Datasets:

1-800-SHARED-TASKS

/

COLING-2025-FINNLP-FMD

like 2

Follow

1-800-Shared-Tasks 32

Caroline Kennedy's thoughts on Barack Obama.

["Caroline Kennedy said she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar?"]

Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True? Origins: The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House. It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making: "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support. For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated: 19 August 2012

['taxes']

NEI

However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention.

Obama Eliminates Combat Pay

["Does a new policy eliminate combat pay for U.S. military personnel 'unless they are being shot at'?"]

Claim: A new White House policy eliminates combat pay for U.S. military personnel "unless they are being shot at." Example: [Collected via e-mail, February 2012] Obama pulls combat pay from service personnel. President Obama's latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I'm constantly in a combat zone it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense ... come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here Florida Marine Corp Soldier Origins: This item about the elimination of imminent danger pay (also known as "combat pay" or "hostile fire pay") for all U.S. military personnel save for those who are "being shot at" includes some truth and a good deal of mischaracterization. It references a policy change that took place back in February 2012 not as an "order from President Obama," but rather with the implementation of the sprawling 2012 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress: National Defense Authorization Act The first major overhaul in hostile fire pay since World War II has been ordered by a Senate committee in a plan that would pay troops based on their actual number of days in a hostile area rather than a flat monthly rate. Approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of the 2012 defense authorization bill, S 1254, the provision would convert the current $225 for hostile fire and imminent danger pay, paid for any month in which a person spends any time in a designated zone, to a new prorated payment of $7.50 for each day spent in a designated danger zone. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam combat veteran and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel panel, called the change a "basic accounting measure to ensure that individuals receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in qualifying areas." Webb said ground combat troops will see "minimal impact" from the change "as they are stationed full time in the qualifying areas." In effect, all members of the U.S. military continue to receive imminent danger pay (IDP) for serving in areas "where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions," whether or not they are actually "shot at." The change that came about in February 2012 was that previously service members received a flat monthly payment ($225) for each month in which they spent any time at all in an imminent danger pay area; instead, they are now paid a per diem rate of $7.50 for each day they actually spend in such areas. Service members who come under fire still receive the full monthly hostile fire pay amount regardless of where they are serving. As described by the Air Force Times, the reasoning behind the change in policy was as follows: Beginning with Feb. 15 [2012] paychecks, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in a qualifying danger pay location, Pentagon officials said. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of a month in a danger pay location received full monthly danger pay of $225. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if an airman spends only 10 days of the month in an eligible area, he will have only $75 in IDP added to his paycheck. The change would fall mostly on rear-echelon and headquarters staff whose occasional and short visits to a hostile area, such as attending a change-of-command ceremony in Afghanistan, had provided them the same $225 monthly hostile fire pay that went to the front-line airmen or soldiers facing imminent danger every day of the month. Because changes of command often happen on the first day of a month, someone arriving May 31 to attend a June 1 ceremony previously drew $450 two months of danger pay. Those one- or two-day visitors benefited from what ground combat troops had derisively called "sightseer pay." The change was designed mainly to prevent people who briefly visit a combat or danger zone from receiving the same pay as someone assigned to a deployed unit. Under the previous rules, a person could schedule a visit to an eligible area on the last day of one month, depart the next day and collect two full months of danger pay. Exceptions will be made for troops who are "exposed to a hostile fire incident." Regardless of location, those troops will receive a monthly payment of $225. A 2 February 2012 Armed Forces Press Service release explained the implementation of the new policy: release Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said. The change, which took effect [1 February 2012], was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31. "Members will see the prorated amount in their Feb. 15 pay records," Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said. The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. "This is a more targeted way of handling that pay," Kirby said. Now, service members will receive $7.50 a day for days spent in these areas. Personnel who travel to the designated areas for periods less than 30 days should keep track of the number of days they are in the area to verify that they are paid for the correct number of days, officials said. The military services are working to waive or remit debts for members who may have been overpaid for January, officials said. The services can waive this "when there is no indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or when members were unaware they were overpaid," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said. Proration is based on a 30-day month, which translates into a rate of $7.50 per day. It does not matter if the month is 28 or 31 days long, officials explained; if service members serve in affected areas for the complete month, they will receive the full rate of $225 per month. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. Service members will receive notification of the change via emails, on the MyPay system, on social media sites and via the chain of command. Last updated: 31 December 2013 Tighman, Andrew. "New Danger Pay Rules Begin." Air Force Times. 7 February 2012.

['debt']

False

Origins: This item about the elimination of imminent danger pay (also known as "combat pay" or "hostile fire pay") for all U.S. military personnel save for those who are "being shot at" includes some truth and a good deal of mischaracterization. It references a policy change that took place back in February 2012 not as an "order from President Obama," but rather with the implementation of the sprawling 2012 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress:A 2 February 2012 Armed Forces Press Service release explained the implementation of the new policy:

Wisconsins rainy day fund is 165 times bigger than when we first took office.

[]

One of Gov. Scott Walker's talking points -- a claim about the size of Wisconsins budget stabilization fund -- is striking in seemingly contradictory ways. Here is how Walker phrased the claim Aug. 3, 2015 at a presidential candidateforumin New Hampshire: Our rainy day fund's 165 times bigger than when we first took office. On one hand, 165 times sounds like a huge increase. On the other, what was the size of the fund if it could be made 165 times larger? So let's dig in a little. To back Walker's claim, the governor's office cited two state reports. They show that the so-called rainy day fund was$1.68 millionwhen Walker took office and now is$280 million. That's more than 165 times bigger. Some history The Wisconsin Legislaturecreatedthe budget stabilization fund with a 1985law.No significant depositswere made during the first 20 years of the funds existence, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the states budget scorekeeper. But the 2001-03 state budget added a requirement that whenever the state budget runs a surplus, 50 percent of the surplus must be transferred to the fund. So, a governor is required to put money in the rainy day fund whenever there is a surplus; it's not a voluntary act. At the same time, a governor can take some credit for there being a surplus in the first place. There have beenthree depositsto the rainy day fund as a result of budget surpluses since Walker took office in January 2011: Fall 2011:$15 million. That was a result of a surplus in the final budget of Walkers predecessor, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. (The end of that budget, it should be noted, came at the beginning of Walker's term. So, adjustments and actions in the final six months under Walker helped lead to the surplus.) Fall 2012:$109 million. While that was the largest deposit to the fund in state history at the time, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnoted, it was only enough to run state government for about three days. Fall 2013:$153 million. Those deposits, plus interest earned, put the total in the rainy day fund at $280 million. In 2014, with another surplus projected, Walker proposed a combination of tax cuts and adding another $117 million to the rainy day fund. But the tax-cutlegislationhe later signed suspended the required contributions to the fund for the 2013-15 biennium. (The state's fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30.) Had the requirement remained in effect, it would have meant another$113 millionin the rainy day fund. Walker instead used the money instead to help cut taxes. Still, theres no question the fund has grown significantly under Walker. Our rating Walker said Wisconsins rainy day fund is 165 times bigger than when we first took office. The $280 million currently in the budget stabilization fund is 165 times larger than the $1.68 million when Walker took office. Walker signed a tax cut law in 2014 that contained a provision voiding a requirement that would have put another $113 million into the fund. But that doesnt change how much larger the fund is.. We rate Walkers statement True. (Editor's note:After this item was published, a spokeswoman for Walker's gubernatorial office noted that the budget that resulted in the Fall 2001 contribution overlapped with Walker's time in office. The item has been adjusted to reflect that. It does not change the rating.)

['State Budget', 'Taxes', 'Wisconsin']

True

Here is how Walker phrased the claim Aug. 3, 2015 at a presidential candidateforumin New Hampshire:To back Walker's claim, the governor's office cited two state reports. They show that the so-called rainy day fund was$1.68 millionwhen Walker took office and now is$280 million.The Wisconsin Legislaturecreatedthe budget stabilization fund with a 1985law.No significant depositswere made during the first 20 years of the funds existence, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the states budget scorekeeper. But the 2001-03 state budget added a requirement that whenever the state budget runs a surplus, 50 percent of the surplus must be transferred to the fund.There have beenthree depositsto the rainy day fund as a result of budget surpluses since Walker took office in January 2011:Fall 2012:$109 million. While that was the largest deposit to the fund in state history at the time, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnoted, it was only enough to run state government for about three days.In 2014, with another surplus projected, Walker proposed a combination of tax cuts and adding another $117 million to the rainy day fund. But the tax-cutlegislationhe later signed suspended the required contributions to the fund for the 2013-15 biennium. (The state's fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30.)Had the requirement remained in effect, it would have meant another$113 millionin the rainy day fund. Walker instead used the money instead to help cut taxes.

Enter to win a $100 Chipotle gift card giveaway.

['Chipotle is not offering free $100 gift cards for National Avocado Day to internet users who share a link with their friends.']

In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern. First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.

['banking']

False

In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July:Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty:

Says Madison Mayor Paul Soglin's stated intent when proposing that city contractors disclose private political donations was to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees.

[]

Madison Mayor Paul Soglin wants to require city contractors to publicly disclose donations theyve made to super PACS or advocacy groups operating in Wisconsin. That has drawn objections from a conservative public interest law firm, theWisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. It contends the liberal mayors proposed ordinance is unconstitutional and violates a bedrock principle of our democracy that government cannot play favorites among citizens, including public contractors, based on their political beliefs. So why does Soglin want to mandate the public disclosures by firms doing business with the city? Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty offered this answer in a June 4, 2012post on its website: Theproposed ordinance, according to Mayor Soglin, is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. Is that what Soglin has said is a goal of the legislation? Asked to back up the groups claim, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty president and general counsel Rick Esenberg pointed to a May 8, 2013story in Madisons Capital Timesthat quoted Soglin extensively about his motives. The article stated that actions by Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature that ran contrary to the wishes of Madison and Soglin were on the mayors mind when he drafted the ordinance. Legislative action since Gov. Scott Walkers election including Act 10 in 2011 curtailing the collective bargaining power of most public workers, and more recently, legislation setting levy limits for municipalities and restricting cities powers in tenant-landlord law got Soglin wondering if companies supporting Republican causes would rather lobby against the city or do business with it, the Cap Times story said. It added: Hes betting that exposing such activities might prompt some companies to curtail them. Those passages suggest pretty strongly that Soglin believes that some contractors faced with being identified as pro-Republican or pro-conservative will reconsider their political activity under his proposal to require them to publicly report their now-private donations to advocacy groups. Deeper into the Capital Times interview, Soglin made another reference to the right side of the political spectrum. He mentioned the Koch Brothers, the billionaire industrialists who founded the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, a tea-party organization that supported Walker in his 2012 recall win. Its unclear how much the group raises and spends because as a tax-exempt organization the group, like many others, does not have to disclose its donors. Soglins additional comments from the article: I think it would be a good idea to know if the bidders are contributing to political efforts which go into organizations that may be lobbying for certain kinds of outcomes or working against the interests of the city. It is simply the idea that sunshine is good. If a company bidding on a city contract also is lobbying for state or federal regulations that make their product required in their industry, the public ought to know about it. At the same time if theyre supplying the city while they're behaving like theKoch brothers, it would be good for the public to know it. Its a bit ironic when someone wants a contract with government, yet supports organizations that hate government and try to make it inefficient. So that is what is in the article. To be sure, the language of the proposed ordinance itself doesnt say Soglins intent is to squelch donations. It says information on donations is essential to the operation of a democracy, informing voters and governments about the activities of those attempting to influence the operations of government. Indeed, the proposal would require disclosure of donations to groups of any political stripe -- it does not single out conservatives or Republicans. Rather, the ordinance specifies that firms and minority owners disclose donations made to tax-exempt 501(c)(4) advocacy or super PAC organizations operating in Wisconsin the prior two years. Contractors would face a one-year ban from receiving city contracts if they fail to disclose any donations to advocacy groups within 30 days of getting a contract. When we reached Soglin, he acknowledged the ordinance might cause some firms hoping to continue as city contractors to stop making donations to groups that oppose the views of he and other city leaders. I will not say that this will leave things exactly the way things are, he said. But Soglin added this: He said the contractors were free to exercise their First Amendment rights and that he hopes they continue to make such donations, saying, I want to know where they stand. He said his goal was to unmask donations, for example, by firms whose ownersmake private donations to advocacy groups working to unseat sitting aldermen. Or to identify firm officials who give to groups supporting private-school vouchers and other programs and decisions he and city officials have opposed. I think the public has a right to know, said Soglin. What would happen if left-leaning city officials discover that contractors are fighting the views of city officials in private? Soglin said no city officials will take into account political donations when officials are deciding on awarding a contract. That language is also included in the ordinance. But Scott Resnick, the Madison Common Councils president pro tem, told us in an interview that aldermen would, in fact, use the information on donations made to groups supporting Republicans in state government when evaluating whether firms should be rewarded future city contracts. So we want to know if you were putting money towards that before we sign another contract with you, he said. This would be one more data set that will be used to make decisions on awarding contracts. In the view of Wisconsin Institute for Law & Libertys Esenberg, the ordinances statement that political activity would not be held against firms at contract time shows the provision has no legitimate government purpose. Curiosity is not a valid governmental purpose, nor is the exposure of private contributions to the public for use by you or others in the political arena, Esenbergwrote to Soglinon June 3, 2013. Soglin, Esenberg said, leaves the listener no other choice but to think that he favors an outcome in which contractors curtail their political activity. He wants to out these people as conservatives or libertarians, and they wont want to be outed that way in Madison, Esenberg said. Our rating The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty contended that, according to Soglin himself, the proposed ordinance is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. The group cites a newspaper interview that paraphrased Soglin saying that could happen in some cases as a result of his legislation. Soglin told us the same thing, but said his goal was limited to transparency. His statements make pretty clear he looks forward to forcing contractors to choose between trimming their political activity or disclosing it and facing the consequences. And he predicts some will stop making donations. We rate the statement True.

