Lowe's Email Scam Promises Portable Air Conditioners
In July 2022, during a heat wave across the U.S. and other countries, we reviewed an email that claimed Lowe's Home Improvement was giving away free air conditioners in a sweepstakes. In reality, there was no giveaway, and the email was a scam. Scammers were pretending to be Lowe's in an apparent phishing attempt to get people's personal information, such as credit and debit card numbers. the U.S. other countries scam phishing The scam email read, "CONGRATULATIONS! You are the lucky online winner of a brand new [Lowe's] Sweepstakes BTU Portable Air Conditioner entry!" Lowe's  We advise readers to never click links or call phone numbers that appear in these kinds of scam emails. The links will lead to phishing attempts, and the phone calls will connect you with scammers who likely will try to lure sensitive data from you. advise readers scam Scam emails often contain obvious grammatical errors. Also, the "from" email address in scam emails can look unofficial, another sign of something suspicious going on. For example, instead of an official email address ending with "@lowes.com," the sender may have something like, "help@lowes-security-winner.co.com.cc." This would not be a legitimate email address for Lowe's. The U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) has published a number of articles about the dangers of phishing. In one of its advisories, the agency detailed how these kinds of scams work: one of its advisories Phishing scams tend to follow a pattern. The victim receives an email, phone call or text message (called smishing or SMS phishing). The message urges the target to click a link, share information, call a phone number, or download an attachment which likely contains malware. In the case of an email or text, the link frequently leads to a form, which prompts the target to enter personal information. Think twice before downloading anything from the internet, especially if its an attachment from an anonymous sender. Scammers will hide malware in an attachment and once downloaded, it can wreak havoc on your personal device or steal your personal information. If you're online at home, the scammer may also steal the IP address and then proceed to connect to any other device connected to your home wifi. The BBB also has tips on how to avoid falling victim to these kinds of scams: If something sounds suspicious, call the company directly or checking the company website directly. Dont click on links in an unexpected email  type the URL for the company into the browser or do a web search to find the right website. Dont click, download, or open anything that comes from an anonymous sender. This is likely an attempt to gain access to your personal information or install malware on your computer. Question generic emails. Scammers cast a wide net by including little or no specific information in their fake emails. Always be wary of unsolicited messages that don't contain your name, last digits of your account number or other personalizing information. BBB Tip: Phishing Scams Can Come in Text Messages, Prize Offers. 1 Mar. 2022, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/16758-bbb-tip-phishing-scams. Kirka, Danica, and Jill Lawless. UK Breaks Its Record for Highest Temperature As Heat Builds. Snopes.com via The Associated Press, 19 July 2022, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2022/07/19/uk-breaks-its-record-for-highest-temperature-as-heat-builds/. McLaughlin, Tim, and Brendan OBrien. Record-Breaking U.S. Heat Wave Bakes Americans. Reuters, 20 July 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/coast-coast-us-heat-wave-threatens-tighten-its-grip-2022-07-20/.
In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. voted A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." tweet The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5  Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023 July 13, 2023  However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. replies We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Twitter account July 11, 2023, (Screenshot via Twitter/TheRealOJ32)  Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k  O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023 July 11, 2023  Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. acquitted 2008 Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. acted USA Today Hollywood Reporter won Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike, rather it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption. As such, we rate this claim as False. Barco, Mandalit del. "Hollywood Actors Go on Strike, Say It's Time for Studio Execs to 'Wake Up.'" NPR, 13 July 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187310535/hollywood-actors-strike-sag-aftra.Accessed 14 July 2023. Gardner, Eriq. "O.J. Simpson's Former Attorney F. Lee Bailey Gets Bad News About His SAG-AFTRA Pensions." The Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/oj-simpsons-attorney-f-lee-bailey-gets-bad-news-his-sag-aftra-pensions-1045756/.Accessed 14 July 2023. News, A. B. C. "26 Years Ago, OJ Simpson Was Acquitted: Timeline of His Life and the Sensational Trial." ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-moments-oj-simpsons-life/story?id=48724637. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson | Actor, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001740/. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson Acquitted." HISTORY, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted. Accessed 14 July 2023. Peter, Josh. "O.J. Simpson's Finances Will Be Closely Watched If Paroled." USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/07/19/o-j-simpsons-finances-closely-watched-if-paroled/493639001/. Accessed 14 July 2023. Vercammen, Paul. "O.J. Simpson to Focus on 'friends, Family and Golf,' Live in Gated Community after Release." CNN, 29 Sept. