to tight government regulations, there are only five beer companies in Japan: Kirin (40.6% market share), Asahi (37.6%), Sapporo (15.8%), Suntory (5%) and Orion (1%). Nor is there a Suiso beer. Both these names are made up, nothing more than wonderful bits of embroidery employed to give a fanciful tale an aura of believability. Proving yet again that no story is too good not to be improved upon, the following version appeared in inboxes everywhere in late 1998: TOKYO (AP) The recent craze for hydrogen beer is at the heart of a three way lawsuit between unemployed stockbroker Toshira Otoma, the Tike-Take karaoke bar and the Asaka Beer Corporation. Mr Otoma is suing the bar and the brewery for selling toxic substances and is claiming damages for grievous bodily harm leading to the loss of his job. The bar is countersuing for defamation and loss of customers. The Asaka Beer corporation brews "Suiso" brand beer, where the carbon dioxide normally used to add fizz has been replaced by the more environmentally friendly hydrogen gas. A side effect of this has made the beer extremely popular at karaoke sing-along bars and discotheques.  Hydrogen, like helium, is a gas lighter than air. Because hydrogen molecules are lighter than air, sound waves are transmitted more rapidly;  individuals whose lungs are filled with the nontoxic gas can speak with an uncharacteristically high voice. Exploiting this quirk of physics, chic urbanites can now sing soprano parts on karaoke sing-along machines after consuming a big gulp of Suiso beer. The flammable nature of hydrogen has also become another selling point, even though Asaka has not acknowledged that this was a deliberate marketing ploy. It has inspired a new fashion of blowing flames from one's mouth using a cigarette as an ignition source. Many new karaoke videos feature singers shooting blue flames in slow motion, while flame contests take place in pubs everywhere. "Mr Otoma has no-one to blame but himself.  If he had not become drunk and disorderly, none of this would have happened.  Our security guards undergo the most careful screening and training before they are allowed to deal with customers" said Mr Takashi Nomura, Manager of the Tike-Take bar. "Mr Otoma drank fifteen bottles of hydrogen beer in order to maximise the size of the flames he could belch during the contest. He catapulted balls of fire across the room that Gojira would be proud of, but this was not enough to win him first prize since the judgement is made on the quality of the flames and that of the singing, and after fifteen bottles of lager he was badly out of tune." "He took exception to the result and hurled blue fireballs at the judge, singeing the front of Mrs Mifune's hair, entirely removing her eyebrows and lashes, and ruining the clothes of two nearby customers. None of these people have returned to my bar. When our security staff approached he turned his attentions to them, making it almost impossible to approach him. Our head bouncer had no choice but to hurl himself at Mr Otoma's knees, knocking his legs from under him." "The laws of physics are not to be disobeyed, and the force that propelled Mr Otoma's legs backwards also pivoted around his centre of gravity and moved his upper body forward with equal velocity. It was his own fault he had his mouth open for the next belch, his own fault he held a lighted cigarette in front of it and it is own fault he swallowed that cigarette." "The Tike-Take bar takes no responsibility for the subsequent internal combustion, rupture of his stomach lining, nor the third degree burns to his oesophagus, larynx and sinuses as the exploding gases forced their way out of his body. His consequential muteness and loss of employment are his own fault." Mr Otoma was unavailable for comment. As well he might be, since he doesn't exist. There's still no Suiso beer, no Asaka Beer Corporation, and certainly no such lawsuit. The names used in the piece give an additional clue to its being a leg-pull: Takashi Nomura and Toshiro Mifune are both actors in classic Japanese films, and Otoma comes from Katsuhiro Otomo, a modern director. This newest version makes more of a story out of the tale, turning what purported to be a staid news article about a karaoke innovation into a bemusing report about yet another silly lawsuit. Merely the mental picture of a drunken Japanese hurling blue fireballs at the judges who'd passed him over is enough to keep one entertained for hours. Karaoke is weird enough without anyone having to blow blue flames as part of it. Barbara "Molson Dry wit" Mikkelson Last updated:  7 October 2006    Sources:   Pollack, Andrew.  "Fleeting Fame Sells in Asia . . ."   The New York Times.  11 March 1996  (p. D1).    Reucroft, Stephen and John Swain.  "Dinosaur Birds."   The Boston Globe.  3 November 1997  (p. C4).    Schwarcz, Joe.  "Hydrogen, the First Element; What a Blast!"   The Washington Post.  8 September 1999  (p. H1).    Zumdahl, Steven and Zumdahl, Susan.  Chemistry.   Boston; Houghton-Mifflin, 2000  ISBN 0-39598-581-1 (p. 524).    PC Week.  "Spark Me Up."     18 April 1994  (p. A5).   Also told in:  Fiery, Ann.  The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends.   Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001.  ISBN 0-7624-107404  (pp. 77-80).  