Government Grant Scam
Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2).
On 18 February 2016, the Facebook page "I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists" posted a meme featuring a photograph of Papa John's CEO John Schnatter along with a quote ostensibly uttered by him about not sharing company profits with employees:   Although several web sites, such as AZ Quotes, Sherman's Wilderness, and the Straight Dopemessage board,have attributed this phrase to Schnatter, none of these web sites conclusively documents where or when Schnatter purportedly made this statement. In fact, our attempt to source this quote led us through a never-ending circle of memes; in the end, we found no record in any credible publication linking Schnatter to these words. AZ Quotes Sherman's Wilderness Straight Dope The quote was likely created in an attempt to paraphrase comments the Papa John's CEOmade in 2012, just before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act: comments "Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis. "We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare. "If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interest." In November 2012, Schnatter wrote an op-ed piecefor the Huffington Post, maintaining that some of his comments had been taken out of context. piece Gov. Rick Scott made no secret of his distaste fora judges decision to overturna 3 percent cut in state workers salaries on March 6, 2012.Lawmakers in 2011 touted the cut as necessary; they said they were diverting the money to shore up the $124 billion pension fund for state and local employees. The change saved the state $1 billion and local governments $600 million, reported theTampa Bay Timesand theMiami Herald.Circuit Judge Jackie Fulfords decision throws that plan into chaos. She ruled the pay cut an unconstitutional breach of the state's contract with employees and ordered the money returned with interest. Fulford noted in her order that the 3-percent salary reduction did not actually go toward the retirement fund; legislators used it to balance the budget and left $1.2 billion unspent. Her decision didn't sit well with Scott. This is an example of a judge wanting to write the law. We all know that this is constitutional, there's no question about it, Scotttold reporters. I want to make sure we fix the plan so individuals can actually rely on it. Because today, you can't rely on that plan, it's not funded, he said. So it's going to have a big impact on our counties, it has a big impact on our state budget. But it's clearly constitutional.Weve heard alarming things about Floridas pension fund over the years, but never that it is flatly not funded. PolitiFact Florida wanted to set the record straight on how the Florida Retirement System works.The truth is that Floridas pension fund is funded. Is it fully funded? No, but thats not typical for most state pension funds.The most recent data shows the pensions worth versus what it owes in benefits is 87.5 percent, as of June 30, 2011. So if everyone in the pension system retired at once, there would not be enough money in the retirement system to pay their full benefits.Still, 87 percent isnt bad compared to most states. The average level is 77 percent.87 (percent) is a strong funding level, particularly given the difficult financial market over recent years, said Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.Scott spokesman Lane Wright said we were nit-picking the governors statement and that he obviously just misspoke. Wright pointed us to past stories on the pension fromour siteand theTampa Bay Times, where Scott correctly asserts the retirement system is underfunded.Whats more, Wright said, is that Scotts office for a few months has been occupied by a big chart comparing the pension funds liabilities, assets and payments. His graphic correctly shows the plan as funded at 87.5 percent for fiscal year 2010-11. It also shows how that liability has grown since 2007-08.Hes had that chart there since at least the beginning of January, Wright said.Not long before storing a daily reminder of the liability gap in his office, Scott attempted to address it in his 2011-12 budget proposal. He called for $300 million to go into the retirement system, including an additional $120 million to address the liability on top of fully funding the normal annual contribution.In his response to the judges ruling, though, Scotts warning was stark, saying I want to make sure we fix the plan so individuals can actually rely on it. Because today, you can't rely on that plan, it's not funded. That sounds really bad to people who are relying on state benefits. The truth is, it's one of the better funded pension plans in the country. If all public employees retired tomorrow, they still get 87.5 percent of what they were owed. We rate his statement False. PolitiFact Florida is partnering with 10 News for the 2012 election season. See the video version of this fact-checkhere. After Illinois teen Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with fatally shooting two people and wounding another during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020, Snopes received numerous inquiries from readers wondering if a self-described Christian crowdfunding website was hosting a fundraiser to supposedly help pay Rittenhouse's legal defense. two people and wounding another The killings occurred during a chaotic confrontation between people protesting the Aug. 23 police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, and armed vigilantes who claimed to be patrolling the lakeside city to prevent looting and property destruction. Rittenhouse, 17, was captured in video footage carrying a military-style rifle, marching alongside members of the latter group, and putting his hands up after shots were fired. Authorities arrested him on Aug. 26 in connection with the deaths in Antioch, Illinois, where he was being held without bail and awaiting his next court hearing on Sept. 25. Jacob Blake footage was being held without bail The charges against Rittenhouse included first-degree intentional homicide, which carries a life sentence. The Chicago Tribune reported: The Chicago Tribune Rittenhouses case immediately became a popular cause in conservative circles, where pundits began defending the teenager before he had even been charged. At least two defense funds have been launched in his name in recent days, though its unclear if the Rittenhouse family supports either of those efforts. That brings us to the question from Snopes readers: Was a website that brands