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/o-j-simpson-parole-release-road-to-freedom/index.html.Accessed 14 July 2023. On 26 November 2015, YouTube user BlackFriday Fight uploaded a video ("lady steals from KID! black friday 2015")and comments as shown below:  lady steals from KID! black friday 2015 Im posting anonymous because I don want 2b fired, but I work at this store in saginaw and this lady stole a veggie steamer from a KID on black friday! Shame.  According to the uploader (who conveniently wished to remain anonymous) the footage was captured at an unnamed retail location in Saginaw, Michigan on Black Friday. The video was uploaded on 26 November 2015 (one day prior to Black Friday, which fell on 27 November 2015), but could conceivably have depicted a midnight "doorbuster" sale scenario. The clip depicts a crowd of shoppers descending upon a stack of what appear to be vegetable steamers, which (while possibly attractively priced) weren't on par with Cabbage Patch Kids or Furbys in the genre of "Christmas crazes." We searched for major chain store deals on vegetable steamers in 2015, but were unable to locate any incredible deals matching vegetable steaming gadgetsin any big box stores. As commenters immediately pointed out, the short clip itself featured a number of indicators it was staged. In addition to plausibility (even most vegans have not nearly that much interest in acquiring a vegetable steamer) the "victims" in the clip were first spotted in a frame away from the fracas, walking into the area of the frenzy carrying identical boxes. The clip opened with a rush of shoppers, all of whom appeared to fall to the ground in a dramatic and entirely unnecessary fashion:   The woman whose child was targeted by the box-snatcher didn't appear to enter with other customers, instead appearing far off in a visible aisle already carrying the boxes:   Finally, the purported altercation in which the woman swiped a vegetable steamer box from the hands of a small child occurred while several boxes remained unclaimed nearby. Both shoppers were just inches from the uncontested vegetable steamers, providing no reason for a heartless shopper to target a small child. The circumstances under which the clip was shot have yet to be disclosed, but its early appearance and implausible events suggest the video was staged for attention or a larger prank. (Users across social media commenting on the video widely suspected late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, but no evidence suggested the clip was his work.) Jimmy Kimmel In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked about social media posts and memes that claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump "tricked" them into making recurring campaign donations. For instance, one such meme said contributors to the campaign who though they were making a one-time donation "were unaware the fine print stated they would be billed the same amount every single week until election day." Donald Trump   In many cases, these claims are rather exaggerated, mean-spirited takes on a New York Times story, as we will explain below. As we previously reported, it's true that the Trump campaign was soliciting recurring donations with a pre-checked box, even after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election. It's also true that many Trump supporters demanded refunds from the Trump campaign, although it seems mathematically impossible that the number of people who requested refunds was in the millions (as was claimed in social media posts). New York Times story previously reported The April 3 Times report details the experience of Trump donor Stacy Blatt, a retiree who was in hospice care, suffering from cancer, when he discovered his bank account depleted from those recurring donations. Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaughs dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trumps campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500. It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution  federal records show it was his first ever  quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge  until Mr. Blatts bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help. What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud. Contrary to the takes offered in partisan memes and posts, Blatt and others like him were not "low IQ," but instead, fell victim to the complicated and evolving wording in a pre-checked box on Trump's online donation portal, according to the Times. As a result, the Times reported, the Trump campaign and WinRed, a for-profit company that processed the online donations, were forced to issue $122 million in campaign contribution refunds to people like Blatt. pre-checked box As Election Day neared in November 2020, the Times report described what amounted to a sense of panic that cropped up inside the Trump campaign, as Democrats out-raised and spent them. During that time, the text on the online donation portal for Trump's donation website changed from simply asking donors to make donations a monthly gift, to including a pre-checked box with more complicated text that made donations weekly. asking donors As the election drew closer, text in that bright yellow box went from containing a pre-checked field that in March 2020 simply said, "Make this a monthly recurring donation," to more complicated and emphatic demands by late 2020 that contained fake ultimatums. As of Sept. 30, 2020, the box looked like this: looked like this   As the pre-checked box evolved, the result was an increase in refunds issued to donors who had missed the finer print in the box that allowed the refunds to be weekly recurring. The refunds issued by the Trump campaign outpaced and dwarfed the $21 million in refunds issued by his political rival, now-U.S. President Joe Biden. The effect can be seen in a graph posted by Shane Goldmacher, the Times report's author:  The