A tax plan promoted by North Carolina Senate candidate Thom Tillis will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy.
Controversial changes to North Carolinas tax code passed under Thom Tillis leadership are now a target in his Senate campaign. In 2013, the North Carolina government received national attention for a wave of conservative legislation. The Republican-dominated General Assembly -- with Tillis as speaker of the House -- passed laws increasing voter ID requirements, lowering business regulations, upping restrictions on abortion providers,tightening education spendingand trimming unemployment benefits. Now, Patriot Majority USA, a liberal political action committee, hasreleased a television adsaying Tillis policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. The ad notes in particular thetax legislationenacted last summer -- which Tillis touts in his campaign against incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. The ad says Tillis is cozy with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who cofounded Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative PAC. And his policies are designed to benefit people like them. Thom Tillis thinks the wealthy, like the Koch brothers, deserve tax breaks, while teachers get a pay freeze, the ad says. Tillis thinks corporations like the ones owned by the Koch brothers should also get tax breaks, while seniors see their pensions taxed and pay more for prescription drugs. Thom Tillis: He may not be a Koch brother, but he certainly treats them like family. At one point, text on the screen says the Tillis tax plan will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. We looked into it and found that the law does not overtly harm those at lower-income levels, but the wealthy reap more of the benefits. Lets go to the numbers. Income taxes Supporters of the tax plan most often point to the reduced income tax rate, which they say cuts taxes for people in every income bracket. Thats true. However, people in higher-income brackets get bigger cuts than those in the lowest brackets. The income taxpart of the law sets the rate for everyone at 5.75 percent. Previously, the state had a graduated three-tier system, with rates of 6 percent for the lowest earners, and rates of 7 percent and 7.75 percent for higher earners. The lowest earners tax rates shrunk only marginally -- 0.25 points, while higher earners rates went down 1.25 and 2 points, respectively. Lower earners get a small break, though, in the income tax changes. The child tax credit goes from $100 to $125 per child for those earning below $40,000. The North Carolina Legislatures Fiscal Research Divisioncalculated how muchpeople in various scenarios would owe on average based on the changes to the income tax (other tax changes not included). Heres a sample of what they found: Scenario Tax owed before change Tax owed after change Change in taxes owed Married, two children, $20,000 income $40 $38 -$2 -5% change Married, two children, $250,000 income $15,832 $13,398 -$2,434 -15% change Married, no children, $20,000 income $540 $288 -$252 -47% change Married, no children, $250,000 income $16,142 $13,398 -$2,744 -17% change Single, $20,000 income $870 $719 -$151 -17% change Single, $250,000 income $17,858 $13,786 -$4,072 -22% change  In none of the scenarios examined by the Fiscal Research Division do people owe more in income taxes than they did under the previous tax code. But some benefit more than others. Theres no question who benefits the most -- the people at the upper end of the income distribution, said Lawrence Zelenak, a tax law professor at the Duke University School of Law, which is in North Carolina. For most people, it hardly makes any difference. But the people who get the major decrease have incomes of $200,000 or more. Other changes Critics say the new tax law also disproportionately benefits the wealthy because the Legislature did not renew -- effectively eliminating -- the State Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a refundable tax credit for low-income workers. In 2011, about 907,000 North Carolina tax filers claimed the state EITC, according to theNorth Carolina Justice Center, a liberal advocacy group. The maximum credit ranges between $24 for a single person and $302 for a family with three or more children. Additionally, the Legislature expanded the sales tax base -- making more goods and services subject to the tax, which everyone pays regardless of income. The tax base widened to include natural gas, electricity and some entertainment services, including admissions charges. The law also eliminated North Carolinas sales tax holidays and several sales tax exemptions, such as those for newspapers, vending machines and meals sold in schools. Opponents of raising the sales tax andother regressive taxessay they are unfairly burdensome on lower-income people because a higher percentage of their income is subject to these taxes than wealthier people. For example, if two people -- one making $500 a week and the other making $2,000 a week -- spend $100 each on groceries, the person with the lower income is spending a greater share of their income on these taxed items than the person with a higher income. Its worth noting that in 2011 -- Tillis first year as speaker -- the Legislature reduced sales tax rates from 5.75 percent to 4.75 percent. Tillis andother Republicansalso say the new laws reductions in corporate tax rates (down from 6.9 percent to 5 percent, and 3 percent if certain parameters are met) will bring business and jobs to North Carolina, which will benefit everyone and bring in more revenue over the long term. In total, the new tax code will reduce tax-collected revenue by about $684 million between 2013 and 2015, according to the Fiscal Research Division. Less revenue means less money for the state to spend on social programs, which hurts people in low income brackets, Zelenak said. Even if the law does not obviously harm poor people, this is a possible indirect effect. Our ruling A Patriot Majority USA ad said Tillis tax plan would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. North Carolinas tax code saw a wide array of changes in 2013 under Tillis leadership. We found that changes to the income tax code reduced taxes for everyone, but much more for wealthier people than lower-income people. Additionally, sales tax expansions, less government revenue and eliminating the state EITC are especially burdensome on poorer people. But some changes -- such as the increased child credit for lower-income tax filers and the possibility of more jobs and business due to lowered corporate tax rates -- could benefit the whole. Overwhelmingly is a strong word. For that reason, we rate this claim Mostly True.