The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends On 7 February 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Secretary of Education in the new Trump administration by a narrow 51-50 margin, with the tie-breaking vote being cast by Vice President Mike Pence. All of the votes approving DeVos were cast by Republican senators, leading some of her detractors to posit the theory that she had essentially paid for her position via campaign contributions. That theory was illustrated by several charts circulated online that allegedly documented the amount of money DeVos had contributed to various senators:  The above-displayed chart first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions: Reddit  A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs" since 1989: report In the 2016 cycle alone, the family had given at least $10 million as of late October to a host of GOP candidates and committees. Much of that  $4.4 million  went to super PACs: those supporting the White House bids of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, and the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund and the super PAC started by Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads; the latter two groups helped support numerous Republicans in tight House and Senate races. However, these charts don't show how much Betsy DeVos personally contributed to Republican campaigns.  A second chart from the Center for Responsive Politics documented that Betsy DeVos herself was only responsible for about 7% of these contributions:  It should also be noted that these charts tally cumulative donations made over the span of two and a half decades (although the 2016 campaign cycle comprised the bulk of those donations). None of this information in itself establishes that the contributions were made with the intent of gaining office for Betsy DeVos, or that they had that effect (intended or not).  Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, received $43,200 from the DeVos family but voted "No" during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing. And although nearly all the Republican senators who had received contributions from the DeVos family voted "Yes," so did all the Republican senators who had not received any contributions from the DeVos family. The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown  partisanship: posited If Democrats controlled the Senate, DeVos would have lost her confirmation. Theres every reason to believe that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell let [Susan] Collins and Murkowski vote no on DeVos for political reasons, holding enough votes in reserve to assure shed win. The motivation was partisan support for a Republican nominee, not that a small fraction of his past campaign financing depended on DeVoss generosity. The Washington Post also noted that while the DeVos family contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, their contributions constituted only a sliver of the total money raised by those campaigns:  It's no secret that DeVos and her family have been major donors to the Republican Party over the last few decades. In 1997, DeVos wrote that her family was the "largest single contributor of soft money" to the Republicans: I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party. Occasionally a wayward reporter will try to make the charge that we are giving this money to get something in return, or that we must be purchasing influence in some way. [...] They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections. During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate: confirmation hearing Sanders: Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years? DeVos: Senator, first of all thank you for that question. I again was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I dont know. Sanders: I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark? DeVos: Collectively? Between my entire family? Sanders: Yeah, over the years. DeVos: Thats possible Sanders: Okay. My question is, and I dont mean to be rude. Do you think, if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party, that you would be sitting here today? DeVos: Senator, as a matter of fact, I do think that there would be that possibility. Ive worked very hard on behalf of parents and children for the last almost 30 years to be a voice for students and to empower parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, primarily low-income children. Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told Politico that the DeVos family's contributions were made legally and were properly disclosed: Politico All of that is disclosed, Alexander said. You can ask those senators and evaluate it yourself. Thats the reason we have limits on campaign contributions and we have disclosures of those things. A spokesperson for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was singled out for having received nearly $100,000 from the DeVos family, defended his acceptance of those contributions: singled "People contribute to Senator Rubio's campaign because they support his agenda. Ms. DeVos is a strong supporter of empowering parents and providing educational opportunity for all, policies Senator Rubio has supported for over a decade. Her nomination was opposed by Democrats who take millions of dollars from the big unions obsessed with denying school choice to low-income children.  Brown, Emma.  "With Historic Tiebreaker from Pence, DeVos Confirmed as Education Secretary."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "Betsy DeVos Says It's 'Possible' Her Family Has Donated $200M to Republicans."
  Forbes.  17 January 2017. Bump, Phillip.  "The DeVos Vote Is a Bad Case Study for the Power of Campaign Contributions."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Stratford, Michael.  "DeVos Heads Into Confirmation with a Megadonor's Advantage."
  Politico.  20 December 2016. Noland, Jack.  "Betsy DeVos and Her Big-Giving Relatives: Family Qualifies as GOP Royalty."
  Center for Responsive Politics.  1 December 2016. Boser, Ulrich.  "Conflicts of DeVos."