itself as Christian called GiveSendGo hosting an apparent online fundraiser to help Rittenhouse pay court costs? First, we searched several crowdfunding sites for online campaigns with a similar stated goal: to raise money to help Rittenhouse or his family fight criminal charges against him. None appeared on GoFundMe, as of this report. GoFundMe Several crowdfunding pages, however, were active and allegedly supporting Rittenhouse's case on Fundly (see partial search results below). Additionally, a conservative student group at Arizona State University pledged to donate half of its future fundraising dollars to the cause. "[Rittenhouse] does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riot," the college group tweeted. Fundly conservative student group pledged tweeted   Next, we considered crowdfunding platforms that describe themselves as Christian and researched GiveSendGo at readers' requests. According to the website, which describes itself as the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site," users can organize and run crowdsourcing campaigns for free by using personalized logins and donate to GiveSendGo directly. The website's "About Us" page stated: GiveSendGo GiveSendGo is meant to give Christians the opportunity to be supported by the body of Christ. A place for the body of Christ to get out from their comfortable pews and support people in God's family that they might not have ever known about. [...] A place for Christians. Based on that evidence, it was accurate to claim GiveSendGo describes itself as a website that promotes Christianity. Then we looked for proof of pages supporting Rittenhouse on the platform. A keyword search for "Kyle Rittenhouse" uncovered several pages, including a fundraiser titled "Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense" that had raised more than $314,000 as of this report. Raise Money For Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense It was the most popular and active GiveSendGo campaign created to supposedly help the teen or his family. The page included the following the description: Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA  the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one, as he was forced to take two lives to defend his own. Now, Kyle is being unfairly charged with murder 1, by a DA who seems determined only to capitalize on the political angle of the situation. The situation was clearly self-defense, and Kyle and his family will undoubtedly need money to pay for the legal fees. Let's give back to someone who bravely tried to defend his community. On Aug. 28, 2020, the page's organizers  "Friends of the Rittenhouse family" of Atlanta, Georgia  wrote an update to the page in which they claimed they had spoken with Rittenhouse's mother and legal team and that that party was raising money via multiple methods. The organizers of the GiveSendGo campaign pledged: "All of the money donated ... will go to Kyle's defense, as it is likely to be an expensive and protracted affair."   No specific details on the GiveSendGo page's organizers were known, including how or under what circumstances they started the alleged fundraiser. Anyone can establish a campaign on the site; donors are encouraged to report pages that appear suspicious or fraudulent, and there was no evidence to confirm or deny the organizers of the campaign for Rittenhouse were indeed giving the payments to help his legal defense, aside from the above-described pledge from them. That update also read: Kyle is reportedly in good spirits, and I'm told that the incredible support shown by you good people is what's keeping him going. ... This young man has reinvigorated the faith of many that this country and its founding principles are indeed founded upon the rock, not built upon the sand. However, a city upon a hill cannot be hid; Kyle now faces the wrath of those who would see us stripped of our God-given rights and reduced to servitude. He is in dire need of our help. The GiveSendGo page collected more than 7,330 donations as of this report, some of which included messages of support for Rittenhouse. "This young man is a hero. Give him a medal and make him a millionaire. Every patriot can spare him a few bucks" said an anonymous donor who contributed $10, per the page. Another donor said:   Based on those findings  yes, a self-described Christian crowdfunding website GiveSendGo was hosting a campaign to supposedly help Rittenhouse  we reached out to the website's administrators to learn under what terms it hosts campaigns on its platform. Jacob Wells, a co-founder of the site, told us via email: GiveSendGo allows campaigns from all kinds of different people and political/religious ideologies. Just because we are Christians does not mean every campaign on our site has to be one or that we agree with its campaign premise. [...] We will withhold judgement and leave that for the courts and God. Our judicial system works on the principle of innocence until proven guilty. As a veteran owned platform we recognize the freedoms we have in the USA came at a very high price and we will not just trample on them to satisfy political correctness. Additionally, he said site administrators were conducting a review of the page involving Rittenhouse to make sure it follows site guidelines, though they "currently believe the campaign is eligible like any other campaigns because it does not violate our terms of service." On Aug. 27 the crowdfunding site posted the following statement to Twitter:  The campaign stoked controversy online among people who believed it wrongfully celebrated the actions of an alleged killer and should be removed from the crowdfunding website. Referring to Blake, who was paralyzed from the waist down after a white police officer shot at his back multiple times on Aug. 23, one Facebook user alleged: paralyzed   In response to those critics, Wells told Snopes: We recognize that we live in a world of diverse ideas and opinions and that part of our strength is in that diversity. We will respond with grace to those that disagree with us. We will give grace to ourselves to not always get it right as we learn and grown. Finally we will give grace to the campaign owner, those that support the campaign, and Kyle as he walk out [sic] the ramifications of his actions. In sum, given how GiveSendGo describes itself  the "#1 Free Christian Crowdfunding Site"  as well as evidence of listed donations on a webpage that says it will give all contributions to help fund Rittenhouse's legal defense, we rate this claim  Republicans United.  "Welcome."