Although nearly everyone who still writes checks uses the sequentially numbered forms torn from books of blanks ordered from a printing company, there is no requirement that a bank customer must use such forms.  Indeed, that fact has given rise to a number of tales about checks written on surfaces other than paper: surfaces other than paper A check doesn't necessarily have to be written on paper. There are legends, probably apocryphal, of checks written on the backs of shirts (by tax protesters) and on watermelon rinds (by goodness knows whom -- maybe madcap farmers), even on skin. If they were written in the right format, they could be cashed. [A check] can be written on anything. As long as it has the elements, the surface doesn't make a difference. A check is an order to pay someone, that's all it is.	  "It has to contain certain features, and it can be written on anything," says Brian Black, managing director of operations and technology for the Bank Administration Institute. "As long as it has the elements, the surface doesn't make a difference. A check is an order to pay someone, that's all it is." In that vein, the story of the check written on the side of a cow is so widespread that major banks reportedly make reference to it in pamphlets given out to new depositors as an example of some of the unusual things people have used as checks. Nonetheless, it's a completely fabricated tale, and it sprang straight from the adventures of one Albert Haddock, the fictitious and fanciful creation of British writer A.P. Herbert.   Herbert's book Uncommon Law was first published in 1935. Herbert himself was called to the English Bar but never practiced, choosing another career path instead. He was a regular contributor to Punch for more than fifty years and the author of eight novels. He became a member of Parliament in 1935 and fought successfully for the reform of many licensing, divorce, and obscenity laws. Okay, now you know a bit about the author.  As for his wondrous creation, Albert Haddock, here's a bit from the introduction to Uncommon Law:  Albert Haddock made his first public appearance in Punch about 1924. I have always understood that I invented him, but he has made some disturbing escapes into real life. The first of the first series of Misleading Cases shown by the BBC on television in 1967 was No. 32 "Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock" where Haddock, in payment of income tax, made out a cheque on a cow and led it to the office of the Collector of Taxes. Some weeks later I received a spacious cutting from an American newspaper (the Memphis Press-Scimitar) headed:  A CHECK CAN BE WRITTEN ON A COW The article made not the slightest reference to me, my work, or the BBC, but used as news all Haddock's arguments and opinions on unconventional cheques. Halfway through, it suddenly claimed the authority of the Chase Manhattan Bank for the particular case of the cow: 'In the 19th century an Englishman named Albert Haddock got mad at the local tax collector over his bill and conceived a most ingenious idea for getting even.' Then followed the whole story. 19th century indeed! Haddock wasn't a real person any more than Sherlock Holmes was. A.P. Herbert loved writing about the law, so he created Haddock as an ongoing character upon whom he could hang his fanciful stories. The BBC's Misleading Cases comedy series, based on the exploits of the fictional Albert Haddock, used this one of Herbert's tales for its premier episode ("The Negotiable Cow," originally aired 20 June 1967), and someone at the Memphis Press-Scimitar picked up on it, didn't get the joke, and presented it as something that really happened. Not content to leave well enough alone, the Press-Scimitar threw in the bit about the Chase Manhattan Bank to lend an extra bit of believability to the tale. Misleading Cases One wonders how many cattle have been led into the Chase Manhattan Bank over the years thanks to the Press-Scimitar's gullibility. (NOTE: A number of Internet sources cite the 1985 edition of Michael Liepner's Applying the Law as documentation of the claim that "In Canada during the 1930s, a farmer painted a cheque on the side of a cow and cashed it."  This citation is erroneous: the referenced book contains no such statement.) Herbert, A.P.  Uncommon Law.
  New York: International Polygonics, 1935.  ISBN 1-55882-107-4.

 Wansell, Geoffrey.  "Cash on the Hoof for A.P. Herbert."
