Jews Ordered to Register in East Ukraine?
Claim:  Jews in eastern Ukraine have been ordered to register with the government. : A small group of people in the Ukrainian city of Donetsk passed out leaflets ordering local Jews to register with the government.   The government of Ukraine has officially ordered Jews in that country to register.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2014] Is this true? 'Jews must register or face deportation,' demands a flyer signed by Donetsk's pro-Russian interim government and handed out Passover evening in the eastern Ukraine city.   Origins:  On 16 April 2014, English-language news media (picking up on accounts from Israeli news media) began reporting that Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk (where some government buildings had been seized by pro-Russian separatists advocating for independence from Ukraine following Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula) had been given leaflets ordering them to "register" with the (unrecognized) Donetsk government, declare their assets, and pay a registration fee or face severe penalties (including loss of citizenship and deportation).  Some of the leaflets were posted near a local synagogue; others were reportedly distributed outside a Jewish center by "three unidentified men wearing balaclavas and carrying the flag of the Russian Federation": Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk where pro-Russian militants have taken over government buildings were told they have to "register" with the Ukrainians who are trying to make the city become part of Russia, according to Israeli media. Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet News, Israel's largest news website. Donetsk is the site of an "anti-terrorist" operation by the Ukraine government, which has moved military columns into the region to force out militants who are demanding a referendum be held on joining Russia.  Exactly who distributed the leaflets, and why, is still unclear.  The material purportedly bore the signature of Denis Pushilin, supposedly the self-proclaimed leader of the pro-Russian separatist group, but he has maintained that his group had nothing to do with the leaflets and that they were put out by someone else to discredit the separatists as being anti-Semitic: maintained Novosti Donbassa reported that the leaflet was distributed by "three unidentified men wearing balaclavas and carrying the flag of the Russian Federation" with the aim of causing a conflict, then "to blame the attack on separatists". The authenticity of the leaflet could not be independently verified. The purported anti-Semitic leaflet comes after a UN investigation found that ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine intentionally seized on exaggerated reports of attacks by Ukrainian nationalists to justify Russian involvement in the region. The report also dismissed the fears of the far right Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), which has been at the forefront of the Ukraine revolution and accused of acts of violence against ethnic Russians, as "disproportionate". Pushilin has denied the Novosti Donbassa's report and assured reporters that the flyer is not from his organisation. In the event, it appears that whoever distributed the leaflets simply fabricated the alarming documents for the purpose of yanking people's chains, generating negative publicity, and/or making some money, without having either the means or the intent of actually enforcing the provisions outlined therein: But even if it looked like the start of some racist purge, the flier was more likely part of an ill-conceived extortion plot or a propaganda ploy against the separatists. For one thing, the sign-off at the bottom of the flier  "Yours, the People's Governor of Donetsk, Denis Pushilin"  seemed off. This was a reference to the so-called Donetsk People's Republic, which was formed a week and a half ago by a group of armed separatists who seized the headquarters of the regional government. Theirs is perhaps  the smallest breakaway republic in the world, as its territory is confined to that one building and a small patch of the plaza around it. Since April 7, they have barricaded themselves inside with a cache of weapons and demanded a referendum on secession from Ukraine. At the bottom of the flier was a reproduction of the stamp these separatists use on the press badges they have issued to journalists. Denis Pushilin, however, is not the man who calls himself the "Peoples Governor" of this pseudo-state. That would be Pavel Gubarev, who bestowed that title on himself in early March, during a separatist rally in the center of Donetsk. Three days later, he was arrested on charges of separatism and taken to jail in Kiev, where he remains. The alleged