['Campaign Finance', 'Elections', 'Wisconsin']

True

That has drawn objections from a conservative public interest law firm, theWisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. It contends the liberal mayors proposed ordinance is unconstitutional and violates a bedrock principle of our democracy that government cannot play favorites among citizens, including public contractors, based on their political beliefs.Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty offered this answer in a June 4, 2012post on its website: Theproposed ordinance, according to Mayor Soglin, is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees.Asked to back up the groups claim, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty president and general counsel Rick Esenberg pointed to a May 8, 2013story in Madisons Capital Timesthat quoted Soglin extensively about his motives.If a company bidding on a city contract also is lobbying for state or federal regulations that make their product required in their industry, the public ought to know about it. At the same time if theyre supplying the city while they're behaving like theKoch brothers, it would be good for the public to know it.Curiosity is not a valid governmental purpose, nor is the exposure of private contributions to the public for use by you or others in the political arena, Esenbergwrote to Soglinon June 3, 2013.

We cut our deficits by more than half.

[]

In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 -- the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim: Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True.

['Deficit', 'Economy', 'Federal Budget', 'Wisconsin']

True

In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term.At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent.But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half.In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line.The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim.To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts.The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP.And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

Scam: Facebook Dislike Button Activation

['']

FACT CHECK: Can Facebook users get the "newly enabled Dislike button" by clicking a link and completing a survey? Claim: Facebook users can get the "newly enabled Dislike button" by clicking a link and completing a survey. Example: [Collected via Facebook, September 2015] Origins: In September 2015, in a Q&A session Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg somewhat misleadingly implied to social media users worldwide that the long-awaited Facebook Dislike button would soon be implemented. Predictably, Facebook scammers seized upon this nugget of partial truth in an attempt to more efficiently spread their (mal)wares and make a quick buck. Dislike Not long after inaccurate news stories informed Facebook users they'd soon be getting access to a Dislike button, a number of links resembling the example reproduced above and touting the Dislike button as an feature available by invitation only, were circulated on Facebook. Owing to the then-recent spate of news articles about Facebook's reportedly forthcoming Dislike button, users were more open to believe the link would indeed activate such a feature in their accounts. But users who clicked through to activate the Dislike button were greeted with a page that mimicked the style of Facebook-based content but was hosted outside that social network (alongside an initial red flag, what appeared to be a ticking deadline clock and apparent limited time to act upon the offer). Whether the user shared the item or not, a second inducement soon appeared promising a large cash sum (and coded to prevent easy reproduction): Neither the original embedded URL nor later clickthroughs led to any content hosted on or published by Facebook (which stands to reason, as the Facebook Dislike button rumor was widely misrepresented, and so no real Dislike button was forthcoming). Each of the links was a version of a typical social media survey/sweepstakes scam, such as those that have used Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart as bait by which scammers aimed to collect personal information and page likes from social media users (never delivering on their initial lofty promises once the desired information was collected from the marks). Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau described common hallmarks of social media survey scams: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Facebook features are always released through Facebook itself, and rarely require users to leap through hoops in order to enable them (Facebook's Celebrate Pride rainbow profile photo filter was a good example of an official feature released by the social network). When and if the feature described by Zuckerberg in September 2015 (not a Dislike button) readies for release, it won't appear in the form of a shady survey. Celebrate Pride Last updated: 21September 2015 Originally published: 21September 2015

['credit']

False

Origins: In September 2015, in a Q&A session Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg somewhat misleadingly implied to social media users worldwide that the long-awaited Facebook Dislike button would soon be implemented. Predictably, Facebook scammers seized upon this nugget of partial truth in an attempt to more efficiently spread their (mal)wares and make a quick buck.Neither the original embedded URL nor later clickthroughs led to any content hosted on or published by Facebook (which stands to reason, as the Facebook Dislike button rumor was widely misrepresented, and so no real Dislike button was forthcoming). Each of the links was a version of a typical social media survey/sweepstakes scam, such as those that have used Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart as bait by which scammers aimed to collect personal information and page likes from social media users (never delivering on their initial lofty promises once the desired information was collected from the marks).A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau described common hallmarks of social media survey scams:Legitimate Facebook features are always released through Facebook itself, and rarely require users to leap through hoops in order to enable them (Facebook's Celebrate Pride rainbow profile photo filter was a good example of an official feature released by the social network). When and if the feature described by Zuckerberg in September 2015 (not a Dislike button) readies for release, it won't appear in the form of a shady survey.

Was it Donald Trump who used his private plane to rescue stranded troops?

['A story that Donald Trump personally sent out an airplane to transport hundreds of stranded U.S. Marines home is based on inaccurate information.']

In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. Marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991. When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney, a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL, spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his unit's return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasn't available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This, according to Stickney, is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And that's all we knew ... I remember asking, 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day. The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida, to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. We can also confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickney" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after being split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, that's not Trump's private 727 jet; it's one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trump's jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red financially and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name. CEO Frank Lorenzo began selling off assets, including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft, and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million, financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took to the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump, he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The U.S. entered an economic recession in the late '80s, leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf War caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of several airlines, including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures, it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September 1990, Trump defaulted on his loan, and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights—a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post. Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe. There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run. "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home.

['finance']

False

In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991:The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided."We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation.We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet.First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April.To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name:Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport.Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe:

I used tax cuts to help create over 80,000 jobs in New Mexico.

[]

Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that New Mexico gained 75,800 jobs from December 2002 to July 2007, which is slightly lower than Richardson's claim. As our friends at FactCheck.org note in thisarticle, Richardson has consistently cited the higher number, even when the actual number was lower. For our ruling, however, we'll rely on the current 75,800 and call it mostly true. It's difficult to calculate how big a role his tax cuts played in getting businesses to create those jobs. James Peach, an economics professor at New Mexico State University, said many factors make a company decide to add jobs and that tax incentives often play only a modest role. Indeed, much of the job growth in the state began before Richardson became governor, Peach said. Still, Peach said Richardson's tax incentives and income tax cuts have created a favorable atmosphere for business that is a stark change from the state's mentality in the mid-1970s, when state officials refused to provide help to a promising young company named Microsoft. The climate here has changed considerably since then, Peach said. Bill Richardson has been a big part of that. He's not the whole story, but he's been a big part of it.

['National', 'Taxes']

True

As our friends at FactCheck.org note in thisarticle, Richardson has consistently cited the higher number, even when the actual number was lower.

Is 'Public Homosexuality' Banned in Murfreesboro, Tennessee?

['For a time, the city ordinance explicitly included homosexual activity, of any kind, as a violation of newly issued "community standards." ']

On Nov. 17, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted a Nov. 14 article from the New Republic on X (formerly Twitter) with the headline, "A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality and We All Missed It." This claim that a city ordinance in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, banned public homosexuality was broadly true when an ordinance on "community decency" went into effect in June 2023. However, explicit reference to homosexuality was removed from the code in November 2023. In June 2023, the Murfreesboro City Council passed Ordinance 23-O-22, a law purportedly regarding community decency that The Associated Press described as being "designed to ban drag performances from taking place on public property." As described by its authors, the new law "supplement[ed] existing civil and criminal sanctions for indecent behavior [by] barring persons who engage in prohibited conduct from sponsoring events on public space for two years and increasing to five years where the prohibited conduct occurs in the presence of minors." The bill included "sexual conduct" as one form of indecent behavior covered by the June 2023 enhancements to the code. This "conduct" term, however, was defined by "Section 21-71 of the Murfreesboro City Code," which had been in place since the 1970s and defined terms used in a section of city code detailing criminal offenses related to "exposing minors to harmful materials." That code defined "sexual conduct" in a way that broadly included "acts of [...] homosexuality": Section 21-71 "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast. A literal reading of the new law, therefore, could have criminalized any sort of public display of homosexuality, even if such a display was not overtly sexual or sexual in nature. Then, in October 2023, the city, citing the new law, denied a permit to the non-profit Tennessee Equality Project (TEP) to hold a Pride rally, which the group had held every year since 2016. That decision was made on the basis of this new city code and the allegedly indecent material present at the 2022 TEP event. As reported by The Associated Press, the ACLU took up the case on behalf of TEP. The legal challenge is the latest development in the ongoing political battle over LGBTQ+ rights in Tennessee, where the state's conservative leaders have sought to limit events where drag performers may appear, restrict classroom conversations about gender and sexuality, and ban gender-affirming care. According to the 67-page complaint, the organization [TEP] has faced recent opposition from Murfreesboro leaders after conservative activists alleged that drag performances during the 2022 Pride event resulted in the illegal sexualization of kids. TEP denied the shows were inappropriate, noting that the performers were fully clothed. However, the city quickly warned the organization it would be denying any future event permits and later approved updating its community decency standards intended to assist in the determination of conduct, materials, and events that may be judged as obscene or harmful to minors. The suit alleges the ordinance violates the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights and argues that it breaks the 14th Amendment by discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community. On Oct. 26, the federal judge assigned to the case issued an order blocking the city from denying TEP's request for a permit to hold the 2023 Pride event. As reported by the Daily News Journal, the ruling tells the local government, Murfreesboro City Manager Craig Tindall, Mayor Shane McFarland, the Murfreesboro Police Department, and other city officials that they "shall not enforce or take any action pursuant to the provision of Murfreesboro City Code 21-71 that includes 'homosexuality' within the definition of 'sexual conduct.'" Against this backdrop, in October 2023, the Murfreesboro council took up the issue of removing homosexuality from the list of "acts" that could constitute sexual conduct. On Nov. 2, a proposal removing the word passed, with the change set to take effect on Nov. 17, the day of Newsom's tweet. As reported by journalist Erin Reed, "Good news. As of tomorrow, Murfreesboro will not have 'homosexuality' in its code banning public homosexuality anymore." That said, the new indecency law that Murfreesboro passed still contains very vague "community standards" provisions used to target Pride and LGBTQ books. Reed argued that while this change made "the targeting of LGBTQ+ people less explicit," the "vague 'community standards' section will still likely be used to target Pride events and books." The ACLU case is ongoing. "The parties agreed, and the judge accepted an agreement temporarily suspending enforcement of an ordinance designed to specify certain civil penalties against indecency in public spaces and to protect children from indecent conduct," Murfreesboro spokesman Mike Browning said in a statement. "However, other existing state statutes and city ordinances and penalties regarding such conduct remain applicable." Because public homosexuality is no longer explicitly prohibited by Murfreesboro city code, the claim made by Newsom and others is out of date. It is still possible, however, based on statements made by the local government and the broad nature of the law, that the portion of the code remaining could be used to prevent future LGBTQ+ events.

['profit']

NEI

On Nov. 17, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted a Nov. 14 article from the New Republic on X (formerly Twitter) with the headline, "A City in Tennessee Banned Public Homosexuality and We All Missed It." This claim that a city ordinance in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, banned public homosexuality was broadly true when an ordinance on "community decency" went into effect in June 2023. But explicit reference to homosexuality was removed from the code in November 2023.In June 2023, the Murfreesboro City Council passed Ordinance 23-O-22, a law purportedly regarding community decency that The Associated Press described as being "designed to ban drag performances from taking place on public property." As described by its authors, the new law "supplement[ed] existing civil and criminal sanctions for indecent behavior [by] barring persons who engage in prohibited conduct from sponsoring events on a public space for two years and increasing to five years where the prohibited conduct occurs in the presence of minors."The bill included "sexual conduct" as one form of indecent behavior covered by the June 2023 enhancements to the code. This "conduct" term, however, was defined by "Section 21-71 of the Murfreesboro City Code," which had been in place since the 1970s and that defined terms used in a section of city code detailing criminal offenses related to "exposing minors to harmful materials." That code defined "sexual conduct" in a way that broadly included "acts of [...] homosexuality": Then in October 2023, the city, citing the new law, denied a permit to the non-profit Tennessee Equality Project (TEP) to hold a Pride rally, which the group had held every year since 2016. That decision was made on the basis of this new city code and the allegedly indecent material present at the 2022 TEP event. As reported by The Associated Press, the ACLU took up the case on behalf of TEP:On Oct. 26, the federal judge assigned to the case issued an order blocking the city from denying TEP's request for a permit to hold the 2023 pride event. As reported by the Daily News Journal:Against this backdrop, in October 2023, the Murfreesboro council took up the issue of removing homosexuality from the list of "acts" that could constitute sexual conduct. On Nov. 2, a proposal removing the word passed, with the change set to take effect on Nov. 17 the day of Newsom's tweet. As reported by journalist Erin Reed:That said, the new indecency law that Murfreesboro passed still contains very vague "community standards" provisions used to target Pride and LGBTQ books. pic.twitter.com/N4rFzqhxFX Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) November 16, 2023Reed argued that while this change made "the targeting of LGBTQ+ people less explicit," the "vague 'community standards' section will still likely be used to target Pride events and books," she said. The ACLU case is ongoing."The parties agreed and the judge accepted an agreement temporarily suspending enforcement of an ordinance designed to specify certain civil penalties against indecency in public spaces and to protect children from indecent conduct," Murfreesboro spokesman Mike Browning said in a statement. "However, other existing state statutes and city ordinances and penalties regarding such conduct remain applicable.

The proposed transportation tax plan revokes a tax-credit for consumers electric cars while the state retains similar credits for similar vehicles for businesses.