  The [London] Times.  27 August 1990.

 CNN Money.  "Giant Cardboard Checks."
  22 March 2001. One of the most iconic masks to feature prominently in movie history is that worn by the crazed killer character of Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise of slasher films, the first installment of which was released in 1978. But according to rumor, this frightful face originated with a character from a very different series and medium: Captain Kirk and television's Star Trek.   The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have funds for creating a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and applied a few alterations to it to create the iconic look of Michael Myers: interview There was a choice we had to make, because we didnt have any money to make a mask. So the art director went up to Bert Wheeler's magic shop on Hollywood Boulevard, which was right up the street from our offices, and he got two masks. One was a clown mask, and one was a Captain Kirk mask. It was supposed to be Captain Kirk. It looked nothing like William Shatner, nothing like anybody, really. It was just a strange mask, which was perfect for us. So we spray-painted it, altered the eye holes and just did a couple things with the hair  and there you had it. I like to think it's Shatner, but it's not really. Similar versions of the story have been told by other members of the crew, including Rick Sternbach, who worked as illustrator/designer on Halloween 2, and William Shatner (who portrayed Captain Kirk) himself: Sternbach's story is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact: fact I was hired as an illustrator on Halloween 2 in 1981, working for production designer J. Michael Riva. In a supply cabinet at Pumpkin Pie Productions, we had one mask left from the original Halloween and no idea where to get any others for the sequel. It appeared that we'd need to go check out some of the toy stores and such, but I noticed that there was some wording molded into the neck area. There was a model number and [the words] "Don Post Studios." I made a call, read off the model number, and the word came back "it's our Captain Kirk mask." I asked if we could buy a number of them, and was told "We'll give you a box, just give us credit." With that, I turned the official dealings over to the higher-ups. Brush with greatness. Although Boeing may someday introduce a commercial airliner designated with the number 797, and although the company's Phantom Works (advanced research and development) unit may have researched the potential of blended-wing-body (BWB) aircraft design for military applications, Boeing is not currently developing a blended-wing aircraft for commercial use, nor does the image displayed below represent any aircraft (or prototype thereof) designed or produced by that company: Phantom Works researched BWB   Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre.The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747s 211 feet,and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come. There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbuss $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380s 570 mph (912 km/h)The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy. This image is a conceptual picture from a Popular Science article about the future of aviation (one which proved so popular that it was made available for purchase in poster form) and has been circulated since at least early 1996 in fictitious articles proclaiming it to be Boeing's response to competition from the Airbus A380 in the commercial airliner business. articles A Boeing company blog produced by Randy Baseler, former vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, tackled this subject back in November 2006: tackled From Boulder, Colorado, Walter brings up a topic we frequently get questioned about: the "blended wing" concept. Earlier this year an image of a blended wing "797" made the rounds of the Internet, and got speculation swirling that Boeing has this in the works. Is there any truth to the emails showing a blended wing 1,000-passenger concept that is dubbed a Boeing 797? Makes sense that the airline industry would head this direction some day, but it just sounds too good to be true! Yes, too good to be true, indeed, Walter. Someone was having a bit of fun with PhotoShop perhaps. Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand. Glen, from Warrington, Pennsylvania brings up the same subject: Is there a blended wing in the works? Are there floor plans of it? No, not for a commercial airplane. But having said that, I should point out that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development group, tells me it is conducting research on the BWB concept with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. They're working to better understand what they describe as the BWB's "fundamental edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics" and structural characteristics. The Air Force is interested in the BWB concept for its potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft. As part of the research, Phantom Works has built a scale model for wind-tunnel testing of the concept's low-speed flying characteristics. There also are plans to flight-test the scale model next year. In 2017, Boeing released a teaser image at the Paris Air Show hyping a medium-range, "middle-market airplane" under development that industry observers unofficially christened "Boeing 797," but that was neither the real name of the aircraft nor did the visualization include a blended-wing design. image Baseler, Randy.  "Air Mail."
  Randy's Journal.  1 November 2006. Ostrower, Jon.  "World Gets First Peek at Boeing '797.'"
  CNN Money.  20 June 2017. Boeing.  "Boeing to Begin Ground Testing of X-48B Blended Wing Body Concept."