author of the anti-Semitic flier, Pushilin, is his ally and comrade-in-arms. But he has never gone by the title of "Peoples Governor." (His preferred title is the "co-chairman of the temporary coalition government" that he and his allies declared inside that building.) For his part, Pushilin denied that he or his organization had anything to do with these fliers. "In reality this is a fake, and a pretty unsuccessful one," Pushilin said. "It was all done with Photoshop." Suspicion fell on their political opponents as soon as the fliers started making the rounds online. Dmitro Tkachenko, who helped organize a large rally in Donetsk to support the unity of Ukraine, called the flier "a brilliant piece of disinformation" against the separatists. Asked if one of his fellow activists for Ukrainian unity could have staged it, Tkachenko says it's possible. "But this is a sophisticated trick, and to be honest, I dont think any of our folks are that smart," he [said]. More likely, Tkachenko says, the fliers were the work of an opportunistic splinter group, from separatists who just want to make money from their newfound impunity. Over the past week, they have managed to seize numerous government buildings in Donetsk, most recently the city hall, without any resistance from the police. "But their movement is very divided," says Tkachenko. It includes various groups of armed thugs who answer to no single leader. So it's quite possible that some of the more entrepreneurial goons among them just felt like making a bit of extortion money on the side. Last updated:  17 April 2014    Mezzofiore, Gianluca.  "Donetsk Pro-Russians Order Jews to 'Register or be Deported'."   International Business Times.  16 April 2014.    Shuster, Simon.  "Ukraine's 'Jew Register' Either a Hoax or a Crude Extortion Scheme."   Time.  17 April 2014.
Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2). In late May 2016, Twitter users were circulating a rumor that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had derisively referred to Canadians as "Snow Mexicans": @ViewFromWise Did you happen to sew his post about Canadians the other day? He called them "Snow Mexicans". No lie, total truth. Wow!!! @ViewFromWise  Stephanie Barrett (@imfrog2) May 31, 2016 May 31, 2016  @GaryRayBetz @ViewFromWise Well he recently called Canadians "Snow Mexicans". I came across that on Twitter about 2 weeks ago. Wow.  Stephanie Barrett (@imfrog2) June 6, 2016 @GaryRayBetz @ViewFromWise June 6, 2016  Documentation for this rumor eventually appeared in the form of a purported screenshot of a tweet from Donald Trump's official Twitter account bearing a 22 February 2016 date stamp:  However, some elements of that screenshot didn't match Twitter's interface, suggesting it had been fabricated.  Indeed, Donald Trump's Twitter account issued a tweet at the very same time shown on the screenshot (6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time on 22 February 2016), but it had nothing to do with Canadians and made no mention of "snow Mexicans": tweet  It is fairly obvious the "snow Mexicans" comment was not an authentic Trump tweet, but rather an altered version of a tweet that referenced sending "illegals" out of the U.S.  And given the news media's intense coverage of Trump's sometimes incendiary remarks (on Twitter and elsewhere), it's exceedingly unlikely the GOP candidate could have issued such a comment without its having generated widespread media interest. Claim:  By default, all U.S. federal income tax refunds paid in 2010 will be issued in the form of U.S. savings bonds.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Please be aware that when filing your income taxes for 2009 earnings, the IRS has decided that all refunds due clients will be paid in US Savings Bonds unless you choose to "opt out". So watch carefully and find the area on the forms or inform your preparer of your intentions regarding this.  I would think that MOST PEOPLE would not want to receive savings bonds as opposed to a refund check in the event of a refund comingto them.   Origins:  Income taxes are a subject of near universal agreement: Nobody likes paying them, nearly everyone thinks they're too high, and many folks are disgruntled that they have to pay their taxes in advance (through payroll withholding) and wait until the following year for the government to refund any overage.  