  Accessed 31 August 2020. The Associated Press.  "Arizona Student Fundraiser for Kenosha Shooting Suspect Kyle Rittenhouse Stirs Outrage."
 Los Angeles Times.  31 August 2020. GiveSendGo.  "About Us."
  Accessed 31 August 2020. GiveSendGo.  "Got Questions?"
  Accessed 31 August 2020. Stone, Michael.  "Christian Crowdfunding Site Raising Money For Kenosha Killer Kyle Rittenhouse."
  Patheos.  28 August 2020. Willis, Haley, et. al. "Tracking The Suspect In The Fatal Kenosha Shootings."
 The New York Times. 27 August 2020. In late March 2022, we looked into two viral and false Facebook posts that were copied and pasted by countless users. One of the posts, which was also purportedly received as a text message alert, claimed that "cellphones are being hacked" to steal banking information. The misleading copypasta post said that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned U.S. citizens to "keep your fuel topped off," to gather cash and food, and to plan for the uncertainties surrounding the potential global impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Facebook copypasta U.S. Department of Homeland Security Russia's invasion Ukraine The first message appeared to warn of a potential Russian cyberattack and read as follows: Russian FYI"Please be aware,Just received this:ALERTCellphones Are Being Hacked!You Get Called And Get Asked If You've Been Vaccinated Or Not. Then You're Told To Press 1 Or 2 As An Answer And Boom All Your Banking Information Is Accessed. People Are Loosing Money. Please Alert Them Not To Respond!Also, homeland security says because of what's going on with Ukraine, keep your fuel topped off and store up some cash in case ATMs get hacked and credit card systems are unavailable. We know it's possible since the fuel lines were hacked once before recently. So glad God provides for his own. Just do our part and keep praying. PASS it on" The second viral message did not mention cellphones but did keep the Homeland Security part. It added lines about keeping "basic food," "emergency preparedness supplies," and a "family emergency plan" all ready to go: SHARING#ShareThis: Received this as a text this morning. From the Office of Homeland Security that encouraged us to take the following precautions:- Have basic food and emergency preparedness supplies available.- Have some cash on-hand in case ATM's or credit card readers are unavailable.- Do not allow your vehicles to get low on fuel.- Ensure that you have a family emergency plan.They said, "we have no information to suggest a specific credible cyber threat against the US Homeland", but stressed "it is our responsibility to be prepared" because "Russia has significant offensive cyber capabilities". They said "we are mindful of the potential for the Russian government to consider escalating its destabilizing actions in ways that may impact others outside of Ukraine." ?Pass on There's some truth to these two viral posts. At the same time, they're also quite misleading. We've been publishing debunkings of similarly scary-sounding yet harmless Facebook posts for many years. publishing debunkings Facebook posts As for the first post, we found no evidence that pressing a single digit on a mobile phone after receiving a call could release "all your banking information" to be "hacked" and stolen. Such a result, if it happened, would amount to some kind of fantasy or magic that doesn't have a possibility of happening in reality. fantasy magic  Source: Facebook  As for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security claims in both posts, these also were fairly misleading. Homeland Security did not issue a memo or any guidance to all U.S. citizens to "keep your fuel topped off" or to "store up some cash" due to the war in Ukraine. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Ukraine  Source: Facebook  The quotes at the end of the second post came from an interview with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and a letter from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). an interview a letter The partial truth of these posts was that CISA did issue some guidance to federal agencies and organizations to be prepared for a cyberattack during the conflict in Ukraine. An initiative, dubbed "Shields Up," specifically provided recommendations for agencies and organizations, not all citizens, to beef up security and to "plan for the worst." did issue some guidance Ukraine The Hill reported that this guidance for federal employees and workers at organizations did include keeping fuel topped off and having extra food, cash, and other supplies ready as part of a "personal and professional preparedness" plan. However, again, this wasn't meant for all U.S. citizens. reported On the website Ready.gov, which is officially operated by Homeland