 27 October 2006. NewTechSpy.  "Boeing to Take on Airbus with (1,000 Seat) Giant 797 Blended Wing Plane."
  24 April 2006. FACT CHECK: Is the city of Seattle forcing local businesses to comply with Sharia law?  Claim: The mayor of Seattle has "launched" a new "rule" forcing businesses to comply with Sharia law.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   Seattle is exploring options to make home loans accessible to Muslims who are unable to participate in standard mortgage programs due to religious proscriptions.     WHAT'S :  Seattle businesses are being forced to comply with tenets of sharia law. Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, July 2015] Seattle Mayor Planning to Force Banks to Give Sharia Compliant Homes Loans to Local Muslims https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB  Warner Todd Huston (@warnerthuston) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Seattle's Liberal Mayor Caves To Muslims Following Sharia Law - BuzzPo https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r  EMERSON E.RODRIGUES (@EMERSON_NALITA) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Mayor, no Sharia law applies in America!! Stop this unconstitutional junk. https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx  Bunch (@bunch1243) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Origins:On 17 July 2015, the unreliable web site Conservative Tribune published an article titled "ALERT: Seattle Mayor Launches Rules to Force Local Businesses to Comply With SHARIAH LAW" claiming that: article In one major American city, new rules may force banks to comply with Shariah law on lending and interest. One of the major tenets of Shariah law is that Muslims cannot pay interest on loans. In countries with large Muslim populations, theres something known as Islamic banking, which manages to get around this through various machinations. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to see that change, and hes apparently willing to force banks into Shariah-compliant lending if necessary. This means that, if it passes, Seattle will be the first city in America to mandate that its banks allow access to Shariah-compliant financing.  That claim was sourced to the TeaParty.org site's article "Seattle Mayor Offers Plan for Sharia-Compliant Housing Rules," which offered the following visual: article That article was a word-for-word copy of a Puget Sound Business Journal article about a potential plan by the mayor of Seattle to help Muslims obtain home loans to buy houses.  Quoting both Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Seattle-area Chapter Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari, the article explained that the city was examining housing options available to home-buying Muslims who are prohibited from participating in the traditional American housing market due to religious restrictions that prohibit them from obtaining standard home loans (despite their having desirable credit profiles): article   For some Muslims, it can be hard to buy a house, and Mayor Ed Murray plans to do something about it. Murray's housing committee released its recommendations for ways the city can increase housing in the city. Most ideas were what you'd expect, including increasing the city's housing levy and implementing new rules and regulations to foster development of market-rate and lower-income housing. One suggestion would help followers of Sharia law buy houses. That's virtually impossible now because Sharia law prohibits payment of interest on loans. The 28-member committee recommended the city convene lenders and community leaders to explore options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products. More and more lenders are offering Sharia-compliant financing. The sector has grown to more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide over the past three decades, and analysts see potential for continued growth as the number of Muslims in the United States and Europe grows. Based on what he called "rough anecdotal evidence," Bukhari estimated a couple hundred people aren't borrowing money for houses due to their religion. He said this includes even high-wage earners, such as the more than 1,000 Muslims who work for Microsoft and more than 500 Amazon.com  employees. They could easily qualify for home loans but opt not to apply "simply because they don't want to pay interest," Bukhari said. "We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," Murray said. The overall topic of Seattle-area Muslims and banking products was also addressed in another Puget Sound Business Journal article about retirement plans. According to that piece, CEO Thom Poulson of Falah Capital is working to facilitate opportunities for Muslim tech workers to access products such as 401(k)s and mortgages previously inaccessible to them due to religious barriers: article   It's estimated that more than 1,000 Muslims in the Puget Sound region work for Microsoft, and for those who closely follow their faith, it can be difficult to participate in the company's retirement plan. That's because Sharia law forbids them from investing in funds with holdings in companies that peddle pornography, alcohol and other vices. It's almost impossible for retirement funds to guarantee all their investments are free from those kinds of businesses. This has become an issue for workers at other tech companies, too. "You have people who aren't getting the full benefits of their employer's offering," said Thom Polson, CEO of a new Seattle company, Falah Capital LLC, which works with Muslims to ensure they're investing while staying true to their beliefs. In partnership with Seattle-based Russell Investments and IdealRatings of San Francisco, Falah set up its first Islamic exchange traded fund (ETF) last fall. Listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "FIA," the Russell-IdealRatings Islamic US Large Cap Index, the ETF is the first of its kind on the exchange. Polson said a large percentage of the Muslims who work at tech firms are not using their 401(k) plans because they're not Sharia-compliant. "All of our advisory business is about addressing these needs," Polson said, adding his company is working with clients from the Muslim Association of the Puget Sound. The association has a large community center with a mosque in Redmond near Microsoft's headquarters. Next up for Fallah is a possible foray into home mortgages so clients can buy houses without taking out interest-bearing loans, which is against Sharia law. As part Seattle Mayor Ed Murray's landmark housing initiative, the city plans to work with lenders to help observant Muslims buy homes.   