evolution of the text in the box on Trump's online donation portal can be viewed by clicking on various dates via the Internet Archive. Internet Archive A search for Blatt's name can be found on OpenSecrets.org, a campaign finance transparency tool run by the nonpartisan organization Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. It confirms the Times reporting that Blatt, who listed himself as retired, was billed $500 multiple times by the Trump campaign between mid-September and October 11, 2020. Sadly, Blatt died of cancer in February 2021, according to the Times. found on OpenSecrets.org We sent emails to WinRed and the Trump campaign seeking comment, but didn't get an answer in time for publication. We will update if we do. But we note that in their public statements responding to the Times story that neither Trump nor WinRed refute the financial figures or facts laid out by the Times. Instead, the stance taken by both WinRed and Trump is that the Times' report was unfairly negative about their approach to fundraising. In a series of tweets, WinRed called the Times report a "hit piece" and said WinRed's practices were comparable to that of ActBlue, the fundraising portal that serves Democratic candidates. "So when Republicans do it to stay competitive, its nefarious, and when Dems - who created the technology - do it, its a 'platform for little experiments that gently squeeze even more money out of donors,'" WinRed tweeted. called tweeted In a statement responding to the report, Trump referenced his pre- and post-election disinformation campaign, namely false claims that the 2020 election was beset by a massive-scale voter fraud conspiracy. Like WinRed, Trump said his own fundraising efforts were based on those of ActBlue, and also like WinRed, he claimed that the percentage of donors who formally disputed the charges with their financial institutions was low: statement We learned from liberal ActBlue  and now were better than they are! In fact, many people were so enthusiastic that they gave over and over, and in certain cases where they would give too much, we would promptly refund their contributions. Our overall dispute rate was less than 1% of total online donations, a very low number. This is done by Dems also The Times story reported that WinRed "typically granted [refunds] to avoid more costly formal disputes." It also pointed out that while WinRed is a for-profit company, ActBlue is a non-profit organization. As such, WinRed "makes its money by taking 30 cents of every donation, plus 3.8 percent of the amount given. WinRed was paid more than $118 million from federal committees the last election cycle; even after paying credit card fees and expenses like payroll and rent, the profits are believed to be significant." We reached out to ActBlue for a response to WinRed and Trump's comments. A spokesperson told us by email that the average contribution amount across the platform in 2019-2020 was $38.08. The spokesperson also referred to this portion of the Times report that included a statement by ActBlue: was $38.08 ActBlue said in a statement that it had begun to phase out prechecked recurring boxes unless groups were explicitly asking for recurring contributions. Some prominent Democratic groups, including both congressional campaign committees, continue to precheck recurring boxes regardless of that guidance. Still, Democratic refund rates were only a small fraction of the Trump campaigns last year. On April 7, 2021, Timothy Miller, a writer for the political news site The Bulwark, tweeted that he received a fundraising text from the National Republican Congressional Committee with a similar, pre-checked fundraising box:  Despite aggressive efforts to pursue claims of widespread voter fraud, no evidence was ever presented by the Trump camp that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Biden won by 7 million votes and 74 electoral college points. widespread voter fraud won Claim:  Best Buy is distributing free $1,000 gift cards to users who click an online link.  Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, April 2012] Your entry last month has Won!!  Goto [URL elided] and enter your Winning Code:  3333 to claim your free $1000 BestBuy GiftCard!  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] Your entry last month has Won!  Go to [URL elided]  and enter your winning code 5555 to claim your FREE $1000 Best Buy Gift card within 24 hours.   Origins:  In October 2012, a scam purporting to offer free $1,000 Best Buy gift cards to those who accessed a proffered link then entered a "winning code" spread by cell phone text message. It was a reprise of a March 2012 scam that invoked the name of the same retailer to lure the unwary. Those who attempted to claim the enticing freebie were then led to a web page (which was not operated or sponsored by electronics retailer Best Buy) that asked them to certify they were U.S. residents over the age of 18 and had agreed to the privacy policy and terms and conditions of the site they'd been sent to, the latter being: This Gift Redemption Program is an independent rewards program for consumers and is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by any of the listed products or retailers. Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners. THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. SEE TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Members are being accepted subject to the following Program Requirements: 1) Must be a legal US resident; 2) must be at least 18 years old or older; 3) must have a valid email and shipping address; 4) Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Silver and Gold reward offer page options and nine reward offers from the Platinum reward offer page options and refer 3 friends to do the same. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. Those still in hot pursuit of the promised $1,000 gift cards were then asked to provide their names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, cell phone numbers, and dates of birth, or were taken directly to web pages that required them to select a number of  "free" offers. As always, it was just a con meant to trick the credulous into divulging their personal information and signing up for expensive services. The Better Business Bureau provides this advice on avoiding being victimized by such scams: Better Business Bureau If you receive a questionable or unsolicited text message, check the URL or phone number for free on the Better Business Bureau website. website Most financial institutions, utility, or other business will not communicate with you via text message. If you do not recognize the website or phone number being sent to you, don't visit or call it. Don't e-mail or text personal and financial information. Review your credit card and bank statements to make sure there are no unauthorized charges. Other recent scams of similar construction include: $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks  $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons  Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple  $1,000 Costco gift cards [December 2011] Costco  $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart  Pair of JetBlue air travel tickets [April 2012] JetBlue Last updated:  5 October 2012 When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. If theres one issue that binds Republicans, its a preference for low taxes. So its no surprise that in the first debate of the 2012 presidential campaign -- held May 5, 2011, in Greenville, S.C. -- the topic came up.At one point, Fox News commentator Juan Williams asked Gary Johnson -- the former Republican governor of New Mexico and a strong libertarian -- about corporate taxation.Gov. Johnson, Williams said, the nation's unemployment rate is 8.8 percent and this week, jobless claims rose to their highest level in eight months. Among your proposals for getting the private sector to start hiring are eliminating corporate income tax, doing away with the federal minimum wage law and to stop extending unemployment benefits. Isn't that just a windfall for big business?Johnson responded, Well, absolutely not. I think that repealing, or doing away with the corporate income tax is simply getting us back to where we were. And we need to understand that the corporate income tax is a double tax -- that we all own the corporations, and when income gets distributed to us, we pay the tax on that. So, we have the highest corporate income tax in the world right now. Let's abolish it.We have looked at the question of whether the United States has the highest corporate income tax in the world inpreviousitems, so we thought wed revisit it now.There are two primary ways to compare corporate tax burdens. One is to compare statutory corporate tax rate -- the rate thats actually on the books.The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of more than two-dozen large, industrialized democracies, publishes the rates of its member countries. The most recent data shows Japan on top at39.54 percent, vs. 39.21 percentfor the United States. Japan had been scheduled to cut its corporate tax rate to a level below the United States, but the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster that crippled portions of the country earlier this yearhas left thatin doubt.The other way to look at it is to gauge what firms actually pay, once exclusions and other adjustments are taken into account. This is called the effective tax rate.The World Bank hasassembled datafrom 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand imposed a higher effective rate, according to the World Bank study.The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. It factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky.There's also broader context that Johnson doesn't get into.In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden.Still, Johnsons claim was more limited, addressing only corporate taxation.To be more accurate, Johnson should have said the United States has the highest corporate tax rate rather than the highest corporate taxes. By using the term corporate taxes, Johnson opens the door to the broader World Bank figure, which would put a number of other major countries above the U.S. in the rankings.That way of looking at it would undercut Johnsons argument. On the other hand, he is close to correct when using the two more common benchmarks -- statutory tax rates (in which the U.S. trails only Japan, for now) and effective rates (where the U.S. trails only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand). On balance, we rate Johnsons statement Mostly True. "Smart gals know what it takes to be confident around a masher," reads a vintage-looking magazine as making the social media rounds since mid-2017. rounds What does it take to be confident, according to this print advertisement? A .38 caliber Colt Cobra snub-nose revolver  "for that strange, depraved creep who won't leave you alone."  Here's an example of the ad via Twitter: For that strange depraved creep who wont leave you alone #advertisement pic.twitter.com/tnnTT5HFCH #advertisement pic.twitter.com/tnnTT5HFCH  PANTHERA ? (@Panthera156) March 28, 2018 March 28, 2018  The copy goes on with its pitch as follows: Some lunkheads just won't go away. You change your schedule, you wear a hat, you even try the old false beard gag, but no, he's still there  breathing through his mouth, leering at your bosom with those droopy, lifeless fish eyes. Face it girls, there are times when subterfuge isn't enough  you may need to take fast action, FAST! That's why a girl couldn't find a finer new friend than the Colt Cobra .38 Snub Nose. You'll enjoy the modern styling as you draw it from your purse. You'll sense the velvet smoothness of the action as you cock the hammer. You'll appreciate the crispness of the trigger pull, designed