Security, the department published a page for all citizens about how to be prepared for a cyberattack. Nowhere on the page did it say anything about storing up "basic food," "emergency preparedness supplies," or a "family emergency plan." (Some of these components are mentioned for other disasters such as the event of a nuclear explosion, however.) Ready.gov page nuclear explosion KHOU previously published a debunking of the first viral post that mentioned, "cellphones are being hacked." The outlet reported that it had received the following statement from a spokesperson for the department: "The Department of Homeland Security did not send this text message alert." published We reached out to the department to independently confirm the statement sent to KHOU and to find out if it had anything else to add. This story will be updated if we receive further information. An entreaty to help save the life of a victimized child who had been raped by an AIDS-positive attacker began circulating as a cell phone text message in June 2010. At that time, the message being zinged from phone to phone represented the rapist being sought with a photograph of an African American male bearing gold teeth: This guy raped a five year old little girl. He ruined her life, she is alive & in the hospital can't move and can never have children, or a normal life. This guy goes by different names he is in hiding & has AIDS. The girl came out positive. Please help us catch this animal. Every time this message is fwd the Dell Hospital will donate $.15 to Maria's medication & treatment. Please don't hesitate to fwd this. It could've been you're daughter or sister. God bless. Thank you!. Forward this to as many people as possible. In October 2010, the hoax underwent a revival when it was circulated anew, that time accompanied by the photo of a Hispanic male sporting multiple tattoos. Since 2014, this Facebook post has been shared more than 77,000 times. A second post from 2016 has been shared more than 82,000 times with a different photograph: this Facebook post second post   There was no such child: the whole thing was a leg-pull, said Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas: said A false text message has been circulating that describes an incident involving a 5-year old girl. The message states that every time you forward it to someone, Dell Children's Medical Center will donate 15 cents to cover the child's healthcare expenses. This message is spam and is in no way affiliated with Dell Children's Medical Center or the Seton Family of Hospitals. If you receive this message, please delete it. As demonstrated so aptly by public efforts to provide relief to earthquake victims in Haiti, beneficences initiated by cell phone generally involve a tracking and billing mechanism that requires participants to text a specific short word or phrase to a particular (five-digit) number, not the willy-nilly forwarding of a explanatory narrative to as many people as possible. Haiti In 2009 we began to note that "Forward this message to help fund medical care for a sick or dying child" appeals were beginning to appear as cell phone text messages as well as being passed in e-mail. That trend continues into the present, with the "shot 14-year-old boy" just another iteration of the same basic hoax that falsely claims the American Cancer Society, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, or some other large entity will donate a predetermined amount of money every time a particular message is forwarded. Such leg-pulls have been circulating via e-mail since 1997. hoax Typically, a large charity is named as the benefactor standing ready to direct monies towards the costs of medical care for the languishing child, but various corporations have also been fingered for this role in other iterations of the hoax, such as AOL and ZDNet in the Rachel Arlington leg pull (brain cancer sufferer in need of an operation) and McDonald's and Pizza Hut in the Justin Mallory prank (epileptic in need of long-term care). Rachel Arlington Justin Mallory Everyone wants to help sick children get better, and the thought of a little boy or girl suffering from some dread disease or infirmity because people couldn't be bothered to forward a message tugs straight at the heartstrings. Problem is, hoaxsters know that, and they play upon these very human drives for their personal amusement. Once again, that is the case here: Well-intentioned forwarding does nothing towards helping a sick child; it does, however, make the day of some prankster. If you want to make a difference in a sick child's life, the best way is still the old-fashioned one: donate your money or your time, don't passively share a worthless message.   KEYE-TV [Austin].  "Text Messages About Dell Children's Med Center Donations Are False."