  Center for American Progress.  12 January 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 On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy  an appointee of President Donald Trump  wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. letter formal transition of power The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone  winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins  weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. electoral votes.   Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions misinformation campaign "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. statement Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Office of the President Elect states certified results Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff  otherwise known as a transition team  to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. 1963 Presidential Transition Act       Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Pennsylvania Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies.  transition between presidencies The Associated Press reported: reported In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didnt need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue. Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell "COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES" T-shirts.   Additionally, on Twitter the president said: "Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be."   The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures  steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president  as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. White House footage In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the "apparent president-elect" in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. Claim:  Photographs show the proceeds from drug sales found during a raid of Mexican drug dealers' residence.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2007] $207 Million seized in Mexico ... wonder what they did with all of it! No wonder we aren't winning the war on drugs. This is unbelievable.  RAID ON DRUG DEALERS HOUSE                   Origins:  The photographs displayed above accompanied a March 2007 press release issued by the PGR (Mexico's office of La Procuradura General de la Repblica, or judge advocate general) announcing a successful drug raid on a Mexico City home.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), working in conjunction with Mexican police, made what the DEA described as the "largest drug-cash seizure in history" when they confiscated a total of $205.6 million in U.S. currency, along with other cash, vehicles, and weapons, from a residence used by methamphetamine producers: PGR The money found hidden inside walls, suitcases and closets in one of Mexico City's wealthiest neighborhoods came from the profits of methamphetamines sold in the United States, [DEA chief Karen Tandy]  said. Mexican law enforcement and the DEA worked for a year on the operation, she said. Mexican federal agents also seized eight luxury vehicles,  seven weapons and a pill-making machine during the raid in Lomas de Chapultepec, a neighborhood of walled compounds that is home to ambassadors and business magnates. Seven people were arrested and were ordered Monday to be held for three months while the investigation continues. In addition to the dollars, officials found 200,000 euros and 157,500 pesos. Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said the money was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. Mora said the ring had been operating since 2004 and was run by a native of China who had gained Mexican citizenship. The alleged gang leader is in hiding, possibly outside of the country, Medina Mora said. The operation should reduce the supply of methamphetamine to the United States, where Mexican drug gangs control at least 80 percent of the market, Tandy said. The U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Antonio O. Garza, issued a statement about the raid which was published on the embassy's web site (and included the photographs reproduced here): statement photographs Mexico City, March 20, 2007  With the largest single drug cash seizure by law enforcement officials in history, major narco-traffickers are now US $205 million poorer. This unprecedented seizure of drug money by Mexican law enforcement officials in Mexico City last week also led to the arrest of several important narco-traffickers.  The seizure and arrests underscore our two countries' deep commitment to fighting the drug kingpins who bring corruption and violence to communities on both sides of the border. President Calderons administration has demonstrated firm resolve in fighting the criminals who undermine our societies and terrorize our citizens.  Acting on information supplied in part by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Mexican law enforcement officers on March 15th seized these funds from the Mexico City home of an individual connected to the UNIMED pharmaceutical corporation of Hong Kong, China. Seven individuals have been arrested so far and authorities are looking for more suspects.  U.S. authorities believe UNIMED is connected with attempts, in December 2006 and February 2007, to smuggle large amounts of the toxic chemicals used to produce methamphetamine through ports in Colima and Michoacan.  I am convinced that continued close cooperation between our law enforcement agencies will lead to more arrests and further successes in our common fight against narco-traffickers. In July 2007, Chinese-Mexican businessman Zhenli Ye Gon, who was tied to the March 2007 seizure of drug cash shown in the photographs above, was arrested in Rockville, Maryland: Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora called the arrest "magnificent news" and said Mexican officials had 60 days to file their legal arguments for Ye Gon's extradition. The Chinese-Mexican fugitive is wanted on organized crime, drug trafficking and weapons charges. DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney said Ye Gon was arrested on drug smuggling and money laundering charges, adding that he was tracked down by agents and did not turn himself in. Medina Mora said the cash seized at Ye Gon's home was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. He said the ring had been operating since 2004, illegally importing the substance and selling it to a drug cartel that mixed it into the crystal form and imported into the United States. Last updated:  14 February 2014    Grillo, Ioan.   "Alleged Drug Trafficker Arrested in Maryland."   Associated Press.  24 July 2007. FACT CHECK Did the Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly release Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.?   Claim: The Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly released Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.   : WHAT'S  Guantanamo detainee Abdul Shalabi was repatriated to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the day on which Pope Francis arrived in Washington, D.C. WHAT'S   Abdul Shalabi's release was sudden and unexpected, and it occurred under the radar of the news media due to coverage of the Pope's visit. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Rumor has it that while the pope was in DC that POTUS released Abdul Shalabi from Gitmo.   Did Obama really release Abdul Shalabi will everyone was watching the pope in DC? Origins:  Pope Francis' "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America" that began on 22 September 2015 marked the pontiff's first visit to the U.S. On 24 September 2015, the web site of former one-term congressman and conservative political commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbait headline of "While the Media Obsessed Over the Pope, Look What Obama Just Did" that asserted: While Pope Francis was in Washington smooching with the president and giving speeches about global warming, income inequality and the evils of capitalism (while being ominously silent about the persecution and slaughter of his Christian brethren around the world), the Obama administration released Abdul Shalabi from the Guantanamo Bay detainment center. That Shalabi was released yesterday as the country was focused on Pope Francis arrival in the United States could well be the administration's most blatant "Look, over theresquirrell!!" [sic] moment ever. The very idea that this man who worked side-by-side with Osama bin Laden can somehow be "rehabilitated" to no longer want to kill infidels, and, be rehabbed by the Muslim government of an Islamic nation  is beyond laughable. What does Obama think hes going to do there now, train to become a valet? Take up needlepoint? Oh, I know, maybe open a bakery and make cakes for gay weddings. The excerpt quoted above suggests that Shalabi's release was unexpected and deliberately coordinated so as to go unnoticed during media coverage of Pope Francis' arrival in Washington D.C. However, Shalabi's release was neither unexpected, nor was it ignored by the media. A widely-reproduced Associated Press article published three months earlier had announced that Shalabi, who had been on a nine-year hunger strike, had been approved for release from Guantanamo by a government review board: article A prisoner who has been on a nine-year hunger strike to protest his confinement at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can now return to his native Saudi Arabia, a government review board said. The Periodic Review Board, which has been re-evaluating dozens of Guantanamo prisoners previously deemed too dangerous to release, said in a statement published on its website that Abdul Rahman Shalabi can be released to take part in a Saudi government rehabilitation program for militants and would be subject to monitoring afterward. Shalabi began a hunger strike in 2005. He and another prisoner, who since has been released, maintained the protest longer than any others held at the base. Court records show Shalabi occasionally consumed food but also dropped to as little as 101 pounds (46 kilograms). His lawyer told the review board in April [2015] that prison officials had fed him with a nasogastric tube daily for nine years. The U.S. now holds 116 men at Guantanamo, including 52 cleared for transfer or release. Similarly, an 8 August 2015 New York Post article reported that Shalabi was due to be released soon (partly to care for his mother): article Take detainee Abdul Shalabi. His lawyers in June pleaded that the former bin Laden bodyguard was sufficiently reformed and wanted only to reunite with his family in Saudi Arabia and take care of his ailing mother. The board subsequently agreed Shalabi was no longer a significant threat to the security of the United States, and rubber-stamped his release  even though the al Qaeda operative conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while plotting the 9/11 attacks from Karachi, Pakistan. Shalabi also was said to have trained at al Qaeda camps to participate in a suicide attack or deployment to the West. The UK newspaper The Guardian also reported on Shalabi's then-pending release on 13 August 2015, and the claim that "the media" ignored Shalabi's release in favor of Papal visit coverage conflicted with the 22 September 2015 publication in the New York Times of an article reporting that: reported Although a six-agency task force decided in 2009 that Mr. Shalabi was too dangerous to release, a parolelike panel called the Periodic Review Board, consisting of representatives from the same six agencies, decided in June [2015] that he could now be safely repatriated to Saudi Arabia. In a statement explaining its reasoning, the board said Mr. Shalabi had terrorist-related activities and connections in the past, but said it was confident that the Saudi governments rehabilitation