with your long nails in mind, as you fire again and again. Although the overall appearance of the ad is convincing at first glance, the closer one looks the more preposterous its content reveals itself to be. The image is a parody of 1950s advertising, but a number of inconsistencies and anachronisms stand out. The magazine named in the lower righthand corner, for example  "Ladies Life & Household," it's supposedly called  never existed (or if it did, every trace of it has been expunged from modern records). The handgun's finish is described as "Colt's beautiful pacifier blue"  an obvious satirical reference to 1950s gender role stereotypes (if Colt ever manufactured a "pacifier blue" firearm, no examples of it exist to be found today). The pistol shown in the illustration, allegedly a Colt Cobra .38 (the same kind of revolver Jack Ruby used to kill JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963), appears to be a different model altogether. The image matches up fairly closely to one we found in a mid-1970s ad for a Colt Detective Special (third series, introduced in 1973): Colt Cobra .38 Colt Detective Special   And what about that leering creep? The face of the "mouth-breathing lunkhead" with "droopy, lifeless fish eyes" who serves as the villain of the tableau shows unmistakable signs of digital tampering. It isn't just the eyes that droop:    From all of the above it makes sense to suppose that there was an existing scanned image, most likely of another vintage ad, that served as a template for the Colt Cobra parody. A reverse-image search provided instant confirmation that that is the case  the Colt Cobra ad is a reworking of a full-page advertisement for Gleem Toothpaste that appeared on page 110 of Life magazine on 11 February 1957: advertisement   Image credit: SenseiAlan / Flickr SenseiAlan / Flickr Trask, Mike.  "From Jack Ruby to Las Vegas: A Gun's Trajectory."
  Las Vegas Sun.  11 March 2008. In mid-July 2018, a controversy erupted over a graphic artwork displayed in the window of a Portland art gallery that depicted the violent slitting of President Donald Trump's throat with a knife. Although the story was covered by multiple news organizations, many viewers caught wind of it only through encountering the artwork in undetailed social media postings:   This work truly did appear on the window of an art gallery in Portland. It was created by an artist known as "Compton Creep" and was displayed at the One Grand Gallery in Portland, Oregon, as part of a "Fuck You Mr. President" exhibit which opened on 13 July 2018: displayed opened An art gallery in Portland, Oregon, has been criticized for displaying a piece of artwork on the window that depicts President Donald Trumps throat being cut with a knife with the words F**k Trump inscribed underneath. The One Grand Gallery located at 1000 E Burnside Street in Portland, Oregon has a decal of Trump being slashed in the throat with a knife on its window. The photo of the artwork surfaced on Twitter on Tuesday, with many people slamming the gallery for posting the violent image. The "Fuck You Mr President" exhibit featured a number of works critical of President Trump, and the gallery explained in an open call for submissions via their Instagram page that profits from the exhibit would be split between Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center: explained CALL TO ARTISTS: we hate the president and want to let him know. Well be holding a group show for our Fuck You Mr. President exhibit in July and are looking for poster design submissions. Swipe right for show info, and email your submissions to us to info@onegrandgallery.com. All profit from the sales of the prints will be equally split between @plannedparenthood, the @aclu_nationwide, and the National Immigration Law Center. #fucktrump The gallery was particularly criticized for displaying the violent artwork in a window that faced onto a public street. The controversial decal is no longer on display in the gallery's window, having been removed after reports of violent threats: reports A Portland art gallery has taken down controversial image depicting the beheading of President Trump. One Grand Gallery on East Burnside had the image up in their window, but has since removed it after they say they received threats of violence. Gallery organizers said proceeds from this exhibition are going to non-profit groups that have lost funding under the Trump administration. A man identified as the founder of the gallery similarly told KPTV that the gallery had received "continuous threats" over the image: KPTV A Portland art gallery has taken down a window illustration showing a knife to the throat of President Donald Trump. According to a man who identified himself as the One Grand Gallery's founder, who refused to give his name and hid his face from a [TV] crew, the graphic image came down following continuous threats and a request from his landlord. The man also declined to explain why the gallery put the image up in a window, which faces a public street and sidewalk. Reporter Tyler Dumont: "But, I mean, you felt strong enough to put this out here?" Gallery Founder: "Yeah, but people that are responding, are responding with such anger and violence. People want the gallery to go up in flames with my family." KATU reported that in addition to the threats, the gallery also received a warning from the owners of the building stating that the display of the artwork was a violation of the gallery's lease: "The owner of the building [said] as soon as he found out about the image, he told the gallery they have 12 hours to remove the image or they were in breach of their lease." Artist Compton Creep said of his work that "It should provoke your mind, even if it makes you uncomfortable, it should be thought provoking ... It's just art man, if you don't like it, don't look at it. If you dig it, cool." Compton Creep Azar, Kellee.  "Portland Gallery Takes Down Controversial Trump Artwork from Window."   KATU-TV.  17 July 2018. Dumont, Tyler.  "Portland Art Gallery Takes Down Violent Trump Illustration After Threats."   KPTV.  17 July 2018. Perez, Maria.  "Portland Art Gallery Displays Poster with Donald Trump's Throat Slashed."   Newsweek.  17 July 2018. Recently, Hillary Clinton has been making the ultimate pocketbook argument for her candidacy: When theres a Democrat in the White House, she says, the economy does better. Earlier in this campaign season, she said thestock market does betterunder Democrats. In a speech to theNew Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 19, Clinton went even further. I know its inconvenient for our Republican friends, but the facts do speak for themselves, the former secretary of state said. Economic growth is stronger under Democratic presidents. Unemployment is lower. The stock market rises faster. Businesses do better, and deficits are smaller. And one of my favorite inconvenient facts is under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. In this fact-check, we decided to focus the claim that recessions are four times as likely under Republicans as they are under Democrats. A look at the numbers The primary research on this question -- and the source cited by the Clinton campaign when we asked -- comes from apaperwritten by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Researchsofficial list of recessionsand found that Clintons claim is pretty much on point. Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president. Sec. Clinton is correct in her claim, Watson, one of the papers authors, told PolitiFact. Looking at how many recessionsstartedunder Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats. The paper also looked further back in history to 1875 and found that the trend held, though it was less pronounced. But what does this mean? Economists emphasize, however, that Clintons claim needs some additional context. Clinton presumably wants listeners to believe that Republican policies dont work for the economy. But the research doesnt necessarily support this contention. There are far too many factors that contribute to the countrys economic health. Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic/Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, the Blinder-Watson paper says. In short, the paper found that half of the Democrats economic advantage is a result of factors outside the control of the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The other half remains a mystery, Watson said. It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly good luck, with perhaps a touch of good policy, the report says. One section of the paper (its on page 14) gives an overview of booms and busts since World War II. It concludes that its difficult to draw a direct line from a presidents fiscal policy positions to economic cycles. For example, defense spending led to prosperity during the Korean War under Democratic President Harry Truman. His successor, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, ended the war, and thus the prosperity turned into recession. Energy price shocks are another important factor, since they can produce economic downturns. Unfortunately for the Republicans, shocks hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The authors add that Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, which is essentially a measure of technological growth and dynamism. A clear example is the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. The authors acknowledge that its unclear why this has been the case under Democratic presidents. And sometimes the fiscal policy of a previous administration bleeds into the next one -- so just because a recession happened when one president was in office, the prior administration might bear some of the responsibility. While Democratic President Lyndon Johnson saw no recessions, for instance, his administration had to implement anti-inflation policies near the end of his tenure. Those policies contributed to a recession early on in Nixons term. Because of all the factors at play, assigning credit for economic results is tricky, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University professor and chief economist for the job site Indeed.com. In fact, its possible that causation actually runs the other way. It's possible that the public votes in response to economic conditions, she added, meaning political cycles can follow economic cycles. Our ruling Clinton said that under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. The numbers back up Clintons claim since World War II: Of the 49 quarters in recession since 1947, eight occurred under Democrats, while 41 occurred under Republicans. Its important to note, however, that many factors contribute to general well-being of the economy, so one shouldnt treat Clintons implication -- that Democratic presidencies are better for the economy -- with irrational exuberance. Clinton is right on the numbers, but her claim needs additional information to put its implication into the proper context. We rate her claim Mostly True. On 26 November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 1233, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. That bill, sponsored by Democratic U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, was described in a press release as one that "modernizes records management by focusing more directly on electronic records, and complements efforts by the National Archives and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the Presidents 2011 Memorandum on Managing Government Records." H.R. 1233 press release A meme that circulated in 2019, during a period of controversy over Congress' attempts to obtain access to some of President Donald Trump's records (such as his tax returns), held that Cummings' bill had been intended to "keep all of [Barack] Obama's records sealed":  First of