[]

With state lawmakers revving up plans to tackle Georgias underfunded transportation system, some readers are confused about the often-changing plan. As it stands, the House has passedHB 170to raise about $700 million next year toward a $1 billion annual need to maintain existing roads and bridges. The proposal is now before the Senate, which could adjust or completely overhaul the proposed taxes and cuts in the legislation. One alert reader reached out on Twitter, remembering a claim in a story earlier this year and wondering if the House version still revokes a tax-credit for consumers electric cars, while leaving a similar break in place for businesses. PolitiFact Georgia decided to check it out. The necessity of tax hikes has long threatened talk of tackling the states backlog of transportation projects and resulting gridlock. Amendments that would have undercut the tax rates in HB 170 were introduced right up until the House approved the proposal intact. As is, the legislation would eliminate the state percent sales tax on gasoline and replace it with an excise tax of 29.2 cents per gallon. Key to our question, it also would eliminate the popular $5,000 state tax credit for all-electric vehicles ($2,500 for low-emission vehicles) as of July 1. Owners of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles, meanwhile, would be required to pay a $200 annual registration fee. State Rep. Jay Roberts, R-Ocilla, said that included the changes in the transportation tax bill he pushed through the changes because electric vehicle owners practically pay nothing to lease and operate those cars. The tax credit cost the state $13.6 million in 2013. When combined with the $7.500 federal tax credit for buying a zero-emission electric vehicle, the state credit covers about 23 percent of the lowest-priced Nissan Leaf. Atlanta was the top market in the nation last year for the Leaf, the nations top plug-in electric car, in part due to the generous state tax incentive. Eliminating the credit and adding the annual fee is estimated to generate about $68 million in new revenue in 2016, according to the state Department of Audits and Accounts. Not addressed in the pending legislation, though, is any change to tax credits for businesses. PolitiFact Georgia had to go back to last years legislative session to find those breaks. Roberts was among 116 House members (and 41 Senators) who approved House Bill 348 last year. That measure, which Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law last April, provides an income-tax credit of up to $20,000 for firms that purchase a heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicle and $12,000 for the purchase of medium-duty alternative fuel vehicles. The credits are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis and are limited to $2.5 million each year for vehicles that run on electricity, liquid petroleum gas, natural gas or hydrogen. (The break does not include vehicles under 8,500 pounds. That eliminates the Leaf, which weighs between 3,000 and 3,500 pounds, according to various automotive blogging and news web sites.) Those tax credits expire on June 30, 2017. But it took no time for some firms to make good use of the breaks to switch to alt-fuel vehicles. Sandy Springs-based UPS, for instance, said last spring it was buying 1,000 propane-powered delivery trucks as part of a $70 million investment. Those trucks are used in more rural areas, where propane is more readily available, and can go up to 200 miles on a single tank. So that means the current legislation does revoke a tax break available for consumers alternative-fuel vehicles, while leaving alone a similar credit for business use. Several studies suggest the Georgia economy actually benefits from both of the tax credits, though. The break for businesses spurs investment and can create the bulk buying that encourage the rest of the market, said Bruce Seaman, an economics professor at Georgia State University. The breaks for consumers electric vehicles keep more money in Georgia, in large part because the state does not have a very large interest in the oil industry but does generate a lot of economic activity around electricity. One study, by the Keybridge Public Policy Economics consulting firm, concludes the state stands to lose $107 million to its GDP in the next five years if it eliminates the consumer tax break. Over 16 years, from now until 2030, the amount is $252 million. The analysis also showed that without the credit, Georgia car owners would pay $155 million more to pump gas into their cars in the next five years, offset by saving about $60 million in electricity. That means a double-hit to Georgias overall economy: lost fuel savings and an increase in spending on fuel (gas), whose profits leave the state. Its pretty hard, economically, to justify one credit and not the other, Seaman said. Eliminating the electric vehicle credit is a quest for funding. But its short-sighted not to consider the overall economic impacts, especially on commuting and our roads. Senators may well weigh those considerations as they take up the legislation. House members, too, could discuss changes if the proposal returns to them with any amendments. But the question here is whether, today, Georgias transportation legislation eliminates a popular consumer tax credit while retaining a similar break for businesses. It does. One caveat: the tax credit for businesses, which is not mentioned in the latest proposal, would expire in two years anyway. Both of those issues may be the topic of debate to come. But as it stands, we rate the claim True.

['Georgia', 'Transportation', 'Taxes']

True

As it stands, the House has passedHB 170to raise about $700 million next year toward a $1 billion annual need to maintain existing roads and bridges.

The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.

[]

The budget crisis in Wisconsin has spurred a national discussion on spending priorities, including among the commentators on ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Amanpour asked her guests if the plans in Wisconsin were shared sacrifice.Where is the sacrifice going to be borne the most? And is it equitable? Amanpour asked.Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said it wasnt.Just like the tea party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, No more, no more budget cuts on the back of working people, Brazile said. The governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.We're trying to balance the budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and that's why workers are standing up for their rights, she said a little later in the program.The word giveaway is a loaded term for tax cuts, but we feel its fair to fact-check whether Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed tax breaks for corporations while advocating budget cuts for public workers.Walkers budget proposal asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets significant limits on collective bargaining power formost public sector unions, which has enraged union members and sparked protests at the state capitol.We next looked to see if Walker has proposed tax cuts for corporations.We found Walker has already signed bills that cut taxes for corporations.Walker signed a law on Jan. 31 that says that companies that relocate to Wisconsin will not have to pay corporate taxes for two years. The law stipulates that the company must move at least 51 percent of the workers on its payroll or at least those who account for $200,000 in wages. Walker also signed into law a bill that gives small tax breaks to companies that create jobs. Its debatable whether these could fairly be considered giveaways, since they are intended to reward companies for creating jobs.But Walker proposed additional tax breaks for business during the campaign for governor. PolitiFact Wisconsin documented those promises on PolitiFacts Walk-O-Meter, a database of Walkers campaign promises. That includesreducing taxes on employersand repealing the combined reporting requirement for business taxes, a measure that increased tax revenues and was approved in 2009.If you elect me as your next governor, Ill get government out of the way and lower the tax burden so Wisconsin business owners and factories can create 250,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses in our state by 2015, said Walker during the campaign.We also found that Walker told the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce during the campaign thathe supportedefforts to repeal the corporate income tax. Though its a fine distinction, we should note that we were not able to find statements from Walker proposing a repeal, so its not a promise listed in the Walk-O-Meter database.Brazile said, The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations. The tax breaks he signed into law were linked to job growth, which means they were not necessarily giveaways. But he has proposed lower taxes for all businesses. And hes supported those tax cuts even in the face of a tight budget, saying they would lead to job growth. Because Brazile gets Walkers basic position on business taxes right -- he wants them lower -- we rate her statement Mostly True.

['National', 'Corporations', 'Pundits', 'This Week - ABC News', 'Taxes']

True

The budget crisis in Wisconsin has spurred a national discussion on spending priorities, including among the commentators on ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Amanpour asked her guests if the plans in Wisconsin were shared sacrifice.Where is the sacrifice going to be borne the most? And is it equitable? Amanpour asked.Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said it wasnt.Just like the tea party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, No more, no more budget cuts on the back of working people, Brazile said. The governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.We're trying to balance the budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and that's why workers are standing up for their rights, she said a little later in the program.The word giveaway is a loaded term for tax cuts, but we feel its fair to fact-check whether Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed tax breaks for corporations while advocating budget cuts for public workers.Walkers budget proposal asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets significant limits on collective bargaining power formost public sector unions, which has enraged union members and sparked protests at the state capitol.We next looked to see if Walker has proposed tax cuts for corporations.We found Walker has already signed bills that cut taxes for corporations.Walker signed a law on Jan. 31 that says that companies that relocate to Wisconsin will not have to pay corporate taxes for two years. The law stipulates that the company must move at least 51 percent of the workers on its payroll or at least those who account for $200,000 in wages. Walker also signed into law a bill that gives small tax breaks to companies that create jobs. Its debatable whether these could fairly be considered giveaways, since they are intended to reward companies for creating jobs.But Walker proposed additional tax breaks for business during the campaign for governor. PolitiFact Wisconsin documented those promises on PolitiFacts Walk-O-Meter, a database of Walkers campaign promises. That includesreducing taxes on employersand repealing the combined reporting requirement for business taxes, a measure that increased tax revenues and was approved in 2009.If you elect me as your next governor, Ill get government out of the way and lower the tax burden so Wisconsin business owners and factories can create 250,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses in our state by 2015, said Walker during the campaign.We also found that Walker told the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce during the campaign thathe supportedefforts to repeal the corporate income tax. Though its a fine distinction, we should note that we were not able to find statements from Walker proposing a repeal, so its not a promise listed in the Walk-O-Meter database.Brazile said, The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations. The tax breaks he signed into law were linked to job growth, which means they were not necessarily giveaways. But he has proposed lower taxes for all businesses. And hes supported those tax cuts even in the face of a tight budget, saying they would lead to job growth. Because Brazile gets Walkers basic position on business taxes right -- he wants them lower -- we rate her statement Mostly True.

Did US 'Lead the World' in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019?

['Right-leaning websites celebrated the findings of a February 2020 report by the International Energy Agency. ']

In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of articles which claimed that the United States had "led the entire world" in reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, along with other greenhouse gases like methane, contribute significantly to global warming. contribute On Feb. 13, the right-leaning website The Daily Wire published an article with the headline "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019." That piece reported as follows: article "The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report. 'The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,' The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. 'US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.' On the same day, the right-leaning website Breitbart published a similar article with the headline "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019," writing: article "The United States led the world in tackling CO2 emissions last year while combining that singular success with solid economic growth, a new report reveals. It has also been confirmed while the U.S. was hitting its climate goals, at the same time '80 percent of the increase in CO2 emissions came from Asia and that China and India both contributed significantly' to global increases." On Feb. 11, the right-leaning Washington Examiner wrote that "U.S. emissions fell 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States leading the world in total emissions decline since 2000." That prompted Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to tweet: wrote tweet "FACT you will NEVER see on the 6 oclock news: U.S. emissions FELL 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States LEADING THE WORLD IN TOTAL EMISSIONS DECLINE since 2000." Based on the data contained in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) February 2020 report, it would be accurate to say that in 2019 the U.S. had the largest year-on-year reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country, in absolute terms. However, claiming as The Daily Wire and Breitbart did that the U.S. had "led the world" or was "the global leader" in reducing emissions that year, risked giving readers the mistaken impression that the U.S. had performed better than any country when it came to reducing CO2 emissions. This was not the case, because the U.S. reduced its CO2 emissions by just 2.9%, while other countries and regions fared better. Germany, for example, achieved a year-on-year reduction of 8% in its CO2 emissions. The source of the aforementioned claims was the IEA Feb. 11 data release entitled "Global CO2 Emissions in 2019." The IEA told Snopes that a more detailed, country-by-country breakdown of emissions data was not yet available, but would be published in March. However, some country- and region-specific details were already clear. According to the report, the overall global trend was as follows: report "Global energy-related CO2 emissions flattened in 2019 at around 33 gigatonnes (Gt), following two years of increases. This resulted mainly from a sharp decline in CO2 emissions from the power sector in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar PV), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power output." Although advanced economies (a category that includes the U.S., the European Union, Australia, Japan, Canada, and others) experienced positive economic growth in 2019, energy-related CO2 emissions also fell, on average, in those countries and regions. The U.S. produced around 4.8 Gt (gigatons/billions of tons) of CO2 in 2019. That was 140 Mt (megatons/millions of tons) fewer than it produced in 2018 the biggest single absolute reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions by any country. The U.S. produced around 2.9% less CO2 in 2019 than it did in 2018. The IEA report added that: "US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather." The large absolute reduction in CO2 emissions in the United States in 2019 is in part a function of the sheer volume of CO2 produced there (which is in part determined by the large size of the U.S. economy). By contrast, its rate of emissions reduction was not as significant as that achieved in other countries and regions. For example, the IEA report explained that Germany achieved a year-on-year reduction in CO2 emissions of 8%, while Japan's emissions fell by 4.3% significantly greater rates of decline than the 2.9% achieved in the U.S. Despite having an overall CO2 output that is almost 40% smaller than that of the United States (2.9 Gt vs 4.8 Gt), the European Union still managed to achieve a greater absolute reduction in emissions than the U.S. in 2019 (160 Mt vs 140 Mt). That was because emissions fell at a significantly greater rate in the EU than in the U.S. (5% versus 2.9%). It's true that, according to the IEA's February 2020 report, the U.S. achieved a greater absolute reduction in CO2 emissions than any other country, in 2019. However, claims that the U.S. therefore "led the entire world" or was a "global leader" in CO2 emissions were belied by the fact that other countries (including Germany, Japan, and likely others) achieved a superior rate of reduction in CO2 emissions. Although not a country, the European Union achieved both a larger absolute reduction and a greater rate of reduction in CO2 emissions than the US did. As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "The Causes of Climate Change." Accessed 19 February 2020. Saavedra, Ryan. "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019." The Daily Wire. 13 February 2020. Kent, Simon. "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019." Breitbart. 13 February 2020. Siegel, Josh. "Demise of Coal in Rich Countries Brings Global Carbon Emissions to a Stall." Washington Examiner. 11 February 2020. The International Energy Agency. "Data Release -- Global CO2 Emissions in 2019." 11 February 2020.

['economy']

NEI

In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of articles which claimed that the United States had "led the entire world" in reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, along with other greenhouse gases like methane, contribute significantly to global warming. On Feb. 13, the right-leaning website The Daily Wire published an article with the headline "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019." That piece reported as follows:On the same day, the right-leaning website Breitbart published a similar article with the headline "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019," writing:On Feb. 11, the right-leaning Washington Examiner wrote that "U.S. emissions fell 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States leading the world in total emissions decline since 2000." That prompted Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to tweet:According to the report, the overall global trend was as follows:

Was the Mayor of Minneapolis responsible for canceling the 4th of July fireworks while permitting a Muslim animal sacrifice at the Vikings Stadium?

['A pinch of fake news, a smidgen of flawed reading comprehension, and a dash of Islamophobic fear-mongering resulted in overblown accusations against the mayor of Minneapolis.']