What these articles address are efforts to help businesses  service a significant portion of the local Seattle-area working population who are unable to utilize those business' current offerings  due to religious limitations, not to force businesses to comply with tenets of sharia law.  Mayor Murray's 13 July 2015 "Action Plan to Address Seattles Affordability Crisis" merely included a policy point of "explor[ing] the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products," not mandating that any local businesses offer such products: Action Plan  Support the Community in Finding Housing Tools for Sharia-Compliant Lending: For our low- and moderate-income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law  which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money  there are limited options for financing a home. Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions. The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle.   Last updated: 17 July 2015 Originally published:  17 July 2015 On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor (and 2008 vice presidential pick) Sarah Palin called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, because the character was always "white" in the "Bible": article The announcement that Mall of America was welcoming its first black Santa Claus was greeted in many quarters as a good thing but, as might be expected in a country that has become increasingly more comfortable saying any racist thing that comes to mind, many were highly offended ... Among many who were offended by this move was former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The sharp-tongued Republican wasted no time in condemning the companys actions, going on social media and posting comments that called for boycotting and running Mall of America into the ground, on the basis of Santa always having been white in the Bible. No, I refuse to believe that they went this far in trying to cater to the minorities, I thought the company had some backbone but I guess I was wrong, Palin told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. She also argued that hiring a non-white Santa Claus was the last straw in corporate Americas twisting of traditional, conservative Christian values, because they realized they couldnt make any more money off of the usual scams and techniques theyve been using so far. She added, Thats why they had to come up with something new and out of the box, at least something that appeared that way in their minds. But, this proves that they have no morals and that they wont shy away from even the most blatant twisting of traditional Christian values, just so they could make more money. I understand having to make a profit in order to get by and have a good life, but I dont understand stomping on things that are holy and sacred in order to accomplish that ... Americans, especially white ones, need to boycott the company and need to run it into the ground, so that they never ever come up with such an offensive and sacrilegious idea again, Palin added.  Like all items published by Politicops, (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the tacked on fabrication is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details. Santa Newslo Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article. fake news However, all articles display by default in "hide facts" mode, so most readers view articles (or their headlines on social media) without embellishments marked:  Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought that a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape women would try to "get raped" in order to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die, but was kidnapped by demons. Viagra Bible-based hunger tests Ted Cruz Mike Pence Brock Turner David Bowie A popular meme circulating since 2011 via the Internet quotes nonagenarian comic actress Betty White thusly:  But while the observation has much of the cadence, attitude and wit that have made White so beloved by American audiences over the years, she never uttered those words and made no bones about it when they were recited to her by a writer for The Guardian: "That's what I hate about Facebook and the internet. They can say you said anything. I never would have said that. I'd never say that in a million years." The Guardian So, who did say it? Partial credit goes to New York standup comedian Sheng Wang, who delivered a lengthier version of the joke on the 28 January 2011 episode of Comedy Central Presents: Sheng Wang Comedy Central Presents A friend said to me, "Hey you need to grow a pair. Grow a pair, Bro." It's when someone calls you weak, but they associate it with a lack of testicles. Which is weird, because testicles are the most sensitive things in the world. If you suddenly just grew a pair, you'd be a lot more vulnerable. If you want to be tough, you should lose a pair. If you want to be real tough, you should grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding. And it appears that Wang's routine borrowed heavily from a bit by comedian Hal Sparks, "Pussy Is Tougher," which aired on Showtime in 2010. Pussy Is Tougher Cragg, Michael."Betty White: TV's Golden Girl on 63 Years in Show Business."
The Guardian.9 November 2012. An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation   3. Declaring an amount  say $1 million  as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices.  Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving.  2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012.  So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000.  Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator  Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?"
Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy."
Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016. In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities. May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an expos of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart. A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a "pay-for-play" scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation  The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction insofar as it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security  uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves (a fraction re-estimated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at closer to one-tenth of the United States' uranium production capacity in 2017)  thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits. one-tenth During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million, Schweizer claimed in Clinton Cash. Among those who followed Schweizer in citing the transaction as an instance of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City: speech Hillary Clintons State Department approved the transfer of 20% of Americas uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Trump's campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton "gave American uranium rights to the Russians": press release ad  An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, "So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?"   The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton's to Veto or ApproveAmong the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can.  nine law All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton "never intervened" in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn't personally involved. said said There Is No Evidence That Uranium Went to Russia That a change of company ownership occurred doesn't mean that 10 to 20 percent of America's uranium literally went to Russia. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ (Rosatom's mining subsidiary) is licensed to export uranium from the U.S. to other countries. Some exports did occur, however. A 2015 letter from NRC official Mark Satorius to a member of Congress revealed that an unspecified amount of yellowcake (semi-processed) uranium was shipped from a Uranium One facility in Wyoming to Canada between 2012 and 2014 for conversion (additional processing to prepare it for enrichment). A portion of that uranium was subsequently shipped to enrichment plants in Europe. letter The transfers to Canada were legal despite Uranium One's not holding an export license because the NRC granted such a license to the company that transported it. The transfers to Europe were legal because they were approved by another agency, the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Satorius stressed that the transfers were subject to NRC oversight and all applicable safety and national security regulations: Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services  or any other export license or license amendment  the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements. Additionally, a small amount of that exported uranium was, in fact, sold to other countries. According to a 2 November 2017 article in The Hill, Uranium One officials acknowledged that approximately 25 percent of the yellowcake exported for conversion was subsequently sold via "book transfer" to customers in Western Europe and Asia (yellowcake being a fungible commodity, that doesn't necessarily translate to a physical transfer of the product, however). article To date, there is no evidence that any of this uranium made its way to Russia. An NRC spokesman cited by FactCheck.org in October 2017 reaffirmed Satorius's assurances that "the U.S. government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia." NRC officials also say they're unaware of any Uranium One exports from the U.S. to foreign countries since 2014. cited The Timing of Most of the Clinton Foundation Donations Does Not MatchOf the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share  $131.3 million  came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.  came sold off Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times  Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company's chairman: according His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra's charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. "Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years," he said.  In addition to the Clinton Foundation donations, the New York Times also cited a $500,000 speaking fee paid to former president Bill Clinton by a Russian investment bank in June 2010, before the Uranium One deal was approved: The $500,000 fee  among Mr. Clinton's highest  was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences. Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One's stock, assigning it a "buy" rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was "the best play" in the uranium markets. The timing of Telfers Clinton Foundation donations and Bill Clinton's Renaissance Capital speaking fee might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary  that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all. Moreover, neither Clinton nor her department possessed sole power of approval over said transaction. Foundation Admits to Disclosure MistakesOne fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation's practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed  specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells: pledged discussion It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors. Such awkward collisions between Bills fundraising activities and Hillarys public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a former U.S. secretary of state and presidential candidate, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more. At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it's crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it  however little that may be. Update On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval  information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony "indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clintons charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal. reported On 24 October 2017, the U.S. House intelligence and oversight committees announced the launch of a joint investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Russian purchase of Uranium One. announced Becker, Jo and McIntire, Mike."Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal."
The New York Times.23 April 2015. Becker, Jo and Van Natta Jr., Don."After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton."
The New York Times.31 January 2008. Diamond, Jeremy and Collinson, Stephen."Trump: Clinton Is a 'World-Class Liar.'"
CNN.22 June 2016. Giustra, Frank."Statement of Frank Giustra."
Geo.ca.25 April 2015. Grimaldi, James V., Ballhaus, Rebecca, and Nicholas, Peter."Gifts to Hillary Clintons Family Charity Are Scrutinized in Wake of Book."
The Wall Street Journal.22 April 2015. Herb, Jeremy.  "House Republicans Investigating Obama-Era Uranium Deal."
 CNN.  24 October 2017. Hirsh, Michael."Bill and Hillary's Excellent Adventure."
Politico.25 April 2015. Kessler, Glenn.  "The Repeated, Incorrect Claim that Russia Obtained '20 Percent' of Our Uranium."
 The Washington Post.  31 October 2017. Kiely, Eugene. "The Facts on Uranium One."
FactCheck.org. 1 November 2017. McElveen, Josh.  "CloseUP Rewind: Hillary Clinton's First 1-on-1 Interview Since Declaring."
 WMUR.  27 July 2016. Pilkington, Ed."Clinton Cash: Errors Dog Bill and Hillary Expos  but Is There any 'There' There?"
The Guardian.5 May 2015. Qiu, Linda.  "Donald Trump Inaccurately Suggests Clinton Got Paid to Approve Russia Uranium Deal."
PolitiFact.30 June 2016. Robertson, Lori."Fact Check: Trump's False 'Corruption' Claim."