  22 June 2010. Roser, Mary Ann.  "Seton Alerts Public That Text Message to Help 'Raped' Child Is Bogus."
  The [Austin] Statesman.  22 June 2010. This story was updated on June 4, 2019 to add a second viral Facebook post. In November 2023, multiple Facebook ads were displayed to users that led to an article that bore the People magazine logo and claimed that Sheryl Underwood, the longtime co-host of "The Talk," would be leaving the TV talk show to work on expanding her own line of keto gummies for weight loss. However, this was not true. Underwood has nothing to do with any keto gummies for weight loss, nor did People magazine ever publish any such story. Underwood was simply the latest person in a long line of famous people who had had their image and likeness used without permission to sell keto gummies. Further, this false rumor that mentioned Underwood led to a dangerous scam that could potentially cost victims thousands of dollars per year. a long line of famous people One version of the Facebook ad claimed, "Producers are furious that she came forward." The headline in the ads read, "Sheryl Abandons 'The Talk' After Confessing Her Trick." Two of the false Facebook ads that promoted the scam. These ads led to a fake People magazine article on scam websites including emperorsland.pro, sizzlingpear.pro, mindfulmovement.pro and chillytreats.info. (We were unable to provide an archived link to the article since scammers design these websites so that the scam version of the page is cloaked from prying eyes  that is, unless users specifically came from a Facebook ad.) This is not a true story, nor did People.com ever publish any such article. The fake People magazine article, which was nothing more than fiction and a scam, began as follows: Sheryl Underwood Confirms She Is Leaving 'The Talk' After Her Accidental 'Live' Confession On-Air... The host said that it was 'time for a break', but she may actually have bigger things in mind. (People) - Sheryl Underwood, the 60-year-old host on CBS's show 'The Talk', shocked everyone when she announced her departure from the show after 12 record-breaking years on-air. Sheryl, who has earned the reputation of being one of the most business savvy women in the industry, made sponsors (and CBS) FURIOUS. Why? Because Sheryl failed to disclose her new weight loss line to the network. Sheryl's new company is actually a HUGE competitor to CBS's current sponsor Weight Watchers because Sheryl's product is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than Weight Watchers's competing product. According to sources, CBS made Sheryl decide on which direction she was going to focus on in the future. Being so turned off by the reaction of the network and their power move she has decided to pursue her new weight loss line and dream. The scam article went on to falsely claim that other celebrities had joined with Underwood to promote the products, whether they be Belly Blast Keto Gummies, Total Fit Keto Gummies or other products. It is a fact that no celebrities have ever endorsed keto gummies that are purportedly intended for use in weight loss. Websites that promote sales of keto gummies for weight loss usually lack information about the true creators of the products and the source of where they were packaged. In the past, some consumers who fell victim to these scams told Snopes that the post office box numbers included in return addresses for the products don't exist. The rabbit hole for keto gummies goes even deeper, however. Two odd scenarios have been laid out by numerous victims of the scams, which usually involve monthly subscription fees often reported as being around $200 or more, or around $2,400 per year. Some consumers said that they never ordered the products but kept receiving shipments that they had no way of returning, due to fake return addresses. On the flip side, other customers said that they received charges for the products on their credit card statements despite never having ordered them, and then never received any products in the mail. Further, listings for keto gummies for weight loss on Amazon.com and Walmart.com often feature the words "Shark" and "Tank," although not consecutively as "Shark Tank." The two words are included in product listings on Amazon.com and Walmart.com so that any customers searching online for keto gummies with the words "Shark Tank"  after those same customers saw false claims that said the TV show's investors endorsed the products  would then fall victim to the scam and purchase the products based on the "Shark Tank" lie. Again, to be clear, no investors associated with "Shark Tank" ever endorsed gummies. false claims If any readers have been victimized by these scams, we recommend contacting your credit card company immediately, reporting fraud to the FTC and also searching the U.S. Better Business Bureau's (BBB) website to perform a search for the product name associated with the purchase on your account or the product that arrived at your doorstep, so that you can find the company or LLC connected with the scam. reporting fraud to the FTC website Liles, Jordan. Shark Tank Keto Gummies Weight Loss Reviews Are a Scam. Snopes, 14 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-keto-gummies-weight-loss-reviews/. 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 During the first 2020 U.S. presidential debate held in Cleveland on Sept. 29, Democratic nominee Joe Biden said he does not support the Green New Deal, a resolution introduced in Congress by members of his own party proposing strategies for dealing with climate change, but instead backs the Biden Plan for doing so, which is laid out on his campaign website. Biden's disavowal came on the heels of an attempt by his opponent, U.S. President Donald Trump, to tie him to the Green New Deal, claiming it would cost $100 trillion if implemented. Biden's responses (which begin one hour and 20 minutes into the below video clip) were as follows: That is not my plan. The Green New Deal is not my plan. [] The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. Were not going to build plants that in fact are great polluting plants. [] No, I dont support the Green New Deal. I support the Biden Plan that I put forward. The Biden Plan, which is different than what [Trump] calls the radical Green New Deal.