In August 2018, a bit of Islamophobic copypasta started making its way around social media, asserting that the mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota had canceled a 4th of July city fireworks display but allowed "Muslim animal sacrifice" to be held in the city's U.S. Bank Stadium (home of the Minnesota Vikings football team) the following month: copypasta This copypasta was based on a bit of fake news, a fear-mongering report about the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, and a misreading of two genuine news reports. Fake News On 10 June 2018, the Last Line of Defense web site published an article positing that the Muslim mayor of Minneapolis had "canceled the 4th of July": article Mayor Ahneid al Ahmed of Haskentot, Minnesota has done the unthinkable and canceled the 4th of July. According to his office, the city has no desire to spend money on something so frivolous. Muslim spokesman Art Tubolls said: This city elected our mayor to do what is best. We dont hink buying a bunch of flags and fireworks and spending a day celebrating nationalism like nazis is a good idea. This was not a genuine news story about the mayor of Minneapolis, who is neither named "Ahneid al Ahmed" nor a Muslim. (The city's actual mayor is Jacob Frey.) The Last Line of Defense is part of a network of sites that engages in political trolling under the guise of proffering "satire." Jacob Frey This junk news piece may have prompted some confusion, as it resembled a genuine news story about a nearby Minnesota city. The mayor of St. Paul did cancel the city's Independence Day firework show due to budgetary concerns: cancel St. Paul will go without the rockets red glare on Independence Day this year. Mayor Melvin Carter announced that the city wont hold a Fourth of July fireworks event. The cancellation may foreshadow of what could be a difficult budget season. Carters announcement, posted to Facebook, cited concerns about the citys budget climate. Minneapolis, on the other hand, hosted multiple firework shows on July 4th. multiple firework shows Fear-Mongering Reports About Eid al-Adha The Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha is also referred to as the "Feast of Sacrifice." The holiday, which honors Ibrahim's (Abraham's) willingness to sacrifice his son at God's command, is celebrated by Muslims around the world. In many places, Muslims observe that holiday by sacrificing an animal and then sharing its meat with the poor: sacrificing To commemorate God's test of Ibrahim, many Muslim families sacrifice an animal and share the meat with the poor. They also are required to donate to charities that benefit the poor. Muslims also routinely exchange presents during the holiday. When it was announced that U.S. Bank Stadium would be hosting a Eid al-Adha festival, the Islamophobic web site "Bare Naked Islam" published an article about the upcoming event imploring readers to "imagine" 50,000 Muslims at the stadium and displaying various photographs and videos of animal sacrifices from around the world. article The following photograph, for instance, was taken in Lahore, Pakistan, in 2008: taken These photographs led many readers to mistakenly believe that the "Super EID" festival at U.S. Bank Stadium would also feature animal sacrifices, but that wasn't the case. Ahmed Anshur, executive director of Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center in St. Paul and one of the organizers of "Super EID," attempted to quell these fears, telling Minnesota Public Radio that no animal sacrifices would take place at the event: Minnesota Public Radio Eid Al-Adha, the second Muslim holiday of the year, comes at the end of the pilgrimage. Its name in Arabic means the "festival of sacrifice." Muslims celebrate by sacrificing animals and donating meat to charity. But Ahmed Anshur, executive director of Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center in St. Paul and one of the organizers, wants to be clear: The actual ritual will not take place at U.S. Bank Stadium. "Nobody is going to sacrifice an animal, or nobody is going to slaughter an animal in that field," he said. "I can assure you that, 100 percent." The Minneapolis Star Tribune filed a report after the 21 August 2018 celebration on which stated that in fact no animal sacrifices had taken place at the stadium during the EID celebration: report The holiday honors the prophet Ibrahim, also known as Abraham in Judaism and Christianity, and his willingness to sacrifice his son for God. It comes at the end of the annual hajj pilgrimage. It is one of the holiest days of the year for Muslims, who celebrate with prayer, shared meals and gifts. In some places, families who can afford it slaughter an animal and share the meat with family and charities. No animals were sacrificed at the stadium Tuesday. Bowling, Chris. "Thousands Join in 'Super Eid' Celebration at U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis." [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 21 August 2018. Feshir, Riham. "Thousands Expected for 'Super Eid' in Downtown Minneapolis." MPR News. 20 August 2018. CNN. "5 Things to Know About the Muslim Holiday Eid al-Adha." 21 August 2018. The Current. "Fourth of July 2018: Where to See Fireworks in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Beyond." 26 June 2018. Melo, Frederick. "St. Paul Mayor Cancels July 4 Fireworks, Cites Budget Concerns." TwinCities.com. 27 June 2018.

['share']

False

In August 2018, a bit of Islamophobic copypasta started making its way around social media, asserting that the mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota had canceled a 4th of July city fireworks display but allowed "Muslim animal sacrifice" to be held in the city's U.S. Bank Stadium (home of the Minnesota Vikings football team) the following month:On 10 June 2018, the Last Line of Defense web site published an article positing that the Muslim mayor of Minneapolis had "canceled the 4th of July":This was not a genuine news story about the mayor of Minneapolis, who is neither named "Ahneid al Ahmed" nor a Muslim. (The city's actual mayor is Jacob Frey.) The Last Line of Defense is part of a network of sites that engages in political trolling under the guise of proffering "satire."This junk news piece may have prompted some confusion, as it resembled a genuine news story about a nearby Minnesota city. The mayor of St. Paul did cancel the city's Independence Day firework show due to budgetary concerns:Minneapolis, on the other hand, hosted multiple firework shows on July 4th.The Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha is also referred to as the "Feast of Sacrifice." The holiday, which honors Ibrahim's (Abraham's) willingness to sacrifice his son at God's command, is celebrated by Muslims around the world. In many places, Muslims observe that holiday by sacrificing an animal and then sharing its meat with the poor:When it was announced that U.S. Bank Stadium would be hosting a Eid al-Adha festival, the Islamophobic web site "Bare Naked Islam" published an article about the upcoming event imploring readers to "imagine" 50,000 Muslims at the stadium and displaying various photographs and videos of animal sacrifices from around the world.The following photograph, for instance, was taken in Lahore, Pakistan, in 2008:Ahmed Anshur, executive director of Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center in St. Paul and one of the organizers of "Super EID," attempted to quell these fears, telling Minnesota Public Radio that no animal sacrifices would take place at the event:The Minneapolis Star Tribune filed a report after the 21 August 2018 celebration on which stated that in fact no animal sacrifices had taken place at the stadium during the EID celebration:

It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval.

[]

On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, California Sen.Kamala Harrisoften describes the economic hardships faced by American families. She cites statistics on the cost of housing, college, healthcare and how, if elected president, her policies would lessen the burden. Harris took the same approach while speaking on the Pod Save Americapodcastthis week, where she made this claim about economic instability: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. Weve seen similar versions of this claim before and wanted to know whether Harris statement was accurate. We set out on a fact check. Our research In January, PolitiFact ratedMostly Truea similar claim by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. He claimed in a 60 Minutes interview that Over 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank. Schultz had relied on a May 2018 Federal Reservereporton the well-being of U.S. Households in 2017. It found that Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money. Those findings generally support Harris contention of almost half of American families facing hardship with a $400 cost. A Harris campaign spokeswoman said the senator relied on the Fed report. But we took a deeper look at the survey to examine her contention this would really lead to complete upheaval for almost half of American families. What did the survey ask? Heres the survey question that led to the finding that 40 percent of adults couldnt immediately pay for a $400 unforeseen cost. EF3. Suppose that you have an emergency expense that costs $400. Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for this expense? If you would use more than one method to cover this expense, please select all that apply. a. Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement b. Put it on my credit card and pay it off over time c. With the money currently in my checking/savings account or with cash d. Using money from a bank loan or line of credit e. By borrowing from a friend or family member f. Using a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft g. By selling something The findings show that 59 percent of adults in 2017 said they could easily cover (the $400 expense), using entirely cash, savings or a credit card paid off at the next statement. Among those who couldnt easily pay it, 43 percent said they would put it on a credit card and pay it off over time; 26 percent reported they would borrow from a friend or family member; 19 percent said they would sell something; 9 percent responded that they would use a bank loan or line of credit; 5 percent said they would use a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft; and 4 percent said they would fined an undefined or other way to pay. And 29 percent said they would not be able to pay the expense right now. Respondents were able to select multiple answers. SOURCE: U.S. Federal Reserve,Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017, May 2018 Experts weigh in Daniel Schneider, a UC Berkeley sociology professor whose research specialties include economic instability, reviewed Harris statement, along with the survey and its findings. I think it is an open question about how those other options map with complete upheaval. Is putting something on your credit card to pay off over time complete upheaval? Maybe, he wrote in an email. One could certainly imagine that facing an expense shock and having to resort to (those options) would be stressful. The overall idea behind Harris statement is accurate, Abdur Chowdhury, an economics professor emeritus at Marquette University told us in an email. Chowdhury added, however, that the percentage of people who face a hardship due to a $400 unanticipated cost may be lower today. The survey, from which the figure was quoted, was conducted a few years ago. With the low unemployment rate and increases in wage rate, fewer people are in that 'close to bankruptcy' category, the professor added. A spokeswoman for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: Millions of hard-working Americans can't cover an unexpected $400 expense. They are a medical bill, a car repair, or a rent increase away from having to make painful choices like turning to a neighbor hat in hand to ask for a loan, putting themselves in spiraling credit card debt, selling their car, or heading to a pawn shop with their wedding ring. To presume any of these things would not upend someone's daily life is out of touch. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. The portion of Harris statement about almost half of families is on the right track. A 2018 Federal Reserve report found 40 percent of adults surveyed could not easily pay for an unforeseen $400 cost. But the report doesnt describe complete upheaval for that group. Instead, it found many would place that expense on a credit card and pay it off over time, borrow money from a friend or family or sell a possession. Those represent very real hardships for families. But to characterize them as leading to complete upheaval is not supported by the facts and takes the survey results out-of-context. We rated Harris claim Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. RELATED: Kamala Harris calls her LIFT plan the most significant middle-class tax cut in generations. Is it? Kamala Harris gets it mostly right on Americas rapid growth of student loan debt Are paychecks failing to keep up with inflation? Does teacher pay fall short of the living wage in 30 states, as Kamala Harris said?

['Economy', 'Poverty', 'California']

NEI

On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, California Sen.Kamala Harrisoften describes the economic hardships faced by American families.Harris took the same approach while speaking on the Pod Save Americapodcastthis week, where she made this claim about economic instability:In January, PolitiFact ratedMostly Truea similar claim by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. He claimed in a 60 Minutes interview that Over 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank.Schultz had relied on a May 2018 Federal Reservereporton the well-being of U.S. Households in 2017. It found that Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money.SOURCE: U.S. Federal Reserve,Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017, May 2018Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.Kamala Harris calls her LIFT plan the most significant middle-class tax cut in generations. Is it?Kamala Harris gets it mostly right on Americas rapid growth of student loan debtAre paychecks failing to keep up with inflation?Does teacher pay fall short of the living wage in 30 states, as Kamala Harris said?

Does Biden's Climate Plan Include Cutting 90% of Red Meat From Our Diets?

['One way to smear a plan that is light on details is to make up your own objectionable details to tweet about.']

On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030: Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action not only the our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are

['economy']

False

On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030: Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan:The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded:The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released.Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released:The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture:As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden:

Complex Social Housing Initiative

["Video clip shows Tacoma housing development 'built for illegal immigrants' who are receiving 'refugee pay.'"]

Claim: Video clip shows a Tacoma housing development "built for illegal immigrants" who are receiving "refugee pay." Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2011] I want to move to Tacoma... to the good life! Here is a development in Tacoma, WA (Salishan) that was built for illegal immigrants! 1,325 homes created! Refugee pay offers them $2,642 per month in SSI benefits, plus food stamps, plus Section 8 housing. You will see new expensive cars in this video. Wouldn't you like to get a free ride like the illegals? Origins: As noted by Kathleen Merryman of the Tacoma News Tribune, the video clip linked above about the Salishan housing development on Tacoma's East Side has garnered a good deal of attention for that community: William B. Mount is going viral on Salishan. The Tacoman once used public access television to air his worldview and now posts videos on YouTube. About five months ago, he and a woman named Jane drove through Salishan on Tacoma's East Side with a video camera and a big box of misinformation. They delivered a 10-minute commentary on the mixed-use and mixed-income redevelopment of the worn-out public housing site and posted it on the video-sharing site. The stew of untruths simmered there. It's at a boil now. Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) and Tacoma City Council members are receiving e-mails from people upset over what he calls the misuse of Social Security funds. As Ms. Merryman described in considerable detail in an excellent analysis of the video, virtually all of the claims made within it regarding Social Security, foreigners, and illegal immigrants are false: analysis Claim: "What you are looking at is a $225 million complex, $225 million complex, of housing out of the Social Security budget for 1,300 units." False: No Social Security funds were used to redevelop Salishan. Claim: "All welfare housing. All Social Security housing for foreigners will get $2,642 a month. All of that comes out of the Social Security budget." False: Of Salishan's renters, 97 percent are citizens of the United States, according to THA Executive Director Michael Mirra. "We know of no government program that pays $2,642 per month to foreigners," Mirra said. Claim: "The average income in here is about $13,000 per year, not including welfare, not including Social Security refugee pay, not including Women, Infants, and Children." False: The $13,000 figure is based on out-of-date 2000 Census data. As for the other sources, Mirra said: "We do not know of anyone who gets something called 'Social Security refugee pay.'" Claim: "This school was built by Tacoma specifically to house foreigners and welfare recipients." False. Lister Elementary School does not "house" any foreigners or welfare recipients. Claim: "They mollycoddle these foreigners who come across the border illegally." False. THA does not rent to people who are in this country illegally, and 97 percent of Salishan residents are U.S. citizens. Claim: "And they don't pay taxes. This housing is free if you are on Social Security refugee pay." False. Anyone who buys non-food goods and services in Washington State pays sales tax, and every Salishan household with earned income is subject to federal income taxes. Every Salishan rental household with an income pays rent. For complete information, we recommend reading the News Tribune's thorough debunking of the video. Last updated: 28 July 2011

['budget']

False

As Ms. Merryman described in considerable detail in an excellent analysis of the video, virtually all of the claims made within it regarding Social Security, foreigners, and illegal immigrants are false:For complete information, we recommend reading the News Tribune's thorough debunking of the video.

Depending on which study you look at, either 68% or 5 out of 6 individuals ... are making more on unemployment than they did on the job.

['The National Bureau of Economic Research found 68% on UI were making more with unemployment with the federal supplement.', 'The Congressional Budget Office found 5 out of 6 individuals are receiving more than they did on the job., Whether that is a disincentive to work is more questionable., A study from Yale University and an analysis from the Chicago Federal Reserve ties people returning to work to the availability of jobs, rather than the level of benefits received.']