program and its ability to monitor former detainees would mitigate the risks. The board also cited the fact that Mr. Shalabis nephew, who was repatriated from Guantnamo in President George W. Bushs second term and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program, has apparently lived quietly ever since. Mr. Shalabi appeared before the board at a hearing in April [2015]. He asked that his statements not be made public. But a lawyer helping to represent him, Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, told the board that he just wanted to settle down, get married and have a family of his own, and put the past behind him. The New York Times wasn't the only high-profile U.S. news outlet to cover Shalabi's release, as a 22 September 2015 Reuters piece also announced the imminent transfer of Shalabi to Saudi Arabia. piece As noted above, it was a review board comprising officials from several different military, legal, and intelligence agencies who recommended Shalabi's repatriation to Saudi Arabia, as explained on the Department of Defense Periodic Review Secretariat's web site: explained The Periodic Review Board (PRB) is a body comprised of senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that will review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.  Articles published three months in advance of Shalabi's repatriation acknowledged that (despite his never having been charged with a crime) he had links to Osama bin Laden al-Qaida and had "not been cleared of wrongdoing": Shalabi, 39, was among the first prisoners taken to Guantanamo in January 2002. He was never charged with a crime but the government said he had been a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and had links to the external operations chief for al-Qaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo. The board, which was created by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2011 as part of the effort to close the prison at Guantanamo, did not clear Shalabi of wrongdoing and said it "acknowledges the detainees past terrorist-related activities." So while it's true that Abdul Shalabi was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the formal decision to do so was made well in advance of the Pope's September 2015 visit to the U.S., and news of Shalabi's hearing, review, and release was reported by major news outlets (inside and outside the United States) both before and during the event.  Last updated: 25 September 2015 First published:  25 September 2015 Claim:  The plastic strip embedded in U.S. bank notes enable the Feds to tell how much money you have on you.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This past weekend, a friend visiting our house told us that the anti-counterfeiting strip put in newly printed paper money can be used to determine how much cash you are carrying.  She said that the ever-present "they" at the airport have a machine that can determine how much cash you have on your person or in your luggage, and if you are carrying a sufficiently large amount of cash, you will be detained by the police and interrogated until you confess your guilt as a drug smuggler.  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I did not get this in an e-mail but my bank teller in Kirksville, MO told me this one.  Evidently there is an urban legend floating around that the new "security strip" in the new $20's can be read by satellites with the implication being the Govt. can beam a satellite on you and eventually, when all the bills in circ. will have these, be able to tell how much $ you are carrying around.  This teller told me that she has had customers come in requesting "no new $20s" for this reason! We had a good laugh about it and we both agreed that the Govt. is going to be sorely disappointed if they turned this hypothetical satellite on us! Origins:  The ongoing effort to stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters has led to the inclusion of a number of security features in U.S. currency. One countermeasure in particular has come to be the focus of a widely-believed bit lore: the embedded inscribed security thread. According to scuttlebutt, the purpose of the thread isn't really to make it more difficult for the ill-intentioned to introduce   worthless currency into circulation by fooling its recipients into thinking it genuine, but instead to allow the government to know exactly how much money anyone is carrying at any particular moment. With the use of special scanners, or possibly a beam from a distant satellite, the Feds can quickly count the value of all bank notes being carried on or about one's person and thus track how much money is entering or leaving the country, and with whom. This knowledge, says the behind-the-hand whisperings, is used to finger drug dealers and smugglers. The rumor is bunk. The strip's sole purpose is the foiling of counterfeiters. It, along with a number of other security features worked into the nation's bank notes, make it far harder on the criminal element to produce phony bills that will be mistaken for the real thing. Other features include the microprinting of "The United States of America" within the rim surrounding the portraits on bills, a watermark displayed elsewhere on the bill of the figure in the portrait, and optically variable ink (OVI) which changes from green to black in the number in the lower right-hand corner of the bill when viewed from different angles. As for the suspect strip, it is made of polyester and is inscribed with the denomination of the bill. Nothing about the composition of these strips renders them detectable by scanner or satellite. In 2004, the false belief attaching to this security feature was enhanced by the claim of these bands containing RFID tags. As technology advanced, so did the rumor, leading many