To most, it would be adding insult to injury if, as suggested above, the government stopped issuing income tax refunds in cash (via check or direct deposit) and instead started paying them out in the form of U.S. savings bonds (especially since savings bonds generally cannot be redeemed for their full value until the purchaser has held them for one year). However, the described refund switch isn't happening this year; someone has misinterpreted the introduction of a new option as a system-wide change to be imposed on everyone by default. In his weekly radio address of  5 September 2009, President Obama announced new initiatives for retirement savings, one of which was the following: radio We'll make it easier for people to save their federal tax refunds, which 100 million families receive. Today, if you have a retirement account, you can have your refund deposited directly into your account. With this change, we'll make it easier for those without retirement plans to save their refunds as well. You'll be able to check a box on your tax return to receive your refund as a savings bond. But taxpayer participation in the described initiative isn't a mandatory or default plan, and (for now, at least) it isn't as simple as "checking a box on your tax return." For refunds to be issued in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has implemented a program under which taxpayers may opt to receive part or all of their refunds (up to $5,000) in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds. This program is described in the "Buying Savings Bonds" section of the IRS' informational page entitled "Taxpayers Can Now Use Refunds to Buy Savings Bonds": program page This year, a taxpayer for the first time can request a portion of his refund be used to buy up to $5,000 in low-risk, liquid Treasury I Bonds, which earn interest and protect owners against inflation. The resulting bonds will be issued in the taxpayer's name. If the refund is a joint refund, the bonds will be issued in the names of both taxpayers. No beneficiary may be selected. The taxpayer need not have a TreasuryDirect account to purchase I Bonds using this option. You can buy Savings Bonds in denominations of $50, $100, $200, $500 and $1,000. You buy them at face value, meaning if you pay $50 using your refund, you get a $50 Savings Bond. In any single calendar year, you can buy up to a total of $5,000 of U.S. savings bonds of any series whether using your refund or some other method. If you buy $250 or less of Savings Bonds with your refund, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued. If the amount is over $250, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued up to $250 and the fewest possible additional Savings Bonds will be issued for the remaining amount. Follow the instructions on Form 8888 to tell the IRS to make a direct deposit of the amount you designate to an IRA, to buy U.S. savings bonds, or to a savings account or other savings vehicle. As noted in that description, the program for receiving refunds via savings bonds is an option taxpayers can request to participate in; not a default applied to everyone except those who specifically take action to opt out of it.   Taxpayers who wish to take part in this new program must proactively indicate their desire to do so by filling out and submitting IRS Form 8888 with their returns. Form 8888 Additional changes may be coming in future years, but taxpayers filing federal income tax returns in 2010 for income earned in 2009 need not "watch carefully" to avoid receiving their refunds as savings bonds. Last updated:  26 January 2010    Liberto, Jennifer.  "Obama to Workers: We'll Help You Save."   CNNMoney.com.  5 September 2009.    Nicklaus, David.  "How to Promote Savings? The Humble Savings Bond Is Part of the Answer."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  9 September 2009.    Rosato, Donna.  "Help Consumers Save More of Their Dough."   Money.  January 2010.    Tompor, Susan.  "Put Away Debt, Put Money Into Savings."   Detroit Free Press.  7 January 2010.    Trumbull, Mark.  "Uncle Sam Wants You to Save More Money."   The Christian Science Monitor.  5 September 2009. This page features a daily collection of links to news articles and web sites of interest to readers of our web site. Due to the ephemeral nature of this type of material, some of the links may expire within a few days of being posted here. Stories are chosen for inclusion here purely on the basis of their appeal to our readers; we make no claims about the reliability of information linked from this page. All of the links included here are viewable at no charge, although some publications may require a free one-time registration to access their articles.    Because They Got High  (21 September 2015) Because They Got High FACT CHECK: Did Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina say that half of reported rapes were women regretting something they did while high or drunk?     One Misdirection  (26 August 2015) One Misdirection FACT CHECK: Did Joey Fatone pen an open letter to One Direction?     