A central part of the stalemate between the White House and Democrats in Congress over a new coronavirus relief bill is what to do about enhanced federal unemployment benefits. Democrats want to extend the $600 weekly payment, which expired at the end of July. President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would create a new $400 payment, but only if states set up a new system and contribute a quarter of the cost. Some Republican lawmakers are also hesitant to extend the benefit at all. This includes U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who, in an August 2, 2020, interview on WISN-TV's UPFRONT program, characterized the $600 in federal bonus money as a perverse incentive to keep people out of the economy. "Depending on which study you look at," he said, "either 68% or 5 out of 6 individuals, according to the Congressional Budget Office, are making more on unemployment than they did on the job." When asked to back up the claim, Johnson's office cited a May 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private nonprofit that conducts economic research, for the 68% statistic, and a June 2020 letter from the Congressional Budget Office's director to U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the Senate Finance Committee chair. The National Bureau of Economic Research study indicates that 68% of unemployed workers eligible for unemployment payments received benefits that exceed lost earnings, with 20% able to receive benefits that are double their lost earnings. The study noted that the $600 benefit, when combined with state unemployment, is meant to replace the mean U.S. wage. Most U.S. workers have weekly earnings below the national average. In contrast, most states base unemployment benefits on a percentage of previous earnings rather than a fixed amount, the study noted. Meanwhile, the CBO letter to Grassley stated that roughly five of every six recipients would receive benefits that exceeded the weekly amounts they would expect to earn from work during those six months. So, Johnson is correct with the numbers in his claim. Now, let's look at the disincentive question, which is the essence of his point. Let's start with the same CBO letter Johnson cited. It indicated that the nation's economic output would be higher in the short term with the $600 benefit. That's because, in the near term, Americans on unemployment would spend the additional money, increasing consumer demand. To meet that higher demand, suppliers would increase production and hire more people—or call them back to work—to do so. Thus, extending the $600 could boost employment, at least to a degree. However, the letter also noted that the effects from reduced incentives to work would be larger than the boost to employment from increased overall demand for goods and services. Other reports link people not looking for work more closely to the availability of jobs rather than the extra money from the benefit. A July 14, 2020, Yale University study on the effect of the $600 benefit found that when it went into effect, workers who received larger increases in overall payments were not less likely to leave unemployment and find a job. Yale also found that workers with expanded benefits returned to their previous jobs at similar rates as those who did not receive the extra money. Moreover, a June 2020 analysis by the Chicago Federal Reserve states that those who receive unemployment benefits are more likely to look for another job more intensively than those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Indeed, researchers found in this analysis that once unemployed individuals exhaust their benefits, their search effort decreases. The analysis noted that, before the COVID enhancements, unemployment insurance—on average across the country—paid individuals 35% of their previous earnings. The analysis indicated that there is evidence that when the government extended the unemployment eligibility period in the past, the length of time people spent unemployed increased. However, researchers found that those collecting unemployment now are looking for work more intensively than unemployed people not receiving benefits. The intensity of the job search was measured in terms of hours spent searching and the number of applications submitted. In a television interview, Johnson said, "Depending on which study you look at, either 68% or 5 out of 6 individuals ... are making more on unemployment than they did on the job." He gets the numbers right, and the CBO acknowledges a disincentive to work. That said, other studies found that those who are unemployed and receiving the extra money are looking harder for work than those without it. In other words, those studies downplay the idea that the extra money is encouraging people to remain unemployed. Our definition for "Mostly True" is that the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here.

['National', 'Economy', 'Federal Budget', 'Jobs', 'Wisconsin']

True

Democrats want to extend the $600 weekly payment, which expired at the end of July. President Donald Trumpsigned an executive orderthat would create a new $400 payment but only if states set up a new system and kick in a quarter of the cost.That includes U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who in an Aug. 2, 2020interview on WISN-TVs UPFRONT programcharacterized the $600 in federal bonus money as a perverse incentive to keep people out of the economy.TheNational Bureau of Economic Researchstudy indicates 68% of unemployed workers eligible for unemployment payments received benefits that exceed lost earnings, with 20% able to receive benefits that are double lost earnings.A July 14, 2020Yale University studyon the effect of the $600 benefit found that when it went into effect workers who received bigger increases in overall payments were not less likely to leave unemployment and find a job. Yale also found that workers with expanded benefits returned to their previous jobs at similar rates than those who did not get the extra money.Moreover, aJune 2020 analysis by the Chicago Federal Reservesays those who receive unemployment benefits are more likely to look for another job more intensively than those who have used up their unemployment benefits. Indeed, researchers found in this analysis once unemployed individuals exhaust their benefits, their search effort decreases.

Did Amazon Pay No Federal Income Taxes in 2017?

['By the companys own accounting, Amazon actually received a $137 million federal tax credit in the same year they earned over $5.6 billion in profit.']

Amid national debates about income inequality and tax cuts for the ultra-rich, one talking point is frequently highlighted in online memes and by political figures such as Bernie Sanders is that online retailing giant Amazon.com, despite taking in $5.6 billion in profit in 2017, paid no federal corporate income taxes for that year: Bernie Sanders (With respect to the claim about Amazon employees on welfare, see our fact check on that topic here.) here In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazons tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars): SEC filing Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazons reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks: The third negative item in the SEC filing, $789 million in reduced tax burden as a result of the 2017 Tax Act, will be applied to future tax years, according to a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. report SEC filings do not require a company to list the specific credits they utilize, but there are several avenues Amazon would likely have pursued. Annette Nellen, a professor and director of the Master of Science in Taxation program at San Jose University, said that Amazons write-offs likely include credits for research and development, domestic production, and equipment depreciation. And according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, Amazon receives myriad tax incentives from state and local governments as well: said report The expansion of Amazons physical distribution network has coincided with a strategic business plan of negotiating millions in tax abatements, credits, exemptions, and infrastructure assistance from state and local governments in the name of regional economic development. By the end of 2016, Amazon had likely received over $1 billion in state and local subsidies for its facilities, which would include not only fulfillment centers but sortation centers that only sort packages, mailing centers, and other facilities. Publicly-traded corporations can list the stock options they grant to employees as a business cost in their accounting, and if an option-receiving employee makes over $1 million a year in salary, the profits from the sale of those stocks can be then counted as a federal income tax deduction for the corporation (primarily due to a Clinton-era compromise over how to cap executive pay). Stock options allow an employee to purchase stock in their employers company at a set price, regardless of its current market value: list Options give executives and investors the right to buy shares of a company at a later date and at specific prices. For example, if a chief executive joins a media company when its stock is trading at $55 a share, but years later, the share price has skyrocketed to $100, that chief executive can still buy the shares at $55, pocketing the massive difference. In the cases of their highest paid employees, Amazon and other companies are able to deduct the massive difference employees make when they sell that stock at a profit. According to the Center for Tax Justice, because companies typically low-ball the estimated values, they usually end up with much bigger tax write-offs than the amounts they deduct as a 'cost' in computing the profits they report to shareholders. The $917 million in stock-based compensation listed in Amazon's SEC filing likely stems from their top employees' cashing in on their stock options for a large profit. deduct While it is impossible to know the exact amount of money Amazon did or did not pay to the federal government in 2017, their own accounting suggests that they expected their federal corporate income tax burden to be negative that year. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Amazon.com Inc. Form 10-K" 2 February 2018. Gardner, Mathew. "Amazon Inc. Paid Zero in Federal Taxes in 2017, Gets $789 Million Windfall from New Tax Law." Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 13 February 2018. Tobias, Manuela. "Bernie Sanders Says Amazon Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2017. He's Right." Politifact. 3 May 2018. Jones, Janell and Ben Zipperer. "Unfulfilled Promises." Economic Policy Institute. 1 February 2018. Gunjan, Banerji. "Potential Loser in Tax Overhaul: Executive Stock Options." The Wall Street Journal. 19 December 2017. Citizens for Tax Justice. Fortune 500 Corporations Used Stock Option Loophole to Avoid $64.6 Billion in Taxes Over the Past Five Years." 9 June 2016.

['profit']

True

Amid national debates about income inequality and tax cuts for the ultra-rich, one talking point is frequently highlighted in online memes and by political figures such as Bernie Sanders is that online retailing giant Amazon.com, despite taking in $5.6 billion in profit in 2017, paid no federal corporate income taxes for that year:(With respect to the claim about Amazon employees on welfare, see our fact check on that topic here.)In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazons tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars):The third negative item in the SEC filing, $789 million in reduced tax burden as a result of the 2017 Tax Act, will be applied to future tax years, according to a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.SEC filings do not require a company to list the specific credits they utilize, but there are several avenues Amazon would likely have pursued. Annette Nellen, a professor and director of the Master of Science in Taxation program at San Jose University, said that Amazons write-offs likely include credits for research and development, domestic production, and equipment depreciation. And according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, Amazon receives myriad tax incentives from state and local governments as well:Publicly-traded corporations can list the stock options they grant to employees as a business cost in their accounting, and if an option-receiving employee makes over $1 million a year in salary, the profits from the sale of those stocks can be then counted as a federal income tax deduction for the corporation (primarily due to a Clinton-era compromise over how to cap executive pay). Stock options allow an employee to purchase stock in their employers company at a set price, regardless of its current market value:In the cases of their highest paid employees, Amazon and other companies are able to deduct the massive difference employees make when they sell that stock at a profit. According to the Center for Tax Justice, because companies typically low-ball the estimated values, they usually end up with much bigger tax write-offs than the amounts they deduct as a 'cost' in computing the profits they report to shareholders. The $917 million in stock-based compensation listed in Amazon's SEC filing likely stems from their top employees' cashing in on their stock options for a large profit.

Obama Orders Fed to Adopt Euro Currency

['Has President Obama ordered the Federal Reserve to adopt the Euro?']

Claim: President Obama has ordered the Federal Reserve to adopt the Euro. Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Is this a legitimate story? Obama Orders Fed To Adopt EuroCurrency Origins: On 20 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming President Obama was changing the currency of the United States from dollars to euros: article In the boldest takeover of Presidential authority in history, Barack Obama ordered the Federal Reserve to adopt the euro beginning October 1, 2015, the start of the next fiscal year. The US will soon share the single monetary system used by 18 European Union member states, including Greece, France, Germany, and Slovakia. The surprise announcement resulted from secret overseas deals between Obama, foreign finance ministers and the Federal Reserve System. "This step forward," announced Obama, "will make it easier for Americans and Wall Street to compare prices, stabilize the economy, and set us up to again become leaders on the world economic stage."- See more at: https://nationalreport.net/obama-orders-fed-adopt-euro-currency/#sthash.jttBKsQw.dpuf Soon afterwards links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered such references mistaking them for genuine news reports. However, the article was just the latest bit of fiction from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fake news stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. National Report publisher Allen Montgomery has also stated to the legitimate press that in no way should anyone construe the National Report as real news: "It is our opinion that if a person is too lazy to check for multiple references [or at least one other source] ... and they spread misinformation around as fact, then they are to blame for their own stupidity, not us," he said. Last updated: 27 November 2014

['economy']

True

Origins: On 20 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming President Obama was changing the currency of the United States from dollars to euros:The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that:

No, Sean Connery's wealth did not make his family 'cry'.

['We recently saw the same misleading advertising network "arbitrage" ploy about a celebrity\'s net worth used on "Jeopardy" game show host Alex Trebek.']

Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he passed away at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ reported that Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure, and old age, according to his death certificate. The certificate shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age, and atrial fibrillation—an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure, and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight contacted the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." Following his death, at least one advertiser purchased ad space on the social media platform Reddit or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was in lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true; it's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely led to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with many pages. The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

['asset']

False

Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas."Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family."It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy.The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage."Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist."Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

Says Austin has been ranked repeatedly as one of the most, if not the most, economically segregated cities in the country.

[]

An official concerned about the government not enforcing fair housing regulations says Austin has long been known as a city divided. Greg Casar, who represents District 4 on the Austin City Council, told the Austin American-Statesman in May 2018: "We do have a really serious problem in Austin. We've been ranked repeatedly as one of the most, if not the most, economically segregated cities in the country." Economic segregation can be briefly defined as residential division by income. Casar notes three studies. In response to our request for elaboration, Shelby Alexander from Casar's council office said by email that three recent studies classified Austin as economically segregated to a great degree. A February 2015 study, explored at the time in an American-Statesman news story, ranked the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area as the country's most economically segregated large metro area. That study, overseen by Richard Florida for the University of Toronto-based Martin Prosperity Institute, evaluated the nation's 350-plus metro areas based on individual and combined measures of income, educational and occupational segregation, plus an overall economic segregation index. The study ranked Austin first for economic segregation among metro areas with populations of 1 million or more. The San Antonio area ranked third, the Houston area was fourth, and the Dallas area was seventh. Among all U.S. metros, the study found the Tallahassee and Trenton areas to have the greatest economic segregation, followed by the metro areas of Austin, Tucson, San Antonio, Houston, Ann Arbor, Bridgeport, and Los Angeles. We followed up with Florida, who pointed us by email to his 2017 book, The New Urban Crisis, in which Florida states that since 2003, he has explored his finding that the country's creative cities, including Austin, double as epicenters of economic inequality. The book asserts that Austin is divided east to west, with its creative class concentrated in a large wedge to the west that runs from downtown through its high-end suburbs out to Round Rock, and in another separate bloc in the far southeastern portion of the metro. Austin's downtown has seen substantial revitalization, including the development of large amounts of new housing. The service-class and smaller working-class areas are concentrated entirely in the more disadvantaged areas of the east. Also pointed out by Casar's aide is a 2017 study funded by the Urban Institute, which presented economic segregation indexes for the 100 most populous U.S. commuting zones (similar to metro areas) as of the 1990 census. Generally, the institute's study states that the share of Americans living in middle-income neighborhoods dropped from 65 percent in 1970 to 42 percent in 2009, while the share of families living in neighborhoods defined as either rich or poor has grown rapidly. Since 2000, the report indicates that the number of people living in areas of concentrated poverty has nearly doubled, from 7.2 million to 13.8 million in 2013. Additionally, the report states that the proportion of families living in high-income neighborhoods has risen. The researchers analyzed economic segregation by using the Generalized Neighborhood Sorting Index (GNSI), which measures how many people of similar incomes cluster together within a metro region, how many poor households tend to live in neighborhoods made up mostly of other poor households, and how many rich households tend to live in neighborhoods made up of other wealthier households. From 1990 through 2010, the report notes that Austin ranked among a dozen communities consistently placing in the top quarter of the nation's economically segregated areas. However, as of 2010, 10 of the 12 areas had greater eco-segregation, including New York, Charlotte, N.C., Kansas City, Philadelphia, Louisville, San Francisco, Nashville, Dallas, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. Among all 100 zones, Austin ranked 18th in economic segregation in 2010—up from 25th in 2000 but down from 13th in 1990, according to a table in the study's appendix. Dallas was 15th, Houston was 28th, El Paso was 36th, San Antonio was 42nd, Fort Worth was 43rd, and Brownsville was 86th. That year, the table indicates that New York ranked first by this metric, ahead of No. 2 Bridgeport, Conn., and No. 3 Charlotte. Alexander also noted an April 2018 institute report ranking cities—not metro areas—by income and racial inclusion. By email, the institute's Christina Stacy confirmed that in 2013, according to the institute's analysis, Austin was outpaced for income segregation by only nine of 274 cities. Although Austin ranks as highly segregated, Stacy wrote, it did improve on segregation between 2000 and 2013 while most other cities worsened. Thus, it has shown some improvement but is still toward the bottom of the pack. Another expert, Brown University sociologist John Logan, responded to our inquiry with an email pointing out research placing the Austin area in 2010-14 as 16th among the nation's most populous cities and 17th among all evaluated metro areas for economic segregation. Logan, presented with Casar's claim, commented that the Austin metro is on the high end, but not so high as to merit the characterization as one of the most, if not the most, economically segregated cities in the country. "The general point is that all U.S. metro areas are highly segregated by income," Logan wrote, "and that has consequences for the lives of residents." We circled back to Casar, who agreed in replies emailed by his office that Austin's level of economic segregation might be decreasing and that no study placed Austin by itself No. 1 by this metric. "You could see how looking beyond the city proper makes sense," Casar replied. "Consider, for example, that it's commonplace for smaller municipalities within a larger metro area to show segregation, with some predominantly higher income and others predominantly lower income. It's also a problem that some central city neighborhoods see higher income people leave to nearby suburbs, thereby exacerbating segregation. It's also common for some lower-income people to be pushed out of city limits, further away from services, which also exacerbates segregation." Our ruling: Casar said Austin has been ranked repeatedly as one of the most, if not the most, economically segregated cities in the country. Austin and the Austin region have repeatedly been ranked among the nation's most economically segregated areas. We didn't find a ranking that placed the city or area No. 1 by this indicator, though the University of Toronto study ranked the Austin area first among areas of 1 million residents or more. In that analysis, the Austin area landed third overall. We rate Casar's claim as Mostly True.

