Photograph of Hillary Clinton Slipping on Stairs Circulated as Proof of Poor Health
On 7 August 2016, the web site The American Mirror published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton's "health condition" should be a "major issue" of the 2016 presidential race, along with two photographs purportedly showing Clinton being helped up a flight of stairs:  SHOCK PHOTO: Multiple staffers help unstable Hillary up stairs The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign. The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals outside what appears to be a home. The photographs received wider attention when they were shared by conservative commentator Matt Drudge on Twitter:  Other pro-Donald Trump web pages paired the above-displayed photographs with images of Donald Trump ascending stairs with ease: images Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States. Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States.  While the above-displayed photographs are real, they are not the "latest evidence" of Clinton's alleged poor health, nor are they by themselves indicative of any significant health problems. The photographs were originally published in February 2016, more than five months before they started circulating on various right-wing web sites. When Getty Images published their photograph, it was accompanied with a caption explaining that it depicted Clinton being assisted as she had just slipped while walked up stairs in South Carolina: slipped Democratic Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slips as she walks up the stairs into the non-profit SC Strong, a 2 year residential facility that helps former felons, substance abusers, and homeless move into self-sufficiency February 24, 2016 in North Charleston. The South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary is held on February 27. Although these photographs were offered as "proof" that Clinton is in such poor health that she needs constant accompaniment while ascending stairs, several photographs of the Democratic presidential nominee ascending and descending stairs without help from anyone are not difficult to find: several photographs ascending descending
When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership. Claim:   Debit cards issued to Hurricane Katrina evacuees have been used to purchase luxury or entertainment items. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] Yesterday, I was shopping for my mother in Dillard's at Lakeline Mall in Austin, TX. I admired a suit, but it was too expensive for me to purchase. You can imagine my shock when I witness the suit being purchased by a Katrina "refugee" using the government-issued debit card!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought certainly there must be controls on these debit cards that would preclude recipients from using the money to purchase items other taxpayers cannot afford, but I was mistaken. I heard the sales clerk call the Dillard's business office and confirm that the "American Red Cross Debit Card" could be used for the woman's purchase. After the transaction was completed, I asked the sales clerk to confirm this and she did. Now, when these debit cards that we the taxpayers provided are used up, what will happen? Will you give them even more of our money to purchase items the taxpayers cannot afford? I already know the answer. Based on the social welfare system that exists in our country, you will just give them more money. This system does not pass the "is this right?" test. You have hard-working, tax-paying citizens who worry every month whether they'll make it financially. And, you take their earnings and "re-distribute" it to others who do not work but wear better clothes, drive newer cars and have manicures, cell phones, and designer handbags. Yea, if you'd just send me one of those debit cards, I could buy my mother that nice suit. I have copied everyone in my address book. I am asking them to send this to everyone in their address books. This is the reality of our social welfare system. It must stop. Suzzette Chapman223 W. Mockingbird LaneHarker Heights, Texas 76548 Origins:  Through its disaster management agency FEMA, the federal government issued more than 10,000 debit cards to Hurricane Katrina refugees in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. Each card carried a monetary value of $2,000. While the only overtly stated restrictions on their use prohibited the purchase of alcohol, tobacco or firearms, recipients were required to sign an agreement promising to use the cards only for disaster recovery purposes; that is, expenses related to the process of rebuilding their lives.  On 11 September 2005, just three days after its start, the debit card program was discontinued after refugees expressed frustration with the process. FEMA has since reverted to its traditional mode of directly depositing cash into the bank accounts of those being  assisted. While the intent of the novel program was to quickly thrust money into the hands of those left homeless by Hurricane Katrina and in need of ready cash with which to meet living expenses, not everyone who received debit cards kept their purchases in line with the spirit of the program's purpose. At least some of the cards were used to buy luxury or entertainment items.  