Boston's Nasty Snowpile Still Hasn't Melted  (CityLab) Boston's Nasty Snowpile Still Hasn't Melted Were coming up on July and New England temperatures are in the 70s, yet Bostons snow doesnt seem to know that. Its still there, sitting in a cold, corpulent mound that occasionally melts just enough to discharge garbage.     Woman, 88, Charged With Assaulting Police Officer  (Associated Press) Woman, 88, Charged With Assaulting Police Officer An 88-year-old woman has been charged with assaulting police who responded to her home, which turned out to be the wrong address.     Beekeepers Set Out to Remove a Million Bees from Home  (Associated Press) Beekeepers Set Out to Remove a Million Bees from Home Beekeepers have quite the task ahead of them as they remove an estimated 1 million honey bees that have taken up residence at a home.     Firefighter Accused of Reporting Fake Fire to Earn Paycheck  (Associated Press) Firefighter Accused of Reporting Fake Fire to Earn Paycheck An auxiliary firefighter reported a fake fire so he could head to the scene and earn a paycheck, but a different department was dispatched instead and he is now facing charges.     Handsome Gorilla Delights Female Zoo-Goers  (UPI) Handsome Gorilla Delights Female Zoo-Goers Zoo officials said young women hoping to get into the good graces of the gorilla with the chiseled features and brooding poses might be disappointed to learn he has two wives of his own species, Ai and Nene.     Cow Puts the MOO-ves on Comrade During Live News Broadcast  (UPI) Cow Puts the MOO-ves on Comrade During Live News Broadcast A TV reporter delivering a live report from a local farm was interrupted by a pair of frisky bovines cow-pulating in the background.     8-Foot-Wide Vortex Opens Up in Lake  (UPI) 8-Foot-Wide Vortex Opens Up in Lake The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shared video of an 8-foot-wide vortex that officials said could swallow a boat.     Woman Trying to Kiss Llama Gets Face Full of Spit  (UPI) Woman Trying to Kiss Llama Gets Face Full of Spit A woman leaning in to kiss a llama learned a valuable lesson in the form of a face full of spit.     Queen's Guard Draws Gun on Tourist Who Touched Him  (UPI) Queen's Guard Draws Gun on Tourist Who Touched Him A video features a tourist making an important discovery: You can mock a Queen's Guard, but don't ever touch one.     Airplane Wheel Crashes Into Apartment Roof  (UPI) Airplane Wheel Crashes Into Apartment Roof Aviation authorities are investigating after an airplane wheel fell from a private jet and crashed through the roof of an apartment building.     Trashed Golfer Gets Head Stuck in Garbage Can  (UPI) Trashed Golfer Gets Head Stuck in Garbage Can A golfer who stuck his head in a trash bin as an alcohol-fueled joke ended up with his noggin stuck in the garbage.     Subway Long Jump Attempt Fails  (UPI) Subway Long Jump Attempt Fails A video going viral online features a man attempting to long jump over the train tracks at a subway station  and failing.     Illegally Parked Car Covered in Post-Its  (UPI) Illegally Parked Car Covered in Post-Its A video shows the car covered in blue and white sticky notes to draw the International Symbol of Access  a stick figure in a wheelchair  on the back and side of the vehicle after it was illegally parked in an accessible space.     Something's Rotten: Stench from Fridge Sends 11 to Hospital  (Associated Press) Something's Rotten: Stench from Fridge Sends 11 to Hospital A smelly refrigerator sent nearly a dozen people to the hospital.     Men Hospitalized, Recovering After Rare Beaver Attack  (Reuters) Men Hospitalized, Recovering After Rare Beaver Attack Two hikers who were assaulted by a beaver after they climbed onto its dam have been hospitalized for injuries incurred during the rare attack.     Theater Switches Horror Movie for Disney Film  (Associated Press) Theater Switches Horror Movie for Disney Film Parents and children settled into their seats for a new animated Disney film got a quick jolt when a horror movie came on the screen instead.     Break-In Suspect Left Wallet Behind  (Associated Press) Break-In Suspect Left Wallet Behind Sheriff's deputies had little trouble identifying a break-in suspect whose wallet and ID were left at the scene.     16 Police Forces Respond to Wedding Brawl  (UPI) 16 Police Forces Respond to Wedding Brawl More than a dozen different police departments responded to a wedding brawl that grew violently out of control.     Sex Sounds Rile Neighbors  (UPI) Sex Sounds Rile Neighbors A note posted at a housing complex blasts loud lovemaking neighbors for "Oh God" exclamations confused by children and seniors for "religion or suicide."     Loose Dog at Motel Leads to Drug Arrest  (Associated Press) Loose Dog at Motel Leads to Drug Arrest A loose dog at a motel led to a room with a bathtub containing marijuana and the arrest of the dog's owner.     