['City Government', 'History', 'Race and Ethnicity', 'Poverty', 'Wealth', 'Texas']

True

Greg Casar, who represents District 4 on the Austin City Council,toldtheAustin American-Statesmanin May 2018: We do have a really serious problem in Austin. Weve been ranked repeatedly as one of the most, if not the most, economically segregated cities in the country.Economic segregation can briefly bedefinedas residential division by income.A February 2015study, explored at the time in anAmerican-Statesmannews story, ranked the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area the countrys most economically segregated large metro area.That study, overseen byRichard Floridafor the University of Toronto-basedMartin Prosperity Institute, evaluated the nations 350-plus metro areas based on individual and combined measures of income, educational and occupational segregation plus an overall economic segregation index. The study ranked Austin first for economic segregation among metro areas with populations of 1 million or more. The San Antonio area ranked third, the Houston area was fourth and the Dallas area was seventh.SOURCE: Report,Segregated City, The Geography of Economic Segregation in Americas Metros,Martin Prosperity Institute, Rotman School of Management University of Toronto, February 2015We followed up with Florida, who pointed us by email to his 2017 book,The New Urban Crisis,in which Florida says that since 2003, hes explored his finding that the countrys creative cities including Austin double as epicenters of economic inequality.Also pointed out by Casar's aide: A 2017studyfunded by theUrban Institutepresenting economic segregation indexes for the 100 most populous U.S. commuting zones (similar to metro areas) as of the 1990 census.Alexander also noted an April 2018 institutereportranking cities--not metro areas--by income and racial inclusion. By email, the institutesChristina Stacyanswered our inquiry by confirming that in 2013 by the institutes analysis, Austin was outpaced for income segregation by only nine of 274 cities.SOURCE: Report,Measuring Inclusion in Americas Cities,the Urban Institute, April 25, 2018Another expert, Brown University sociologistJohn Logan, answered our inquiry with an email pointing out research placing the Austin area in 2010-14 16th among the nations most populous cities and 17th among all evaluated metro areas for economic segregation.MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Complimentary lifetime access to fast food.

["Popular fast food outlets aren't giving away free lifetime passes to celebrate their anniversaries. Such offers are survey scams."]

In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook): As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks

['banking']

False

The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them.As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them.

Credit Card Scams

['E-mail chronicles various ways scammers might obtain your credit card numbers.']

Claim: E-mail chronicles various ways scammers might obtain your credit card numbers. POSSIBLE, BUT NOT COMMON Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good Information This was just passed on to me. Seems to make a lot of sense. IT COULD CERTAINLY HAPPEN TO ME EASILY ENOUGH...... SCENE 1: A friend went to the local gym and placed his belongings in the locker. After the workout and a shower, he came out, saw the locker open, and thought to himself, "Funny, I thought I locked the locker. Hmmmmm." He dressed and just flipped the wallet to make sure all was in order. Everything looked okay all cards were in place. A few weeks later his credit card bill came a whooping bill of $14.000! He called the credit card company and started yelling at them, saying that he did not make the transactions. Customer care personnel verified that there was no mistake in the system and asked if his card had been stolen. "No," he said, but then took out his wallet, pulled out the credit card, and yep, you guessed it, a switch had been made. An expired similar credit card from the same bank was in the wallet. The thief broke into his locker at the gym and switched cards. Verdict: The credit card issuer said since he did not report the card missing earlier, he would have to pay the amount owed to them. How much did he have to pay for items he did not buy? $9,000! Why were there no calls made to verify the amount swiped? Small amounts rarely trigger a "warning bell" with some credit card companies. It just so happens that all the small amounts added up to big one! SCENE 2: A man at a local restaurant paid for his meal with his credit card. The bill for the meal came, he signed it, and the waitress folded the receipt and passed the credit card along. Usually, he would just take it and place it in his wallet or pocket. Funny enough, though, he actually took a look at the card and, lo and behold, it was the expired card of another person. He called the waitress and she looked perplexed. She took it back, apologized, and hurried back to the counter under the watchful eye of the man. All the waitress did while walking to the counter was wave the wrong expired card to the counter cashier, and the counter cashier immediately looked down and took out the real card. No exchange of words nothing! She took it and came back to the man with an apology. Verdict: Make sure the credit cards in your wallet are yours. Check the name on the card every time you sign for something and/or the card is taken away for even a short period of time. Many people just take back the credit card without even looking at it, thinking that it has to be theirs. FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, DEVELOP THE HABIT OF CHECKING YOUR CREDIT CARD EACH TIME IT IS RETURNED TO YOU AFTER A TRANSACTION! SCENE 3: Yesterday I went into a pizza restaurant to pick up an order that I had called in. I paid by using my Visa Check Card which, of course, is linked directly to my checking account. The young man behind the counter took my card, swiped it, then laid it flat on the counter as he waited for the approval, which is pretty standard procedure. While he waited, he picked up his cell phone and started dialing. I noticed the phone because it is the same model I have, but nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Then I heard a click that sounded like my phone sounds when I take a picture. He then gave me back my card but kept the phone in his hand as if he was still pressing buttons. Meanwhile, I'm thinking: I wonder what he is taking a picture of, oblivious to what was really going on. It then dawned on me: the only thing there was as my credit card, so now I'm paying close attention to what he is doing. He set his phone on the counter, leaving it open. About five seconds later, I heard the chime that tells you that the picture has been saved. Now I'm standing there struggling with the fact that this boy just took a picture of my credit card. Yes, he played it off well, because had we not had the same kind of phone, I probably would never have known what happened. Needless to say, I immediately canceled that card as I was walking out of the pizza parlor. All I am saying is, be aware of your surroundings at all times. Whenever you are using your credit cards, take caution and don't be careless. Notice who is standing near you and what they are doing when you use your card. Be aware of phones because many have a camera phone these days. When you are in a restaurant and the waiter/waitress brings your card and receipt for you to sign, make sure you scratch the number off. Some restaurants are using only the last four digits, but a lot of them are still putting the whole thing on there. I have already been a victim of credit card fraud and, believe me, it is not fun. The truth is that they can get you even when you are careful, so don't make it easy for them. FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN THINK OF. LET'S GET THE WORD OUT! Origins: The item quoted above is another example of a "crime warning" message that is difficult to classify as either true or false. The scenarios it describes are possible, and someone, somewhere, might very well have been victimized by them, but on the other hand the message provides no details of time, place, or person, to use in verifying these tales, and the scenarios proffered are generally too implausible to be of much legitimate concern to the average person. The first two entries describe scammers who supposedly switch expired credit cards for valid credit cards, thereby enabling them to run up thousands of dollars in charges before the victims realize their cards are missing. This isn't a scheme likely to be successful in most cases, for a number of reasons: Not all credit cards look alike. Common credit cards such as VISA and MasterCard vary quite widely in appearance, featuring different logos (based upon the issuing financial institutions), different colors of plastic, and even different (customer-selected) background designs. For this scenario to work, the putative thieves would have to carry around a plethora of different styles of cards and hope to hit a long shot by coincidentally matching one of their cards to a victim's particular style card. The deception would be obvious the next time the victim used (or, presumably, even looked at) his card, which wouldn't give the scammers much time to try to run up a huge charge on the stolen card via many small purchases. Contrary to the claim made above, most credit card issuers will flag as suspect thousands of dollars' worth of charges made on a credit card within a short period of time, even if none of those charges are for large amounts. Also contrary to a claim made above, a credit card customer could not be held liable for $9,000 worth of charges made to a stolen credit card, whether he reported the card stolen or not. According to the Federal Trade Commission, under federal law a credit card holder's maximum liability for any unauthorized credit card use is $50. (If the cardholder reports the loss before the credit card is used, he cannot be held responsible for any unauthorized charges at all.) If the loss involves the credit card number, but not the card itself, the cardholder also has no liability for unauthorized use. liability Frankly, if you're habitually leaving your wallet unattended in an easily-opened locker, you've got a lot more to be concerned about than potential visits from card-swapping scammers. The third scenario covers a situation we've already written an article about, that of identity thieves supposedly snapping pictures of credit cards with cell phone cameras. This scheme too is possible but implausible, since: article It's still quite difficult (given the quality of cell phone cameras, the reflectiveness of plastic credit cards, and the usual lack of contrast between the colors of a card's imprinted numbers and its background) to quickly snap off a clear photo of a credit card. Taking a picture of the front of a credit card won't capture the CVC2 or CVV2 security code required for most CNP (i.e., "card not present") purchases. (American Express, however, is an exception to this, as their security codes are printed on the cardfaces.) security code CNP Retail clerks and others who typically handle customers' credit cards in the course of business transactions have many, many ways of recording card numbers that are better and easier (and less obtrusive) than literally pointing a camera at a card and taking a picture of it. The admonition to "take caution and don't be careless" with your credit cards is generally sound, but then again, it's also rather obvious advice that applies to just about every aspect of life. Last updated: 22 July 2011

['liability']

NEI

Also contrary to a claim made above, a credit card customer could not be held liable for $9,000 worth of charges made to a stolen credit card, whether he reported the card stolen or not. According to the Federal Trade Commission, under federal law a credit card holder's maximum liability for any unauthorized credit card use is $50. (If the cardholder reports the loss before the credit card is used, he cannot be held responsible for any unauthorized charges at all.) If the loss involves the credit card number, but not the card itself, the cardholder also has no liability for unauthorized use. The third scenario covers a situation we've already written an article about, that of identity thieves supposedly snapping pictures of credit cards with cell phone cameras. This scheme too is possible but implausible, since: Taking a picture of the front of a credit card won't capture the CVC2 or CVV2 security code required for most CNP (i.e., "card not present") purchases. (American Express, however, is an exception to this, as their security codes are printed on the cardfaces.)

Melania Trump Criticizes Charlottesville Violence, Plagiarizes Michelle Obama?

['An image positing that First Lady Melania Trump again copied words from Michelle Obama while denouncing violence in Charlottesville is likely a spoof.']

On 12 August 2017, First Lady Melania Trump publicly responded to violent events that had taken place earlier that day at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, by tweeting the following: violent events Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence. #Charlottesville #Charlottesville Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) August 12, 2017 August 12, 2017 In mid-2016, Mrs. Trump had been the subject of fierce criticism for delivering a speech before the Republican National Convention which included passages identical in content and specific phrasing to an address given before the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama. That event prompted a good number of spoof items posted online that played on the idea of various prominent political figures plagiarizing each other's words. criticism spoof items posted Shortly after the 12 August 2017 statement referenced above was posted to the First Lady's Twitter feed, another image began circulating online positing that Melania Trump had likewise taken those words (without credit) from a comment made by former First Lady Michelle Obama over a year earlier: Although we can't yet absolutely rule out the possibility that Mrs. Obama might at some time have expressed something like the thought attributed to her here, we have found no record of her having done so (on 16 April 2016 or any other day) and suspect that this image is just a spoof of the earlier convention speech controversy.

['credit']

NEI

On 12 August 2017, First Lady Melania Trump publicly responded to violent events that had taken place earlier that day at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, by tweeting the following:Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence. #Charlottesville Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) August 12, 2017In mid-2016, Mrs. Trump had been the subject of fierce criticism for delivering a speech before the Republican National Convention which included passages identical in content and specific phrasing to an address given before the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama. That event prompted a good number of spoof items posted online that played on the idea of various prominent political figures plagiarizing each other's words.

This Facebook Post Offering Free Red Lobster Is a Scam

['Be wary of phishing scams on social media.']

Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know In February 2022, Facebook users shared what appeared to be a phishing scam falsely promising a free meal for two at the seafood chain restaurant Red Lobster. Source: Facebook The post contains text that claims to be sourced from Kim Lopdrup, supposedly the "new CEO of Red Lobster," offering a "voucher to get meal for two at any Red Lobster for lunch or dinner." The catch of course is that in order to get said voucher, Facebook users must click on a link, share the post, and comment. Several indicators point to the Facebook post being a scam. For starters, Kim Lopdrup isn't the "new CEO" of Red Lobster. He became the company's CEO in 2014 and in 2021 announced his plans to retire. announced Furthermore, the post isn't being shared by official Red Lobster social media accounts it's being shared by an unofficial Facebook account called Red Lobster Fans that appears to have been created solely for the purpose of sharing the above post. The account appears to generate an automatic response anytime someone posts a comment, urging them to complete the process of clicking, sharing, and commenting. A typical Facebook scam involves the perpetrators offering a deal that seems too good to be true, then urging viewers to click a link, comment, and share the scam post. They are often phishing scams that seek to illicitly collect personal information from victims. typical phishing A spokesperson for Red Lobster confirmed in an email to Snopes that the offer is fake, and the company has been working with Facebook to get the posts removed. "BBB Tip: Phishing Scams Can Come in Text Messages, Prize Offers," Better Business Bureau, 19 May 2021, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/16758-bbb-tip-phishing-scams. Liles, Jordan. Ellen DeGeneres Facebook Scam Promises $750 in Cash App, Snopes.com, 17 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ellen-degeneres-cash-app/. Red Lobster CEO Kim Lopdrup Announces Retirement Plans. Nations Restaurant News, 25 June 2021, https://www.nrn.com/casual-dining/red-lobster-ceo-kim-lopdrup-announces-retirement-plans. Updated with comment from Red Lobster spokesperson.