One of the first news outlets to report on abuse of these financial instruments was the New York Daily News, who broke the story that two of the cards had been used in Atlanta to buy $800 Louis Vuitton handbags. (That claim has been substantiated by MSNBC's Abrams Report; the store confirmed to them that it happened.)  Others have been spotted in adult entertainment venues  according to a report by KPRC Channel 2 in Houston, the wife of a strip club manager in that city said her husband has seen patrons from Louisiana offering FEMA and Red Cross debit cards. A manager at Caligula XXI Gentlemen's Club told KPRC that he has seen at least one card used at his club. "Abby," a bartender at Baby Dolls, another strip club in Houston, said customers are paying for drinks with what may be FEMA or Red Cross debit cards. Syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz says FEMA debit cards were also used to pay for breast implants. (That assertion stands as unconfirmed at the moment.) We have ourselves received numerous e-mails from folks who claim they or someone they know saw the cards used to purchase expensive suits, diamond earrings, $300 handbags, and large plasma screen televisions. While we can't confirm any of those specifically, we do know the Houston Police Department formed a task force to investigate abuse of the FEMA-issued debit cards.   Neal Boortz How many of the cards have been misused is unknown at this point, but Lt. Craig Williams of the Houston Police Department Fraud Task Force says a majority of people are using the money the way it was intended. While the FEMA-issued card program has been brought to an end, the American Red Cross continues to give out debit cards, called Client Assistance Cards. Like FEMA's program, each disaster victim must agree to use the cards for emergency needs, such as food, housing, and clothing. Those too have been abused; for example, Red Cross records show one was used for entertainment items at a Best Buy (a computers, stereos, TVs, and other electronics store) in Kentucky for more than $1,000. It's likely some of the abuse was the doing of scam artists who fleeced evacuees of the cards issued them. Some Katrina evacuees were told by unscrupulous merchants they had to use the full value encoded into their cards in one shot or lose it  these merchants would then offer to buy the unused portion for cash at a reduced rate. Others were approached by individuals claiming to be FEMA representatives who demanded they hand their cards over to them, saying the cards had to be returned.  We can't answer the larger question in the back of everyone's minds  have most evacuees used the cash and resources handed them wisely and well, with the abuse limited to a mere handful of refugees, or has the exploitation of people's goodwill been widespread, with the "wisely and well" crowd in the distinct minority? It's a troubling question to have to go unanswered, because Americans are not going to open their wallets to the Red Cross nearly as readily or be as supportive of FEMA if they've strong reason to suspect the money they drained from their households to assist victims of disasters (either as direct donations or through their taxes) is going for big-ticket items they themselves can't afford for their own families or is being tucked into someone's G-string. Barbara "bared necessities" Mikkelson Last updated:  23 October 2005    Sources:   Abrams, Dan.  "The Abrams Report."   MSNBC.  16 September 2005  (p. A1).    Christian, Carol.  "Guard Debit Cards Carefully, Say Officials."   Houston Chronicle.  10 September 2005.    Ramstack, Tom.  "Gulf Coast Residents Told to Use Aid for Recovery Only."   The Washington Times.  30 September 2005  (p. A1).    Seltzer, Robert.  "Stripped of Joy, Katrina Evacuees Find Comfort in Bare Necessities."   San Antonio Express-News.  25 September 2005  (p. H1).    Widdicombe, Ben.  "Gatecrasher: Retailers Take a Swipe at Katrina Card Use."   [New York] Daily News.  18 September 2005  (Gossip, p. 22).    Widdicombe, Ben.  "Gatecrasher: Lavish Tastes of Card-Carrying Lowlifes."   [New York] Daily News.  10 September 2005  (Gossip, p. 20).    Yen, Hope.  "U.S. Emergency Agency Says it Will End Debit Card Plan for Evacuees."   Associated Press.  9 September 2005. Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. As Memorial Day approached in May 2021, a rumor started circulating on social media alleging that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters had introduced a bill to rename the federal holiday to "George Floyd Day": George Floyd   Waters did not introduce any bills to rename Memorial Day. This piece of text, which read: "Maxine Waters just introduced a bill to re-name Memorial Day George Floyd Day. Are you FRICK'N kidding me?" was repeated verbatim across a wide range of colorful backgrounds. No matter how many times this message was repeated, and no matter how vibrant of a background was used, this rumor remained utterly false. A list of bills that have been introduced in Congress can be seen at Congress.gov. This government website also allows users to sort these bills by politicians. When we go to the page for Waters, we can see that the California politician has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills in 2021  such as legislation that would "provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease" and "to allow Americans to earn paid sick time"  but Waters has not introduced legislation that would result in the renaming of Memorial Day. Congress.gov page for Waters provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease to allow Americans to earn paid sick time Waters did co-sponsor the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, but that bill had nothing to do with the annual federal holiday. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, which would address "a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability," was passed by the House in March 2021, but has not yet received a vote in the U.S. Senate. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 [featured-image] Claim:USAF General Chuck Yeager wrote an essay endorsing Donald Trump for President.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, December2015] I've been repeatedly seeing a post that Chuck Yeager is endorsing Donald Trump for President.But on Yeager's website there is no mention of it and he seems to shy away from politics, in general. Origins: On 5 November 2015, the web site GaryForbes.wix.com published an article purportedly written by retiredUnited States Air Force General Chuck Yeager, endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States: article The criticisms of Trump are amazingly missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he's had and all the business deals he's made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. And while it may surprise many, hes actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness. A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didnt brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others. But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trumps plan is for America. Its funny how so many people say they dont know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won't do their own research, here, in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trumps positions and plans: This article, titled "Donald Trump  Who He REALLY Is by Chuck Yeager," was not written bythe retired USAF General, nor was it first published on theGary Forbes web site. The article has been posted on a variety of blogs and web sites, with the earliest iteration being published to Doug Johnson's Horse Sense blog on 4 July 2015. variety blogs published Johnson's article wasn't particularly popular, but the majority of its content soon started circulating via e-mail and online forums, where it was cmommonly attributed to an "unknown author."Chuck Yeager's name was eventually tacked on to the essay, first by Catholic.org in August, and later by Gary Forbes, but this form of credit was undertaken without the USAF General's knowledge or approval. attributed August In fact, General Yeager has asked some Twitter users to delete links tothe purported endorsement,maintaining that he does not endorse political candidates (although he has apparently done so before): delete apparently      Last updated: 7 December 2015 Originally published: 7 December 2015 In February 2022, Russian propagandists went into overdrive in an attempt to justify their unprovoked attack on Ukraine. They claimed that Ukraine was run by Nazis (false), that Ukraine was committing genocide on its own people (false), and that Russia was attacking biolabs to prevent "COVID-2" (false). false false false Another line of disinformation attempted to downplay violence in Ukraine. This was largely done when people posted photographs and videos that supposedly showed "crisis actors," or people pretending to be in crisis there. A video of a camera crew filming people running through the street, for example, was posted to Bitchute (a video platform known for hosting far-right, conspiratorial, and hate content) along with the title "How to Make a Propaganda Video?" and the hashtags #UKRAINE #RUSSIA and #PROPAGANDA. posted photographs and videos that supposedly showed "crisis actors a video platform known for hosting far-right, conspiratorial, and hate content   Rumble, another video platform known for hosting far-right content, posted this video under the caption "completely choreographed Fake News In Ukraine - Still Believe Mockingbird Media?" On "TheGreatAwakening," a conspiratorial website dedicated to the debunked QAnon conspiracy theory, this video was shared with the caption "Lights, Camera, Action!" and on Twitter it was shared as if it showed "crisis actors" filmed "in the middle of the 'massive and scary' Russian invasion."   This video was not filmed in the Ukraine, and it was not filmed in 2022. This video was originally posted in 2013 and shows a behind-the-scenes look at the making of "Invasion Planet Earth" (originally titled "Kaleidoscope Man"), a sci-fi adventure movie about an alien invasion. The above-displayed scene was filmed in Birmingham, England, not Ukraine. Invasion Planet Earth Kaleidoscope Man  Another version of this rumor hinged on the claim that the news media was sharing an abbreviated version of this video that only showed people running (with no hints of a camera crew) in order to exaggerate the state of affairs in Ukraine. By claiming that a miscaptioned version of this footage was being shared by the news media, social media users could claim that this was an example of "globalist propaganda."   