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?475793-1/trump-biden-debate These statements sparked criticism from Republicans like Omar Navarro, who ran three unsuccessful bids for Californias 43d Congressional District in 2016, 2018, and again in 2020. On Sept. 30, Navarro shared a screenshot from Bidens website that described the Green New Deal as a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges Omar Navarro  three unsuccessful bids   The language in the tweeted screenshot above was indeed found on Bidens website as of Sept. 30, but was taken out of context and doesn't reflect the differences between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal, which we will discuss below. The Green New Deal resolution was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 7, 2019, in response to Trumps 2017 announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The 14-page proposal sets forth a number of policies aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions produced by American companies, creating high-wage jobs for Americans, and to set an overall framework for environmental justice and resiliency against climate change-related disasters. It is important to note that the Green New Deal is nonbinding, and if it were to pass, nothing outlined within its pages would become law. 14-page proposal nonbinding Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his 2020 bid for the presidency, in turn criticizing Trump's handling of environmental affairs. It is true that the Biden Plan (archived here for reference) includes elements of the Green New Deal and is similar to it in that both plans agree that the U.S. needs to act urgently and epically to meet the scope of the climate change challenge, and that the environment and the economy are completely and totally connected. The Biden Plan addresses many of the issues outlined in the Green New Deal, with the addition of specific actions that a Biden administration would take should he be elected in November 2020. cornerstone Biden Plan here We dug through both proposals to understand the nuances between the two, where they differ, and where they are the same. Generally speaking, both policies establish a similar framework but differ in the specifics of how policymakers should go about enforcing and reaching defined goals. For example, both plans highlight the importance of clean, safe drinking water and community-driven projects that promote social and environmental justice in areas disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change.  The greatest difference between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal lies in their stances on the Paris Agreement, an international agreement established in 2015 with the central aim of coordinating and strengthening the global response to climate change and keeping the global temperature rise in this century below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Whereas the Biden Plan promises a recommitment to the Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal does not mention it at all.  Paris Agreement When it comes to clean energy, the Green New Deal and the Biden Plan are similar in that they aim to achieve 100% clean energy and net-zero emissions, but the former sets forth a 10-year mobilization deadline, whereas the Biden Plan sets a goal of no later than 2050. Both plans establish priorities for investment in clean energy innovation and research; however, the Biden Plan is far vaguer. The Green New Deal goes into greater detail, specifying that those investments should include infrastructure and industry, sustainable farming and land-use practices, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, manufacturing public transit, removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry, and the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies. Other key areas of overlap between the two plans include creating resiliency across the nation and committing to international policy and trade that employ strong labor and environmental protections. According to his website, the Biden plan will be paid for by rolling back Trump tax incentives and will require a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next decade, leveraging the additional private sector and state and local investments to total more than $5 trillion. This estimated cost is significantly lower than the $100 trillion bill that Trump claimed the U.S. would foot during the debate. However, serious disagreement exists over how much implementation of the Green New Deal might actually cost.  website After its 2019 introduction by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Republican leaders and some media publications cited research by the right-wing think tank American Action Forum that speculated the Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion, or an estimated $600,000 per household, in its first 10 years. (A supplementary brief from the organization outlining the projected costs can be found here.) But a number of financial experts have countered that research, suggesting that it is more likely that the Green New Deal would cost significantly less, and in some estimates half as much. In fact, a September 2020 study published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science suggested a total overall cost of just over $16 trillion over 15 years. media publications American Action Forum here financial experts estimates Energy Research & Social Science Though both the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal provide similar general frameworks for moving towards a cleaner economy and combating the effects of climate change at a national level, subtle differences exist between the two. Although Biden stated outright that he does not support the Green New Deal, it is apparent from his own policy statements that he supports elements of it that have been incorporated into his own plan. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture." Green New Deal Friedman, Lisa.  "What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained."
  The New York Times.  21 Feb. 2019.  116th Congress 1st Session  "Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal."
  7 Feb. 2019.  Muyskens, John, Uhrmacher, Kevin.  "Where 2020 Democrats Stand on Climate Change."
  The Washington Post.  8 April 2019.  Relman, Eliza.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Her Green New deal Climate Plan Would Cost At Least $10 Trillion."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Re, Gregg.  "Green New Deal Would Cost Up To $93 Trillion, Or $600G Per Household, Study Says."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, et al.  "The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas.  "An Initial Analysis of the Green New Deal."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Sherman, Amy.  "The Green New Deal Would Put a $600,000 Tax Burden on Every Household."
  PolitiFact.  27 Sept.. 2019.  McDonald, Jessica.  "How Much Will the Green New Deal Cost?"
  FactCheck.org.  14 March 2019.  Galvin, Ray and Noel Healy.  "The Green New Deal in the United States: What It Is and How to Pay For It."