NBC News.25 October 2015. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison.  "FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Administration Approved Controversial Nuclear Deal with Moscow."
 The Hill.  17 October 2017. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison. "Uranium One Deal Led to Some Exports to Europe, Memos Show."
The Hill. 2 November 2017. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "NRC Approves Transfer of Control of Uranium Recovery Licenses to Russian Firm."
 24 November 2010. U.S. Dept. of Treasury."The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)."
20 December 2012. Updated [17 October 2017]: Added synopsis of new reportage by The Hill. Updated [1 November 2017]: Added clarifications, more sources, and the announcement of a congressional investigation. Correction [16 November 2017]: Previous versions of this article incorrectly stated that no Uranium One-produced uranium had been exported to foreign countries. Virginia Democrats believe they have found evidence showing states that expand their Medicaid rolls are better off than those that reject expansion. Sen. George Barker, D-Fairfax,toldthose gathered for an expansion rally in Woodbridge that hospitals in Medicaid expansion states have fewer patients who cant pay. Those states who have adopted Medicaid expansion, and half of the states have -- what they have seen just in the first few months of this calendar year, 2014  is a reduction in uncompensated care, he said. That means people who show up at the hospital, show up at the emergency department, are uninsured and cant pay anything  charity care thats provided by the hospital  thats gone down by 30 percent just in the first few months. This seems to be an important point for their case, so we wondered about the origin of the figure. First, lets remember how we got here. The Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- gives states the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility. Uncle Sam will pick up the entire tab for new enrollees during the next two years, that slowly declines to 90 percent with states picking up the remaining cost.Virginia has estimated that as many as 400,000 state residents could join Medicaids rolls. The Republican-controlled House of Delegates refused to broaden the program, saying the federal government cant be trusted to pay its promised share. That led to a months-long stalemate between the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate on the states two-year budget. Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, who earned aPromise Brokenby signing a budget that did not include expansion, is exploring whether he can broaden the program without the consent of the legislature. Uncompensated care is a key reason Virginia hospitals have pleaded with legislators to expand Medicaid. Across the country, uncompensated care totaled $45.9 billion in 2012, the most recent year for which data was available, according to the American Hospital Association. It was 6.1 percent of hospitals expenses that year. When we asked Barker about his claim, he sent us a link toan articlefrom Governing magazine. The article citesa studyfrom the Colorado Hospital Association that looked at 30 states, 15 with Medicaid expansion and 15 without. In the states with expansion, hospitals had charity care decreases from an average of $2.8 million per hospital in the first quarter of 2013 to $1.9 million per hospital in the first quarter of 2014, a 32 percent drop. And out-of-pocket charges decreased from 4.7 percent of all charges to 3.1 percent of all charges -- a 34 percent drop. Meanwhile, Medicaid charges surged from 15.3 percent to 18.8 percent, a 19 percent jump. While the survey covered a short period of time, the difference between hospitals in states with Medicaid expansion and those without was stark. States that balked at Medicaid expansion saw little change in their uncompensated care levels, the study found. Governing also linked to Arkansas Democratic Gov. Mike Beebes May 31columnin which he stated 42 hospitals in the state reported an average of 30 percent decline in uncompensated care. For emergency room visits, the hospitals had an average of 24 percent drop in uncompensated care. Beebe said the survey was not comprehensive for every acute-care center in the state, but its a good snapshot of early progress. Tenet Health, a publicly traded company with 80 hospitals in 14 states,reportedthat its hospitals in four states that expanded Medicaid saw a 33 percent decline in uninsured and charity admissions in the first quarter this year. In the second quarter, which ended in June, the numbers improvedeven more. With hospitals in five states that expanded Medicaid, the company had a decline in uninsured and charity admissions of 54 percent. Meanwhile, Medicaid admissions increased 23 percent. We also found an Arizona Daily Stararticlereporting on a survey of hospitals in the state done by the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. In the first four months of 2014, the associations hospitalsreporteda 31 percent drop in uncompensated care expenses compared to the same period in 2013. So this seems to be a broader trend. This is how the law was intended to work, said Gayle Nelson, director of hospital community benefit program at The Hilltop Institute, part of University of Maryland, Baltimore County. This was all part and parcel of the same anticipation that this would happen, she said. The need for uncompensated care would reduce and the funds needed to address uncompensated care would also be reduced  This is good news. Of course, in those states where uncompensated care is reduced, that presumably leaves some resources freed up to be used in other ways. The Governing article said the trend was positive, but hospitals are hoping its enough to offset cuts called for in the Affordable Care Act. The biggest piece of this will be $39 billion in cuts to the Disproportionate Share Hospital program, which helps hospitals that serve the poor. In Virginia, this primarily means the University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University hospitals. Our ruling Barker said hospitals in states with Medicaid expansion have already benefited from a 30 percent drop in uncompensated care. The evidence is based on the first three months after Medicaid expansion took effect and from a few sources. Its early, but he accurately reported the results. The statement is True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In December 2021, a number of social media users expressed confusion and skepticism over a series of books that had been published on Amazon about the new COVID-19 omicron variant. How was it possible, these people wondered, for someone to research, write, and publish a book about a strain of COVID-19 that had been discovered just days or weeks earlier.  