Robbers Chased Away by Shopkeeper Wielding Vacuum Cleaner  (Reuters) Robbers Chased Away by Shopkeeper Wielding Vacuum Cleaner A shop assistant in a late-night convenience store chased away two armed robbers demanding money with the hose of a vacuum cleaner she was using to clean her shop.     Police Apologize After Sex Talk Broadcast from Helicopter  (Reuters) Police Apologize After Sex Talk Broadcast from Helicopter Police apologized after a lewd conversation about sex was broadcast from the loudspeakers of a police helicopter to a neighborhood below.     Gumbo Seasoning Dispute Gets Spicy  (Panama City (FL) News Herald) Gumbo Seasoning Dispute Gets Spicy A man was arrested on charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon after a work squabble over gumbo seasoning quickly escalated into an armed engagement.     Mermaids, Other Creatures Turn Out for Parade  (Associated Press) Mermaids, Other Creatures Turn Out for Parade Tens of thousands of revelers turned out for Coney Island's 33rd annual Mermaid Parade despite gray skies and steady drizzle.     Newlyweds Win $15 Million in Lottery  (Associated Press) Newlyweds Win $15 Million in Lottery Newlyweds are planning to buy a house, pay off student loans and buy a truck after winning $15 million on an instant scratch-off ticket.     City Slaps Car Sculpture with a Ticket  (CityLab) City Slaps Car Sculpture with a Ticket There must be a traffic officer out there with either no sense of humor or an excellent one, because this weirdly bent truck  an obvious work of public art  just got a parking ticket.     Skinny Jeans Send Woman to Hospital with Nerve Damage  (UPI) Skinny Jeans Send Woman to Hospital with Nerve Damage A doctor has warned against the dangers of so-called "skinny jeans," citing a patient who collapsed after a day of strenuous activity while wearing tight pants.     'Fridgehenge' Welcomes Solstice with Refrigerators  (UPI) 'Fridgehenge' Welcomes Solstice with Refrigerators An appliance store owner celebrated the summer solstice by creating "Fridgehenge," a Stonehenge-inspired monument made from refrigerators.     Brave Kitty Stares Down Mountain Lion  (Reuters) Brave Kitty Stares Down Mountain Lion A video of an unfazed, fluffy house cat staring down a large mountain lion as the predator paws at a kitchen window has gone viral.     Bleating Beauties: Village Holds Goat Pageant  (UPI) Bleating Beauties: Village Holds Goat Pageant A village celebrated the 645th anniversary of its founding by holding a beauty pageant for the most attractive local goats.     Flight Video Catches Cat Stowing Away on Plane Wing  (UPI) Flight Video Catches Cat Stowing Away on Plane Wing A pilot shared video from an ultralight plane flight featuring a feline stowaway crawling out from inside a wing after takeoff.     Smuggler Hides Cigarettes in Buddha Statues  (Sky News) Smuggler Hides Cigarettes in Buddha Statues Officers found five colored fiberglass statues of Buddha, all filled with cigarettes.     Pilots Warned of 70,000 Homing Pigeons  (Associated Press) Pilots Warned of 70,000 Homing Pigeons Airplane pilots have been advised to fly with special care after 70,000 homing pigeons were released to participate in a race back to their homes.     Bank Robber Who Stopped for Biscuits Gets Prison  (Associated Press) Bank Robber Who Stopped for Biscuits Gets Prison A man who was arrested for robbing a bank when he stopped to eat biscuits at a nearby restaurant will spend two to four years in prison.     Man Drives Himself to Station, Asks for DUI Arrest  (Associated Press) Man Drives Himself to Station, Asks for DUI Arrest A man drove under the influence of alcohol to a small-town police station, where he requested that officers arrest him.     66 Surfers Set Record for Most People Riding a Board at Once  (Associated Press) 66 Surfers Set Record for Most People Riding a Board at Once Surf champions and local heroes were among those who hung loose on a custom built, 42-foot board.     Father Sends Lookalike to Paternity Test  (International Business Times) Father Sends Lookalike to Paternity Test A young father who did not want to pay child support was called highly manipulative in court after he sent a look-alike to his DNA paternity test.     Cabbie Drives Taxi Down Three Flights of Stairs  (UPI) Cabbie Drives Taxi Down Three Flights of Stairs A taxi driver who apparently got confused on a college campus became a viral star when he decided to drive his cab down three flights of stairs. In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. In his latest film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore takes more than a few swipes at President Ronald Reagan, essentially asserting that under Reagan's watch, the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. During the Reagan era, he said, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Moore is correct that the top marginal tax rate  the rate of income tax charged to an individual on their last dollar of earnings  decreased from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1989. That's not the same as saying the richest had their taxes cut in half. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent on earnings over $161,300. The rate was substantially lower for the income earned below that. For example, that year, there were no taxes on the first $2,300 of income; 14 percent on income between $2,300 and $4,400; and on up via a graduated scale. So if you made $162,000 in 1980, for example, you paid far less on average than 70 percent of your income in federal taxes. The marginal tax rate also doesn't take into account various available deductions and tax credits, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. When Reagan revamped the tax code and dropped the top marginal tax rates to 50 percent in 1982, and then down to 28 percent by 1988, he also closed some of the tax loopholes available to people at the top. It's much fairer, we think, to look at effective individual income tax rates. That's the actual percentage of income that people paid in income taxes, factoring in not only the graduated percentages along the marginal tax rate scale, but also the deductions and tax credits that people were entitled to. In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent. If you widen the field and consider the top 10 percent of earners, instead of just the top 1 percent,the drop in effective individual income tax rate was about the same, just over 10 percent. For middle incomes, the effective individual income tax rate also dropped, from 8 percent to 6 percent. That's a 25 percent decrease. In other words, it wasn't just the rich who saw their income tax rates drop under Reagan. One more thing. When the top marginal tax rate dropped between 1980 and 1989, it went from 70 percent on earnings over $161,300 in 1980 to 28 percent on earnings over $128,810 in 1989. Obviously, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Did the rich get richer during the Reagan years? Yes. And Moore is technically correct when he says that the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. But we suspect some may mistake that for the richest having their taxes cut in half. In fact, we first began to look at this claim from a fact sheet provided on Moore's Web site before the movie was publicly released. And in the fact sheet, it states that the richest had their taxes cut in half. We were prepared to give that a False, as the effective tax rate for the richest was cut by about 10 or 11 percent. But in the movie, Moore describes it as the top income tax rate, apparently referring to the highest marginal rate. As we said, some may misinterpret that, but we think Moore has been careful enough with his words to get a Mostly True. A scam that circulated on Facebook in late March 2021 claimed that anyone who shared and commented on a post would receive a bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher after validating their entry at a link included in the post (archived here). here   The text in the post read: To celebrate the great news of Walmart becoming plastic bags free by the end of 2021, we are giving one of these Walmart gift-bags to everyone who has shared & commented by 7pm 24th March,.Each person who does this will receive one of these gift bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher. After that, Validate your entry @https://bit.ly/2Qq4gwy Snopes spoke with a representative from the chain supermarket, who confirmed that the post was fake. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by Walmart. We take any fraud impacting our customers seriously and continue to implement and improve upon measures designed to help guard against various consumer scams, Walmart spokesperson Casey Staheli told Snopes. The scam may have been inspired by an announcement made by Walmart on Feb. 21 declaring it was reducing its use of plastic bags. As part of the Beyond the Bag Challenge, an international consortium of large-scale vendors, Walmart announced that stores in Mexico and Central America would go fully bagless  and nearly three-quarters of stores in Mexico had stopped providing plastic bags by December 2020. announcement fully bagless Walmart stores also launched a pilot program in Vermont by implementing a reusable bags only requirement after it banned the use of plastic shopping bags in all stores effective July 2020, reported Vermont Biz. Vermont Biz However, the retailer did not make a promise to ban plastic bags from all its stores, nor did it offer any sort of gift bag or store credit for those that shared and commented on a Facebook post. For help identifying other potential scams, Walmart encourages consumers to visit the Fraud Alerts section on its website. Fraud Alerts Correction [March 25, 2021]: Vermont's "paper bag only" requirement was updated to reflect its newly imposed reusable bag only policy. Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009. In October 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a free carton of Marlboro cigarettes as a celebration of the brand's 100th anniversary:   The embedded links involved a variety of URLs (like the one above), some of which included entirely unrelated scam-bait terms like "iTunes" and "Apple." Users who clicked through to claim their purported free carton of Marlboros were routed to a page reading "Marlboro is Giving FREE Carton of Cigarettes to celebrate 100th Anniversary (150 Cartons Remaining)," which cloned the style of Facebook-based content (but was hosted on a non-Facebook URL):   As noted, URLs visible in the posts didn't point to any credible domains (or any sites linked to Altria, the brand's parent company). Marlboro didn't appear to even maintain any social media accounts, and the brand's official web site was locked to registered users only. So while no official refutations were issued, it seemed safe to assume cigarette brands largely refrained from participating on Facebook (or creating promotions that could land them afoul of strict tobacco advertising laws). By now, most social media users are familiar with survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as bait by scammers (seeking personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users).  Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. While Marlboro occasionally sends coupons to registered customers, tobacco advertising and promotion is heavily restricted (including a prohibition on free samples) and is highly unlikely to ever occur on social media in the manner posited above. restricted [05/05/20] CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the date of Marlboro's 50th anniversary. That reference has been removed. Editor's note: Shortly after this article was published, U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. You can read more about Trump's veto here from the Associated Press. The original article continues below. Associated Press House Resolution 6395, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), was surprisingly controversial during the final weeks of 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the military budget bill, which passed the House and Senate with more than a two-thirds majority vote, because it did not call for the removal of Section 230, an unrelated piece of legislation that provides internet publishers legal immunity from third-party content.  threatened to veto Section 230 On Dec. 22, 2020, conservative commentator Chuck Callesto claimed that there was another reason Trump might want to veto the bill. Callesto wrote that the NDAA contained a provision that "Nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act."   While Callesto presents his claim as if he is quoting directly from the bill, the phrase "nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act" does not appear anywhere in the NDAA (which numbers 1,480 pages, not 5,893 as Callesto claimed), the full text of which can be found here.  here Insurrection Act House Amendment 833 It's a bit of a moot point, however, as this amendment did not make it into the final bill. As of this writing, the NDAA does not include any language pertaining to the Insurrection Act.  The Hill reported on Dec. 6 that the amendment pertaining to the Insurrection Act was removed as Congress debated the NDAA: reported The NDAA also includes a modest rebuke of Trumps use of Pentagon funding on his southern border wall. The compromise includes House-passed language capping emergency military construction spending at $100 million annually for domestic projects. Trump took $3.6 billion from military construction funds to build the wall. The compromise jettisoned some rebukes of Trump, including House-passed language to restrict a presidents Insurrection Act powers and block funding for a nuclear test. But this year stands in stark contrast to last year, when most of House Democrats efforts to box in Trump on defense policy were stripped from the final product. In summary, the viral tweet claiming that the NDAA "nullified" the Insurrection Act is based on a House amendment proposed in July that would have restricted (not nullified) the president's use of the Insurrection Act. This amendment, which would have required the president to make certifications to Congress before invoking the Insurrection Act, did not make it into the final form of the legislation.