But we have not found a single post from a genuine news outlet that presented this footage as if it were real. The "news outlet" included the above-displayed screenshot is a weeks-old Twitter account, @mightyfarooz200, that has no apparent connections to any credible news outlet. This video was not filmed in Ukraine during Russia's invasion of the country. It does not show crisis actors and it was not shared as if it were genuine footage of Russia's invasion as reported by credible media news outlets. However, this is still a good example of propaganda, just not in the way that it's being presented online. This footage was widely circulated on social media with one of two claims: First, that it showed Ukrainian "crisis actors" filming a propaganda video, and second that the news media was using miscaptioned footage to misrepresent the situation in Ukraine. Neither of these claims were true. Our search for postings of this video turned up dozens of far-right accounts sharing this video as if it showed crisis actors, and practically zero postings of people sharing this video as if it showed a genuine attack. In other words, this video was widely shared by those attempting to downplay the violence by Russians in Ukraine, not by those attempting to exaggerate it. British Council Film: Kaleidoscope Man. https://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/kaleidoscope-man. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Hinton, Alexander. Putins Claims That Ukraine Is Committing Genocide Are Baseless, but Not Unprecedented. The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Putin Using False Nazi Narrative to Justify Russias Attack on Ukraine, Experts Say. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-claims-denazification-justify-russias-attack-ukraine-experts-say-rcna17537. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Ukraine Invasion: Misleading Claims Continue to Go Viral. BBC News, 28 Feb. 2022. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/60554910. Claim:  Text reproduces an open letter to Americans from Russian president Vladimir Putin. INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2013] A letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin to the American people has been circulating around the internet for the past couple of days. In the letter, Putin re-introduces Americans to some unpleasant facts about history and life theyd rather forget, such as Nixons reasoning behind massive carpet bombing of millions or North Vietnamese for the purpose of 'looking good' while exiting the war, and how Pakistan has been using the U.S. as a 'false ally' to gain foreign aid, while using the funds to embolden the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls out Barrack Hussein Obama for having the audacity to meet with gay rights activists while he is in Russia next week, a group Putin despises, while refusing to carve away time to meet with him and solve the Syria issue. He compares the action to the equivalent of him (Putin) coming to the U.S. and meeting with Obamas domestic enemy, the N.R.A.  How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all.  You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but hes my son-of-a-bitch. So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, "We will give you nothing," well, why would I ever agree to that? That's not negotiation, that's dictation; it's a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore. [Remainder of the letter can be viewed here.] here Origins:  This "open letter" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Americans, putatively expressing that politician's viewpoints on U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war and other international matters, was published on breitbart.com on 3 September 2013 under the  breitbart.com title "LETS JOIN ONE ANOTHER TO CRUSH THE UNHOLY, UNRULY, JIHADI MUSLIMS" and attributed to Vladimir Putin.  Many readers who encountered this item on that site (and elsewhere) mistook its attribution and first person tone as an indication that the piece was actually written by President Putin himself.   Even though this item may have been cast in the first person and mockingly bylined as something penned by "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin," it's not an actual open letter to Americans written by the Russian president.  It's a political opinion piece that uses a "literary ventriloquism" device through which an author expresses his viewpoint by putting his words into someone else's mouth  highlighting what the writer wants the audience to understand by presenting the author's words as another person's, as if the audience were "inside the mind of" that other person. Coincidentally, nine days later the New York Times published a (much more temperate) op-ed piece about U.S. military intervention in Syria which was also bylined with Vladimir Putin's name.  