  Energy Research & Social Science .  September 2020. Picking a favorite holiday is almost like picking a favorite child, but PolitiFact Ohio admits to particular fondness for the Fourth of July.We enjoy the invocations of history, especially when they're factually accurate. We like the annual cookout with old friends. And we love fireworks.So we were especially interested to read a newspaper commentary by Bill Weimer, vice president of Youngstown-based Phantom Fireworks, the nations largest retailer of consumer fireworks.Fireworks have never been safer, and their use continues to increase each year, he wrote. This alone provides a strong case for the regulated and sensible use of consumer fireworks.Really? Safer than ever?In 1994, Weimer said, the United States imported 117 million pounds of fireworks, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 12,500 fireworks-related injuries. By 2010,  fireworks imports grew more than 75 percent to 205.9 million pounds, but the number of fireworks-related injuries dropped by more than 30 percent to 8,600.This is phenomenal progress in safety, Weimer wrote, calling on Ohio's General Assembly to relax state laws and legalize consumer fireworks.PolitiFact Ohio looked at the law and checked the numbers.Ohio law, which now permits the use of only novelty and trick fireworks, is among the more restrictive nationally. Three other states have similar laws, and four ban all consumer fireworks. Forty-one states and Washington, D.C., allow some or all types of consumer fireworks permitted by federal regulations, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association.We found that Weimer's numbers, as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, are accurate.The same day Weimers column was published, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, which set standards for consumer fireworks in 1976, issued its annual fireworks report last week. It confirmed the injury number Weimer used -- 8,600 for 2010.CPSC spokeswoman Nikki Fleming said the injury rate as measured by injuries per 100,000 persons has leveled off.The Massachusetts-based National Fire Protection Association takes the position that using consumer fireworks is simply not worth the risk, division manager Guy Colonna said.We don't seem to be trending that rapidly toward zero, he said of the injury numbers. Youhaven't moved the needle so much in terms of saying it's safe for consumers to use.The NFPA -- which coordinates the national Alliance to Stop Consumer Fireworks -- said in its annual report in June that there are more fires on a typical July 4th than any other day of the year, and that fireworks account for 40 percent.Colonna acknowledged statistics showing that the rate of injury per 100,000 pounds of imported fireworks has declined, but said it is still a significant number.The American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, cites the latter statistic. It shows that the rate of injuries dropped from 38 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 1976 to 7 in 2000 and to 4 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 2010.The trade group considers that significant because U.S. fireworks consumption has skyrocketed. It more than doubled between 2000, when the trade group says the trend in relaxing (state) consumer fireworks laws was first initiated, and 2011, when 212 million pounds were sold.The trade group credits safety education efforts and the ever improving quality of its products. It says that injuries and fires most typically result from illegal fireworks and from improper use, especially involving children.But does that mean that fireworks themselves are safer?We asked Weimer what he had to support his statement. He immediately credited the work of the CPSC and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory.In the 1970s, the CPSC set federal requirements for consumer fireworks that cover cautionary labeling, the burn time of fuses, explosive powder content, stability for both ground-based and aerial devices and proper performance.In 1988, the CPSC started an inspection and enforcement program for Chinese-manufactured fireworks. China -- which now supplies 98 percent of the fireworks in the United States -- began exporting fireworks to this country in 1973.Initially, 75 percent of fireworks tested  by the CPSC failed to comply with the regulations.The quality truly wasn't very good, Weimer said. The quality was inconsistent. The industry knew that if it didn't so something there would be big issues.Working with the CPSC, importers established the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to set additional, stricter requirements for consumer fireworks. The AFSL went to factories in China, conducted seminars, worked with manufacturers and started a testing program in China in 1994.The linchpin of the system is the testing, Weimer said.The testing is conducted by an independent laboratory hired from outside China by the AFSL. Each fireworks shipment is tested for compliance with 15 quality standards, Weimer said. If any standard is not met by any of the randomly selected cases, the entire case lot fails.In the program's first year, 1994, 36 percent of the random lots of tested fireworks were rejected. By 2002, that number was less than 10 percent. The compliance rate exceeded 90 percent.CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, speaking at a symposium in China last January, noted that the agency has been working for years with manufacturers and with China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.While AQSIQ and CPSC may work to improve product safety with somewhat different motivations, everyone benefits from the end result, which is improved product safety, she said, adding that we have increased the frequency, scope, and depth of our training in China.Weimer thinks that the availability of regulated consumer fireworks diminishes the use of the really lethal illegal and homemade variety.So what's the grand finale?PolitiFact Ohio is not ruling on the advisability of maintaining, relaxing or tightening Ohio laws regulating fireworks. And were not taking a position on whether consumer use of fireworks is even a good idea.Weimers statement addressed legal and proper use of fireworks by consumers -- not use of homemade or illegal products. And fireworks are -- as Weimer told us -- a product with risk associated with it.But, the statistical record shows that the rate of injury from fireworks declined nationally while their use increased dramatically, and while laws governing their consumer use loosened. There still are injuries, but the annual rate has plateaued even while consumption continues to grow.We found no stronger explanation than the concurrent regulatory and policing work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to make fireworks safer.Weimers claim is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter it rates True. On October 12, 2021, a map supposedly showing searches on the pornography website Pornhub went viral on Twitter as social media users laughed about the bizarre sexual preferences of their compatriots. The state of Texas, for instance, liked lesbian porn, the map claimed, the Northwest states searched for Asians, and Oklahoma liked  Gothic Hospital? And Tennessee liked  Kevin James?   