['share']

False

Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. Source: FacebookSeveral indicators point to the Facebook post being a scam. For starters, Kim Lopdrup isn't the "new CEO" of Red Lobster. He became the company's CEO in 2014 and in 2021 announced his plans to retire.A typical Facebook scam involves the perpetrators offering a deal that seems too good to be true, then urging viewers to click a link, comment, and share the scam post. They are often phishing scams that seek to illicitly collect personal information from victims.

Is Chick-fil-A Closing All Restaurant Locations in 2024, as Announced in 2023?

['Reference.com appeared to report via online ads in late 2023 that Chick-fil-A would be shutting down all of its restaurants. However, this was false.']

In December 2023, multiple online advertisements were displayed to users, including possibly on YouTube, that showed one or more photos of Chick-fil-A restaurant locations with the claim that the company would be closing down in 2024. The caption for one of the ads read, "They're Closing Doors in 2024. These Fast Food Restaurant Chains Are Closing The Doors In 2024." Another ad with a picture of a Chick-fil-A restaurant read, "Restaurant Chains Closing. It's Time To Say Goodbye, These Restaurants Be Closing The Doors." We found several other variations of similar ads that made the same claim about Chick-fil-A's supposed future plans. Some of the ads said said the company would be closing up shop in 2023. All of these ads were false. It was not true that Chick-fil-A was going to be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. An April 2023 report from QSR Magazine detailed the chicken sandwich company's strong financial earnings. QSR Magazine All of the ads led to a lengthy article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." In the article's page source code, we noted that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old. article The article listed nearly 70 businesses, most of which appeared to be American brands. Under each business name were several paragraphs describing whether the companies would be closing some or all of its locations. Nowhere in the nearly 70-slide article was Chick-fil-A mentioned even once. The ads with the photos of Chick-fil-A restaurant locations were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to entice readers to scroll or click through the slides, all for nothing. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage We reached out to Chick-fil-A's media relations team by email to ask if it had a statement to share regarding the false and misleading ads and will update this story if we receive a response. Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Klein, Danny. Chick-Fil-A Nearing $19 Billion in Sales.QSR Magazine, 6 Apr. 2023, https://www.qsrmagazine.com/growth/finance/chick-fil-nearing-19-billion-sales/. Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/.

['share']

False

All of these ads were false. It was not true that Chick-fil-A was going to be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. An April 2023 report from QSR Magazine detailed the chicken sandwich company's strong financial earnings.All of the ads led to a lengthy article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." In the article's page source code, we noted that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old.The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start.Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads.

Accountant in a house of ill repute

["A workingman's illiteracy contributes to his stunning success as a businessman."]

My grandfather used to tell about a country lad who went to the big city to seek his fortune but had no luck finding a job. One day, while wandering through the red-light district, he spotted a "Help Wanted" sign in a window. They were looking for a bookkeeper, but after the madam quizzed the boy about his education and discovered that he could neither read nor write, she turned him away. Feeling sorry for him, she gave him two big red apples as he left. A few blocks down the street, he placed the apples on top of a garbage can while tying his shoe, and a stranger came along and offered to buy them. The boy took the money to a produce market and bought a dozen more apples, which he sold quickly. Eventually, he parlayed his fruit sales into a grocery store, then a string of supermarkets. He ultimately became the wealthiest man in the state. Finally, he was named Man of the Year, and during an interview, a journalist discovered that he could neither read nor write. "Good Lord, Sir," he said. "What do you suppose you would have become if you had ever learned to read and write?" "Well," he answered, "I guess I would have been a bookkeeper in a whorehouse." According to folklorist Jan Brunvand, after writer Somerset Maugham was accused of stealing the plot of his 1929 short story "The Verger," he explained that he'd heard the tale from a friend and that it was a well-known bit of Jewish folklore. Maugham's claim is supported by this find, harvested from a 1923 joke book: Some fifteen years ago, a friendless and almost penniless Russian immigrant landed in New York, found lodgings on the East Side, and immediately set out to earn a living with racial perseverance and energy. He was of a likable disposition and quickly made acquaintances who sought to aid him in his ambition. One of them sponsored him for the vacant post of janitor, or shammos, to use the common Hebraic word, of a little synagogue on a side street. But when the officers of the congregation found out that the applicant was entirely illiterate, they reluctantly denied him employment, as a shammos must keep certain records. The greenhorn quickly rallied from his disappointment. He got a job somewhere and prospered. Presently, he became a dabbler in real estate. Within ten years, he was one of the largest independent operators in East Side tenement-house property and was popularly rated as a millionaire. An occasion arose when he needed a large amount of money to swing what promised to be a profitable deal. Finding himself momentarily short of cash, he went to the East Side branch of one of the large banks. It was the first time in his entire business career that he had found it necessary to borrow extensively. He explained his position to the manager, who knew of his success, and asked for a loan of fifty thousand dollars. "I'll be very glad to accommodate you, Mr. Rabin," said the banker. "Just sit down there at that desk and make out a note for the amount." The caller smiled an embarrassed smile. "If you please," he said, "you should be so good as to make out the note, and then I should sign it." "What's the idea?" inquired the bank manager, puzzled. "Vell, you see," he confessed, "I haf to tell you somethings: Myself, I cannot read and write. My vife, she has taught me how to make my own name on paper, but otherwise, with me, reading and writing is nix." In amazement, the banker stared at him. "Well, well, well!" he murmured admiringly. "And yet, handicapped as you've been, inside of a few years you have become a rich man! I wonder what you'd have been by now if only you had been able to read and write?" "A shammos," said Mr. Rabin modestly. Some like to question the legend's basis on the grounds that if the work-seeker couldn't read, he couldn't have made out what the sign in the window said. "Illiterate" is often mistakenly interpreted as "incapable of making head or tail out of so much as one written word." In real life, any number of folks who cannot read and thus have no hope of making sense of a printed page have learned to recognize by sight a goodly number of key words and phrases, including "help wanted." The illiterate among us manage to catch the right buses, "read" road signs, and order off menus, all by way of having memorized what certain words look like. They exist in mainstream society undetected for years, sometimes fooling even their immediate families. A good story never goes out of style, as this example shows: An unemployed man goes to apply for a job with Microsoft as a janitor. The manager there arranges for him to take an aptitude test (Floors, sweeping, and cleaning). After the test, the manager says, "You will be employed at minimum wage, $5.15 an hour. Let me have your e-mail address so that I can send you a form to complete and tell you where to report for work on your first day." Taken aback, the man protests that he has neither a computer nor an e-mail address. To this, the MS manager replies, "Well, then, that means that you virtually don't exist and can therefore hardly expect to be employed." Stunned, the man leaves. Not knowing where to turn and having only $10 in his wallet, he decides to buy a 25 lb. flat of tomatoes at the supermarket. Within less than 2 hours, he sells all the tomatoes individually at 100% profit. Repeating the process several more times that day, he ends up with almost $100 before going to sleep that night. And thus it dawns on him that he could quite easily make a living selling tomatoes. Getting up early every day and going to bed late, he multiplies his profits quickly. After a short time, he acquires a cart to transport several dozen boxes of tomatoes, only to have to trade it in again so that he can buy a pickup truck to support his expanding business. By the end of the second year, he is the owner of a fleet of pickup trucks and manages a staff of a hundred former unemployed people, all selling tomatoes. Planning for the future of his wife and children, he decides to buy some life insurance. Consulting with an insurance adviser, he picks an insurance plan to fit his new circumstances. At the end of the telephone conversation, the adviser asks him for his e-mail address to send the final documents electronically. When the man replies that he has no e-mail, the adviser is stunned, "What, you don't have e-mail? How on earth have you managed to amass such wealth without the Internet, e-mail, and e-commerce? Just imagine where you would be now if you had been connected to the internet from the very start!" After a moment of thought, the tomato millionaire replied, "Why, of course! I would be a floor cleaner at Microsoft!" The legend's message is twofold: that sometimes seeming adversity is actually the Hand of God arranging future events in our favor, and that often the most momentous decisions we make swing on little more than the expediency of the moment. Taking the second point first, we observe that if the young farm boy in the first example had been able to read and write, he would have gained the job he sought, that of a bookkeeper in a brothel, and thus would never have become the grocery tycoon he ultimately turned out to be. As to what led him to seek the bookkeeping position, he quite by happenstance chose to walk down a particular street, coincidentally on a day when a "Help Wanted" sign was posted in one of the windows. On another day, that sign wouldn't have been there, or he would already have had a job somewhere else. It is ever thus: the directions of lives change depending upon which ad is answered, which interview is given, even which bus is taken. A chance encounter can lead to a marriage and the begetting of children, and just as certainly, the slightly different choice of ad or bus can result in those two people never meeting. Career direction is likewise up for grabs. As much as we like to feel we're masters of our fate, often we're the very last factor to have much influence on unfolding events, even within the confines of our own lives. But there's another message to this legend, one of the power of divine intervention and why it doesn't pay to second-guess God. Today's disappointment can be a necessary, though momentarily painful, ingredient in tomorrow's success, as the snubbed bookkeeper or janitor finds out. Children of the moment that we are, we tend to forget this truth when caught up in sorrow over not getting what we'd set our hearts on, and tend only to remember it again when things ultimately turn out far better than they would have if we'd gotten our shortsighted way.

['insurance']

True

The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 196).

Was COVID diagnosis of Trump used by his campaign to raise $421 million?

['The requested dollar amount is a little suspicious. ']

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Oct. 2, 2020, shortly after news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump had tested positive for COVID-19, an image supposedly showing an email from his presidential campaign asking supporters to donate to Trump's recovery started going viral on social media. However, this email did not originate with the Trump campaign. Snopes' staff members who subscribe to the Trump team's campaign emails did not receive this request. The @TrumpEmail Twitter account, which monitors political emails from the Trump team, also reported that this email did not come from the president's campaign. In addition to the fact that this email did not land in our inbox, the message also makes a somewhat suspicious request for a very precise monetary figure: $421 million. This is the same amount, according to The New York Times' report on the president's tax returns, that Trump appears to be personally responsible for in loans and debt. The Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Trump campaign have also confirmed that this email did not originate with them. RNC spokeswoman Mandi Merritt told PolitiFact, "That is a fake."

['loan']

False

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.This email did not originate with the Trump campaign. In addition to the fact that this email did not land in our inbox, the message also makes a somewhat suspicious request for a very precise monetary figure: $421 million. This is the same amount, according to The New York Times' report on the president's tax returns, that Trump appears to be personally responsible for in loans and debt. The Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Trump campaign have also confirmed that this email did not originate with them. RNC spokeswoman Mandi Merritt told PolitiFact: "That is a fake."

Sotomayor's 2001 speech resurfaces following Trump's remarks about a judge's Mexican heritage.

['Several outlets attempted to defend Donald Trump\'s comments about a "Mexican" judge by invoking a 2001 speech given by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.']

In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump stated that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he was overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, claiming that Curiel may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage. The presumptive GOP nominee asserted that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico had resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case involving Trump's for-profit university. "He's proud of his heritage, OK? I'm building a wall," Trump told Tapper. "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico," he added. Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana. "We live in a society that's very pro-Mexico, and that's fine. That's all fine," Trump said at another point in the interview. "But I think he should recuse himself." "Because he's a Latino?" Tapper asked. "I'm building a wall," Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with those made by Trump: "textbook racism." Justice Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion." She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. "She's basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are." Pundit Ann Coulter criticized Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist." In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor, who was at that point an appeals court judge, took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. "I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." While Sotomayor's speech centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said, as insinuated by Bolling, that her heritage—rather than the merits of the case—would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor stated that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: "I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable." As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues, including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Others simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference will exist due to the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. "My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She stated that the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law.

['interest']

NEI

In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage:While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump:In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments:

Did Man Text 'Amazon Won't Let Us Leave' Just Before Warehouse Collapse?