all, the above meme plays on the false premise that years after the end of Obama's presidency, a number of his key personal records remain "sealed"  that is, records that would ordinarily be accessible by the public have been restricted via court orders (see example below of such records):  In fact, most of Obama's primary personal records have either long been available to the public (e.g., Illinois state Senate records, Selective Service registration); are restricted from public access due to existing federal laws that apply to all Americans (e.g., college records); or simply aren't known to exist (baptismal record, college thesis). Illinois state Senate records Selective Service registration college records Moreover, H.R. 1233 applies only to federal records (i.e., records "made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business"), and none of the record types listed above  with the exception of Obama's Selective Service registration, which has been public for many years now  is federal in nature. In fact, H.R. 1233 included a number of provisions to facilitate and strengthen the ability of the U.S. government to collect, preserve, and release federal records in a timely fashion, not to promote keeping them "sealed": Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950. Confirming that Federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form. Granting the Archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a Federal record. Authorizing the early transfer of permanent electronic Federal and Presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the President. Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems. Empowering the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal. Codifying procedures by which former and incumbent Presidents review Presidential records for constitutional privileges. Formerly, this process was controlled by an Executive Order subject to change by different administrations. The one tiny grain of truth in this claim is that Cummings' bill included a provision allowing a former or current President 60 days to review and contest potential public disclosure of any "presidential record not previously made available." However, that provision applies to all Presidents (former and current); such claims must be made based on grounds of constitutionally based privilege; and privilege claims are subject to being overriden by the incumbent president or by court order: Amends the Presidential Records Act to require the Archivist of the United States, upon determining to make publicly available any presidential record not previously made available, to: (1) promptly provide written notice of such determination to the former President during whose term of office the record was created, to the incumbent President, and to the public; and (2) make such record available to the public within 60 days, except any record with respect to which the Archivist receives notification from a former or incumbent President of a claim of constitutionally-based privilege against disclosure. Prohibits the Archivist from making a record that is subject to such a claim publicly available unless: (1) the incumbent President withdraws a decision upholding the claim, or (2) the Archivist is otherwise directed to do so by a final court order that is not subject to appeal. As the National Coalition for History noted, H.R. 1233 followed from Obama's efforts early in his administration to strengthen public access to presidential records: National Coalition for History For over a decade, the National Coalition for History has been a lead advocate for enactment of Presidential Records Act (PRA) reform legislation. The organization was a plaintiff with other historical and archival groups in a federal lawsuit that sought to have an Executive Order (EO) issued by President George W. Bush, which severely limited public access to presidential records, declared invalid. On January 21, 2009, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administrations Executive Order 13233. The language in the Obama Executive Order 13489 is similar to an EO issued by President Reagan in 1989 which was also in effect during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan executive order was revoked when President Bush issued EO 13233 in November 2001. Executive Order 13233 Executive Order 13489 Unfortunately, without the passage of legislation there [was] nothing to prevent a future chief executive from reinstituting onerous restrictions on access or extending the privilege beyond that of the incumbent and former-president as President Bush did. To put this issue to rest, legislation (HR 1233) was introduced in the House in 2013 creating a framework that would enable former presidents to request continued restricted access on a very narrow basis, in essence codifying the Reagan and Obama administration rules. HR 1233 imposes a time limit in which a former president must assert any claim of privilege upon a determination of the Archivist to make available to the public a record of that former president. The bill also establishes processes for managing the disclosure of records upon the assertion of privilege by a former president, and grants to the incumbent president the power to decide whether or not to uphold any privilege claim of a former president, absent a court order to the contrary. In short, Cummings introduced legislation intended to improve public access to all presidential records, not to "keep Obamas records sealed." The National Coalition for History.  "HR 1233 'Presidential and Federal Records Act.'"
  Accessed 7 May 2019. Congress.gov.  "Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  Accessed 6 May 2019. National Archives.  "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Records Management."
  Accessed 7 May 2019. National Archives.  "National Archives Welcomes Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  1 December 2014.