This map has been floating around social media since at least February 2019 when it was posted by @sortabad. When the fake map went viral again more than two years later in October 2021, they claimed credit for the map and shared their original tweet:  Pornhub does release analytics via their insights page and they have released maps in the past that show the top searches by state. Heres one such map from around election day in 2020. insights   In 2016, they released a map that looks similar to the viral joke map (except, unfortunately, for the inclusion of Kevin James). released a map   So what does all this mean? Do Tennesseans find or do they not find Kevin James sexy? Well, we cant really answer that. But we can say that the answer isnt reflected in this viral joke map. 2020 Election Week Searches  Pornhub Insights. https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2020-election-week-searches. Accessed 14 Oct. 2021. February 26, { 72 comments }, and 2016 Tweet. The United States Top Searches  Pornhub Insights. https://www.pornhub.com/insights/united-states-top-searches. Accessed 14 Oct. 2021. On 15 January 2018, DailyWire.com, the right-wing web site headed by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, posted an article falsely reporting that "Mohammed" was the most popular name given to baby boys born in the Netherlands in 2017: article The mainstream media in the Netherlands reported last week that "Noah" was the most popular baby name for boys in the small European nation. "Noah and Emma were the most popular children's names in the past year," reported Nos.nl. "This is evident from the annual list of names of the Social Insurance Bank, which pays out the child benefit. Boys were named Noah 635 times, while 755 girls went through life as Emma since last year." The year before, "Daan" and "Anna" were the most popular names, the site said. But a journalist at Powned.tv did a little research on the report and found something completely different. Checking for "Mohammed"  and all its alternative spellings  the writer found that 636 babies had been given that name last year. PowNed.tv, the web site DailyWire.com aggregated their story from, is a Dutch blog owned by GeenStijl, a right-leaning site that boasts about being "needlessly offensive." Both GeenStijl and PowNed.tv have been criticized for posting anti-Muslim and anti-migrant content. criticized Baby names in the Netherlands are recorded by the Social Insurance Bank (SVB) for social service purposes, and each year SVB releases a list of the most popular names and ranks them. (For example, Noah and Emma were the most popular boys' and girls' names in 2017, while Daan and Anna were the most popular in 2016.) PowNed arrived at their conclusion that Mohammed was the most popular boys' name for 2017 by tallying all of that name's variations and then weighing that total against the number of newborns who were named Noah in 2017, a methodology that's flawed, for obvious reasons. SVB ranks names by specific spellings, so if the variant spellings of any one name are tallied together, that approach changes the ranking order. Thus, "Mohammad" may be a less popular name on its own than "Morris" or "Moos," but when all the different spellings of "Mohammed" are considered together, that name is more popular than either: ranks  It's true that if multiple variant spellings of the name "Mohammed" are entered into the SVB database, then the results document that 636 of the babies born in the Netherlands in 2017 were given that name. But if the same rule were applied to, for example, the names "Lucas" and "Daniel," it would be clear that Mohammed was hardly the most popular boy's name in 2017. Almost 2,000 Dutch children were named for some form of "Lucas," while more than 1,000 were given a variation of the name "Daniel" in 2017. The topic of migration in Europe has attracted the attention of nationalists and white supremacists, particularly since 2015, when the number of people seeking refuge from places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria spiked. European countries have been the targets of false stories claiming that migrants are creating rape capitals and "no-go zones." attention spiked rape capitals no-go zones DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified. For example, in the days after a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, the site helped spread a false rumor that "leftists" were digging up Confederate graves. In March of that year, the site spread a false claim that Democratic lawmakers refused to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow. In May 2017, the site falsely reported that Harvard University was holding segregated commencement ceremonies.  DailyWire.com spread false claim segregated The site was embroiled in another racial controversy after posting a video disparaging Native Americans in October 2017. After removing the video, Shapiro responded by apologizing but called the video 'satire.' controversy DutchNews.nl.  "Noah and Emma Top the List of Most Popular Dutch Baby Names."
  12 January 2018. Al Jazeera.  "Rise of the Right: 'Anarchist' Media in the Netherlands."
  27 November 2016. GeenStijl.nl.  "LOL. Real Donald Trump Retweet Dumpertvideo."
  29 November 2017. O'Donnell, Katie.  "Anti-Immigrant Forces Gain Ground in Europe."
  Politico.  22 October 2017. Hinshaw, Drew.  "Polish Nationalist Youth March Draws Thousands in Capital."
  The Wall Street Journal.  11 November 2017.