social media users expressed confusion   Other social media users commented: How can there be so many books knowing all about the #Omicron variant when we only found out about it 2 weeks ago? Amazing how there are 30 books available on Amazon on the Omicron variant when it was just named Nov 26,this one in particular was published on that date..almost like it was planned Go to Amazon and search "Understanding Omicron Variant" How can scientists do any kind of reputable work, write a book, have it peer reviewed, have it proofed, published AND printed in a couple WEEKS? Can you say scam? There are truly a number of books on Amazon about the omicron variant that were published within days of the announcement by the World Health Organization (WHO) that the new strain had been identified. This isn't proof that the pandemic was "planned," or that it is a "scam." Rather, it's proof of just how quick and easy it is to self-publish a book on Amazon.  Self-publishing authors can submit their books to Amazon in as little as 5 minutes and can see their books up for sale the following day.  Amazon in as little as 5 minutes The social media users quoted above all expressed skepticism that a book about something as complicated as the omicron variant could be researched, written, and edited in a span of just a few days. This skepticism is rightfully placed. The omicron variant books on Amazon that were published in December 2021 likely did not go through rigorous research, writing, or editing phases. Unlike a scholarly journal where material has to go though peer review, anybody can self-publish just about anything on Amazon. The material can contain an infinite amount of typos (no editing), the content doesn't have to be factual (no research), and in some cases the text can be artificially generated or plagiarized (no writing). In other words, just because a book exists on Amazon doesn't mean its content is worth reading.  In March 2020, near the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon was flooded with self-published books about the illness. These books were shoddily put together and often contained plagiarized content. The Guardian reported: Guardian reported As the coronavirus spreads around the world, it is not only health professionals and politicians who are being kept busy. Amazon has been flooded with badly put together, often plagiarised guides to combatting the virus. The retailing giant has already been removing tens of thousands of listings from bad actors attempting to artificially raise prices on items such as face masks and hand sanitiser. Now it is fighting a losing battle against the writers rushing out self-published books to profit from coronavirus fears. Generally shorter than 100 pages, dozens have been published in the last few weeks, promising worried readers ways to prevent or avoid the virus. On Amazon.co.uk on Thursday morning, the top results returned for books about coronavirus included Corbi Yangs Coronavirus, which promised to answer how this virus was identified and what measures have been taken up till now. Running to 44 pages, much of the writing was lifted directly from web pages. While social media users were skeptical of the rash of books published on Amazon about the omicron variant, there was one title that drew special attention. According to social media posts, a book by "Dr. Teresa Bishop" titled "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: All You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed" was copyrighted in 2020, nearly a year before the omicron variant emerged.    How was this possible? How was a book about the omicron variant copyrighted before the emergence of the omicron variant? We reached out to Amazon for some specifics about this title and we will update this article if more information becomes available. For the moment, here's what we know: announced by WHO nonsensical sentences International Standard Book Number database Copyright Public Records Portal   This title is no longer available on Amazon. A few days after this book was removed, Bishop published a similarly titled book "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: Everything You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed Kindle Edition." That book claims a copyright date of 2021.  As Coronavirus Spreads, Hastily Produced Books Capitalize on Fear. Undark Magazine, 6 Mar. 2020, https://undark.org/2020/03/06/coronavirus-books-amazon-outbreak/. Flood, Alison. Amazon Flooded with Self-Published Coronavirus Books. The Guardian, 12 Mar. 2020. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/12/amazon-flooded-with-self-published-coronavirus-books. Matsakis, Louise. Amazon Quietly Removes Some Dubious Coronavirus Books. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-quietly-removes-coronavirus-books/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Self-Published Book on Omicron Was Not Copyrighted before Variant Was Discovered. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/20/facebook-posts/self-published-book-omicron-was-not-copyrighted-va/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Update on Omicron. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2021-update-on-omicron. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021.