According to the UK's Guardian newspaper, the editorial had been offered to the Times by the public relations firm Ketchum (which works on behalf of Russian interests), and the idea for the article and its basic content did indeed come from President Putin, with some of his assistants crafting the final text.  op-ed Last updated:  12 September 2013 In March 2017, an advertisement disguised as a news story appeared to report that Facebook CEO's Mark Zuckerberg was leaving the company in order to sell skin care products. The hoax report was published on the web site GetInkNews.co: story   Neither Katy Perry nor any of the other aforementioned celebrities have endorsed this product, and the web site took unrelated images of Zuckerberg and various celebrities (the image of Katy Perry was taken in 2011) to make it seem as if they had endorsed Zuckerberg's skin care line together.  2011 The advertisement also claimed that Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan were giving away free samples of the product (as long as customers paid for shipping and handling): ZUCKERBERG GIVES PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE! So, what if you arent rich or famous? Chan and Zuckerberg dont care. After all, they are already worth more than $556 billion. We arent in this to make a fortune, Chan told a friend recently. We already have amassed a fortune. I just want to help people. That is why she is now offering readers the opportunity to experience the joys of younger looking skin for FREE! The only cost to you is a $4.95 shipping and handling fee, so you can try the EcoMaxx Ageless Moisturizer and EcoMaxx Ageless Eye Revitalizer have it delivered right to your front door. Simply click on the link here for ordering details.   This a relatively new form of the ubiquitous fake news: an advertisement designed to mimic a genuine news item in order to convince people to buy a skin care product. At the very bottom of this web page, below the comments section, below several links to purchase this product, and below several fake celebrity endorsements, appears a disclaimer: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE This website is not intended to provide medical advice or to take the place of medical advice and treatment from your personal physician. Visitors are advised to consult their own doctors or other qualified health professional regarding the treatment of medical conditions. The author shall not be held liable or responsible for any misunderstanding or misuse of the information contained on this site or for any loss, damage, or injury caused, or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly by any treatment, action, or application of any food or food source discussed in this website. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have not evaluated the statements on this website. The information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. MARKETING DISCLOSURE: You should know that the owner of this website has a monetary connection to the product & services advertised and provided. The owner receives payment whenever a qualified lead is referred. All of the information regarding the goods and services mentioned on this website is provided by the owner. ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE: This website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of persons used on this site are models. Any photographs of before/after images used on this site are not real and are only used to illustrate the results some may achieve. Many of the articles featured on this site are what is commonly referred to as an advertorial, a combination of advertisement and editorial written in an editorial format as an independent news story. However, unlike an independent news story, an advertorial may promote a particular product or interest. Advertorials take factual information and report it in an editorial format to allow the author, often a company marketing its products, to enhance or explain certain elements to maintain the readers interest. A familiar example is an airline's in-flight magazines that provide editorial reports about travel destinations to which the airline flies. In 2018, the same conceit of Facebook's head announcing that he was stepping down was used as fodder for an April Fool's Day joke: stepping down  Last year in June, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave the company a new mission statement, it was too late for him to try to change how things worked at Facebooks offices. While it wasnt made public, Cambridge Analytica had already used data from millions of users for voter profiling and other purposes. In the wake of the recent data misuse revelation, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has resigned from the company. While demands were already being made for his resignation, this has come as a big surprise for many. Zuckerberg publicly informed the world via a post on Facebook. Altus, Celeste.  "But Did He Friend Her?"
  AdWeek.  21 January 2011. Get Ink News.  "Mark Zuckerberg Disgusted with Social Media; Set to Leave Facebook Later This Year."
  Retrieved 13 March 2017.