to microwave their $20 bills into ashen submission by falling for the canard that nuking their currency would disable these  RFID tags transmitters. Yet the belief about governmental detection of concealed sums via a subterfuge worked into the currency even predates the polyester security threads. In the 1980s, those similarly worried about being tracked by Big Brother fretted over the ink with which bank notes were printed, muttering to themselves that the "magnetic ink" they believed to have been used rendered the bills somehow magnetic and thus detectable by machine. Back then, the concern was more that this magnetic money would serve to pinpoint the location of the person carrying it rather than it give away how much of it was being ported, but it is another form of the same belief. One confirmation that nothing in and of itself is detectable about the polyester strips embedded in bank notes arises out of the news about security technologies now used at some U.S. airports, including Chicago's O'Hare. Were caches of greenbacks already being ferreted out via their embedded threads, descriptions of the BodySearch scanner, a device that uses special "backscatter" X-rays to produce images of items that might be concealed under passengers' clothing, would not always impart the glad tidings that this gizmo reveals the presence of currency as well as narcotics, plastic explosives, and plastic weapons.  While in the main, the "sneakily embedded technology allows for the surreptitious tracking of people or their assets" rumor attaches to currency and blames the government for the supposed spying, the belief also carries to other items and points fingers at other parties.  [Kamradt, 2003] Some students have not picked up their new ID cards through the re-carding project, which ends today, because of a rumor that there is a locator chip inside the IDs so Purdue can track their whereabouts. "To dispel the transponder rumors, I was closely involved in developing the requirements for production of the ID cards and I can ensure students that no secret electronic devices were embedded in these cards," said Terry Schroeder, project manager for the Purdue ID Re-carding Project. "From my understanding, most of the group that met to discuss this issue (as a result of distributed flyers) were wearing aluminum foil beanies."  [Mulkins, 2000] I heard that a person carrying a large number of $100 bills, going through the PikePass readers, could be detected and the exact amount of money determined. The authorities are using PikePass to detect drug dealers and then confiscating the money, even confiscating the money of innocent persons. (PikePass is a prepaid toll device containing a battery and a radio-frequency modulator placed on the windshield of a vehicle.  As a car bearing one travels under a transmitter overhanging a turnpike lane, the device intercepts the signal being broadcast and returns a signal exclusive to that particular PikePass customer. The signal is read, and the toll is subtracted from the customer's account.) PikePass Whereas student ID cards and prepaid toll signalers do at least have a whiff of the enigmatic to their technology, which works to encourage belief that some of that incomprehensibility might be of nefarious intent (we mistrust what we don't understand, after all), this next expression of the rumor is even farther afield: [Collected on the Internet, 1999] I recently received an email telling me that I need to take the labels off my canned good and mark the bare cans with a marker, or at least black out the UPCs. Why? Well, it seems the government has helicopters equipped with scanners that can read the UPCs of the food you have stored. Ostensibly, the government is doing this so they can confiscate food for redistribution in the up coming Y2K breakdown of society. When asked to verify, the poster informed me she was told this by a 'family friend" who flies one of these scanner-equipped helicopters. Of course he doesn't want to be named for his own safety, but he risked telling his dear friends because he loves them. While most folks will laugh off the thought of their soup cans spying on them, the same cannot be said of the belief that their long green is being counted by surveillance satellites sent into orbit by a government intent upon keeping tabs on its citizens  a great many appear to believe that.  Barbara "watch your money, don't worry about your money watching you" Mikkelson Sightings:  In a first-season episode of television's The X Files ("E.B.E.," original air date 18 February 1994), a member of a group that believes the government is up to any number of monstrous conspiracies takes a $20 bill from Agent Scully, holds it up to the light, rips the left side off, and pulls out its security strip, saying, "They use this magnetic strip to track you. Whenever you go through a metal detector at an airport, they know exactly how much you're carrying." Additional information:        Inscribed Security Thread   (Secret Service)        Money Design Features   (Secret Service)        The Redesigned $20 Note   (Bureau of Engraving)   Last updated:  19 May 2011   Garber, Andrew.  "New Airport Gadgets Strip, Sniff, Scan."  The Seattle Times.  23 October 2001  (p. A1).   Kamradt, Kori.  "Officials Dismiss Rumors About New IDs."  The [Purdue University] Exponent .  14 November 2003.   Mulkins, Phil.  "PikePass Can't Count Dope Dealers' Money."  Tulsa World.  28 July 2000.   Webb, Tom.  "U.S. Currency to Get Makeover."  The Denver Post.  14 July 1994  (p. A4).   Zane, Maitland.  "Counterfeit-Proof Cash Makes Its Debut."  The San Francisco Chronicle.  26 July 1991  (p. A1).   The Associated Press.  "O'Hare Officials Install Scanner, Hoping to Replace Body Searches."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  23 November 1999  (p. B2).