['This text message reportedly was sent minutes before a tornado hit an Amazon warehouse in Illinois. ']

Around 8:30 p.m. on Dec. 10, 2021, a tornado tore through Madison County, Illinois, before striking an Amazon warehouse in Edwardsville where night workers were beginning their shift. The powerful tornado ripped off the building's roof, caused two of its 40-foot-high concrete walls to collapse, leaving six people dead in its wake. As news of this tragic incident circulated on social media, so did an image supposedly showing a text message thread between Larry Virden, one of the worker's who died, and his girlfriend, Cherie Jones. In one message, Virden writes, "Amazon won't let us leave." This appears to be a genuine image of a text message thread. While many people encountered this as a standalone image on social media, this image was first published in a local news broadcast from Fox 2 News after Jones provided it to the station. You can see the original news report below: Jones spoke more about this text message in an interview with the New York Post: New York Post I got text messages from him. He always tells me when he is filling up the Amazon truck when he is getting ready to go back I was like OK, I love you. Hes like, well Amazon wont let me leave until after the storm blows over.' [...] We heard the tornado didnt touch down until 8:39 so he had 20 minutes to get home ... I messaged him and that was the last text message I got from him ... I told him where we live, it was only lightning at the time. After that, I got nothing from him. Jones, however, didn't fault Amazon for his death. Instead, she said she viewed it as a "what if" situation, saying: "what if they would have let him leave? He could have made it home." It should also be noted that this text message was sent in the brief timespan (about 20 minutes) between the first tornado warning and the tornado striking the warehouse. As New York Times reporter Karen Weise noted, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance is for people to "seek shelter" after these warnings. A spokesperson for Amazon told us that Amazon's leaders on the ground followed this OSHA guidance and worked to get people to take shelter after these warnings were issued. The spokesperson said: OSHA guidance clearly states to take shelter immediately when theres a tornado warning. Our leaders on the ground followed their training and did just that, moving quickly to get people to take shelter immediately. That likely saved many lives from this storm. The site got tornado warnings between 8:06 and 8:16, and site leaders directed people on site to immediately take shelter. At 8:27, the tornado struck the building. Our team worked quickly to ensure employees and partners could get to the designated shelter in place area, and we want to thank them for everything they were able to do. In the wake of the deadly tornado, Amazon faced some criticism for not having an adequate safety plan in place. The BBC reported: reported Now, questions are being raised over whether adequate shelter was available, whether workers were advised to go there immediately, and whether the shifts should have gone ahead that evening at all, given the warnings of severe weather. The Edwardsville site received tornado warnings between 20:06 and 20:16 local time (01:06 and 01:16 GMT) before the tornado struck the building at 20:27, Amazon said in a statement when contacted by the BBC, with events "happening incredibly fast". The company said that the team worked "incredibly quickly" to ensure as many employees and partners could reach the "shelter in place" site. OHSA has opened an investigation into the collapse. OSHA spokesman Scott Allen told ABC News that the investigation will be complete within six months. ABC News OSHA investigates all workplace fatalities, and we are supporting them, an Amazon spokesperson said. Amazon, which is donating $1 million to the Edwardsville Community Foundation to help the community rebuild after the tornado, also said in a statement: statement "Were deeply saddened by the news that members of our Amazon family passed away as a result of the storm in Edwardsville, IL. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their loved ones, and everyone impacted by the tornado. We also want to thank all the first responders for their ongoing efforts on scene. Were continuing to provide support to our employees and partners in the area. 2 Workers Killed after Collapse at Amazon Warehouse in Edwardsville. FOX 2, 11 Dec. 2021, https://fox2now.com/news/illinois/multiple-workers-trapped-after-collapse-at-amazon-warehouse-in-edwardsville/. Amazon Criticised over Safety at Tornado-Hit Warehouse. BBC News, 13 Dec. 2021. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59641784. Amazon Worker Who Died in Warehouse Collapse Wasnt Allowed to Leave, Girlfriend Says. New York Post, 13 Dec. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/12/12/amazon-worker-texted-girlfriend-he-wasnt-allowed-to-leave-warehouse/. OSHA Investigating after 6 Killed by Tornado at Amazon Facility. ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/Business/dead-amazon-facility-tornado-pummels-illinois/story?id=81721932. Accessed 14 Dec. 2021. OSHA Opens Investigation after Amazon Warehouse Collapses during Tornado, Killing 6. PBS NewsHour, 13 Dec. 2021, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/osha-opens-investigation-after-amazon-warehouse-collapses-during-tornado-killing-6. Weise, Karen, and Eric Berger. At Amazon Site, Tornado Collided With Companys Peak Delivery Season. The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/technology/amazon-tornado-edwardsville.html. Updated [Dec. 12, 2021]: Added a statement from Amazon about OSHA guidelines.

['economy']

True

Jones spoke more about this text message in an interview with the New York Post:In the wake of the deadly tornado, Amazon faced some criticism for not having an adequate safety plan in place. The BBC reported:OHSA has opened an investigation into the collapse. OSHA spokesman Scott Allen told ABC News that the investigation will be complete within six months.Amazon, which is donating $1 million to the Edwardsville Community Foundation to help the community rebuild after the tornado, also said in a statement:

Why Is Charles Shaw Wine So Cheap?

['Was Charles Shaw wine sold so cheaply because airlines could no longer use corkscrews after 9/11?']

Claim: Charles Shaw wine was sold cheaply because airlines could no longer use corkscrews after 9/11 and dumped their stocks of wine. Origins: We tend to equate quality with cost, so the appearance of an underpriced wine of surprising virtue is bound to spark its share of interesting backstories. We view wine as a luxury item, and since we reject the intellectual construct that such an item can be both good and inexpensive, we instead seize upon plausible-sounding (but apocryphal) tales to explain the disparity between cheapness and quality. Good wine must be expensive, and if a good wine is being vended at a bargain price, there must be a calamitous reason for this fortuity. In early 2002, rumors of airlines dumping their Merlot (and the like) were launched from this springboard. As the Los Angeles Times noted in a 2002 article about the burgeoning sales of Charles Shaw label wines: The morning after a friend served Anna McNeal a glass of Charles Shaw Merlot, she made a beeline to the Mid-Wilshire Trader Joe's to stock up on the wine selling at an astonishing $1.99 a bottle. "I had to come and get a case," she said in a checkout line with half a dozen other shoppers who had somehow heard of the mysterious "Napa" wine. Since it was introduced in February, Charles Shaw wine has gained a cult-like following in Southern California, with wine drinkers backing their cars up to the loading dock of the Los Angeles-based discounter to lay in a supply of the Trader Joe's exclusive. "It's selling like crazy," said Jon Fredrikson, a wine consultant based in San Mateo County. "A great story for consumers." Why was such a popular wine (Charles Shaw was one of the top 20 brands in the U.S.) being sold so cheaply? As usual, consumers collectively created several inventive urban legend-like explanations for this seemingly inexplicable phenomenon: Security regulations enacted after the September 11 terrorist attacks prohibited the carrying or use of corkscrews on commercial flights, so several airlines dumped their large stocks of wine on the market, thereby depressing prices. Financially-distressed United Airlines attempted to raise some quick cash by selling its food service stocks, including an ample supply of Charles Shaw wine. Charles Shaw himself, engaged in a bitter divorce struggle, attempted to reduce the value of his winery's assets by flooding the market with cheap wine. Also as usual, the real explanation why many wine brands (not just Charles Shaw) could be had so cheaply at the time (2001) was a mundane one: the market was experiencing a wine glut. The wine boom of the 1990s led vineyards to increase production, but a downturn in the U.S. economy and the effects of September 11 resulted in a greatly lessened demand (particularly in the restaurant industry), creating such an oversupply that many wines were selling for less than the cost of production. Some vintners in northern California were even allowing their grapes to wither on the vine because the cost of picking them exceeded their market value. The Charles Shaw label (known in local slang as "Two-Buck Chuck") was the focus of those "cheap wine" rumors because it bore a prestigious Napa label, even though it sold for less than $2 per bottle. The catch was that it's made with cheaper grapes from California's Central Valley rather than more desirable grapes from the Napa Valley, but because the label's parent company does own a winery and bottling facility in Napa, it is allowed to put "Napa" on the Charles Shaw label (which only indicates that the wine is "bottled and cellared" in Napa) even if the grapes used in the wine actually come from some other part of California: Napa Valley [W]ine industry experts say that despite the classy Napa label, there probably isn't a hint of those pricey grapes in a bottle of Charles Shaw Merlot, Chardonnay or Cabernet Sauvignon. Even with the depressed market, grapes from Napa sell for around $2,000 a ton, said Brian Sudano of Beverage Marketing Corp. To make money on a $2 bottle, he added, a vintner would have to buy grapes for around $200 a ton the price of less desirable Central Valley grapes. This summer the market price for those grapes hit a low of $60 a ton. Swimming in excess wine, [Bronco Wine Co. head] Franzia revived the Charles Shaw label, believing it would be more cost-effective to dump his wine on the consumer market than to pour it on the ground. Taking advantage of the depressed wine grape market, he also bought up excess stock from other Central Valley vintners, according to several wine industry sources. "Franzia was able to take advantage of distress sales by other vineyards, said [wine consultant Jon] Fredrikson. "And he's got the high-speed production lines to do it and still make money." The Bronco Wine Co. produces a variety of low-cost wines, and its president, Fred Franzia, has earned the enmity of plenty of other Wine Country citizens: Franzia was forced to step down as Bronco's president for five years after Bronco was fined $3 million in 1993 for misidentifying grape varietals on its labels, and other Napa vintners have long been disputing Bronco's use of "Napa" in the names of wines, such as their "Napa Ridge" variety, made from grapes grown elsewhere (but so far the courts have sided with Bronco). That enmity was famously (albeit accurately) expressed in 2011 by Chris Knox, a self-described vintner who once caustically asserted on Quora, in a since deleted response to an inquiry about why Trader Joe's wine (and the Charles Shaw blend in particular) was sold so cheaply, that those wines were inexpensive to buy because they were ... well, made cheaply: asserted The basic gist of it all is that Two Buck Chuck is owned by Bronco Wines, which is owned by Fred Franzia, a trash-mouthed, unapologetic downright crude and shrewd business man who sees it as his mission to pretty much remove any shred of pretentiousness (and dare I say integrity and quality along with it) from the wine world. He started by buying the then failing Charles Shaw label years ago along with massive amounts of bulk wine in the 90's for pennies on the dollar and a staggering 35,000 acres of land in the very cheap San Joaquin Valley which he then planted to vines. That gives his Bronco Wines the prestige of holding the most acreage of vines of any American winery, even surpassing Mondavi and Gallo. A few things to keep in mind about his vineyards: one is that they are located in what is known as the Central Valley in the California wine world which is notoriously flat and quite hot producing massive yields of overripe grapes. The other thing is that Fred Franzia is no dummy he planted those vineyards in such a way as the rows run north-south, giving the vines maximum sun exposure and he made the rows as long as he possibly could, minimizing the number of turns his tractors would need to make. And third, these aren't hand-picked vineyards ... they are all machine harvested. And that means these large tractors with huge claws go down the rows of vineyards grabbing the grapes and depositing them in its huge receptacle. And it not only grabs ripe grapes, but unripe and down right rotten ones as well and throws them all together. Add to that leaves, stems and any rodents, birds, or insects that may have made those vines their home they all get thrown into the bin as well. And guess what? You think there's going to be any sorting when that truck arrives at the winery (or should I say processing facility)? Nope. Everything, and I do mean everything (including all those unripe grapes, rotten grapes, leaves, stems, birds, rodents, and insects) gets tossed into the crusher and transferred to large tanks to ferment. So think about all the animal blood and parts that may have made their way into your wine next time you crack open that bottle of Two Buck Chuck! Hardly even seems worth the $2 does it? If you were to taste that wine right after it was made, I guarantee you it would be undrinkable. They will then manipulate the finished wine in whatever way necessary, including adding sugar or unfermented grape juice if needed to make the wine palatable. And then the wine goes into bottling, packaging and shipping facilities, all of which Fred Franzia owns himself. They then get put on trucks (also owned by Fred Franzia) and shipped to Trader Joe's. The only part of the process Fred doesn't own is Trader Joe's itself and I'm sure if he got his way, he'd include that in his empire as well. So the summary is this to make $2 wine one must compromise all sense of integrity and quality, own tens of thousands of acres of vineyards in the worst possible wine region possible where land is incredibly cheap and yields are exceptionally high, use machines to execute every part of a homogenized system that substitutes manipulation for hand crafted quality, and own every step of the winemaking process including bottling, packaging and distribution, all while giving the finger to the entire wine industry and plowing down anyone who gets in your way. According to a CNBC report on the controversy engendered when Knox's comments were widely republished three years later: Franzia does use mechanized harvesting, as do an increasing number of grape growers. He insists the machines shake loose everything but the grapes, and there are other methods along the way to filter out leaves, twigs and animal residue. "We're in the grape-picking business," he said. "We're looking for quality wines and quality grapes. We're not looking for animals." Some animal matter does end up in winemaking, as it does in almost all agricultural products. "If you worry about things like that, you shouldn't eat anything, you shouldn't drink anything," Franzia said. "When the wine's fermenting, they're going to eliminate anything that's possibly there." But what about this mysterious "Charles Shaw"? Was he a real person? Indeed he was. Shaw, a Stanford Business School graduate, bought a Napa winery with his wife, Lucy, in 1974 and began to produce Charles Shaw Beaujolais. However, after the Shaws divorced in 1991, they sold the winery. The Charles Shaw label possessed a good reputation, though, and Bronco Wine Co., a mass-market wine conglomerate located in the Central Valley's Stanislaus County, bought it up and revived it in 2002 for sales of a line of inexpensive wines through the Trader Joe's chain of grocery stores. Trader Joe's Additional information: Charles Shaw (Interbrand) Last updated: 15 August 2014 Brown, Corie. "Hard Times at the Winery? Not for Everyone." Los Angeles Times. 26 February 2003 (p. F1). Emert, Carol. "Wine Drinkers Gaga Over 'Two-Buck Chuck'." San Francisco Chronicle. 26 December 2002. Moran, Tim. "$1.99 Wine Is Hottest Deal in Dodge." The Modesto Bee. 25 December 2002. Wells, Jane. "The Really Big Ruckus Over 'Two Buck Chuck.'" CNBC. 14 August 2014.

['economy']

True

The Charles Shaw label (known in local slang as "Two-Buck Chuck") was the focus of those "cheap wine" rumors because it bore a prestigious Napa label, even though it sold for less than $2 per bottle. The catch was that it's made with cheaper grapes from California's Central Valley rather than more desirable grapes from the Napa Valley, but because the label's parent company does own a winery and bottling facility in Napa, it is allowed to put "Napa" on the Charles Shaw label (which only indicates that the wine is "bottled and cellared" in Napa) even if the grapes used in the wine actually come from some other part of California:That enmity was famously (albeit accurately) expressed in 2011 by Chris Knox, a self-described vintner who once caustically asserted on Quora, in a since deleted response to an inquiry about why Trader Joe's wine (and the Charles Shaw blend in particular) was sold so cheaply, that those wines were inexpensive to buy because they were ... well, made cheaply:Indeed he was. Shaw, a Stanford Business School graduate, bought a Napa winery with his wife, Lucy, in 1974 and began to produce Charles Shaw Beaujolais. However, after the Shaws divorced in 1991, they sold the winery. The Charles Shaw label possessed a good reputation, though, and Bronco Wine Co., a mass-market wine conglomerate located in the Central Valley's Stanislaus County, bought it up and revived it in 2002 for sales of a line of inexpensive wines through the Trader Joe's chain of grocery stores. Charles Shaw (Interbrand)

Did CDC Lower Speech Milestones for Kids Due to Effects of Masking, Lockdowns?

['Children who are 30 months old should have a vocabulary of around 50 words, the new CDC guidelines say. ']

In early 2022, the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, many were debating the effects of masks and lockdowns on early childhood development. Internet rumors abounded, including one claiming that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lowered the standard milestones for measuring childhood development largely because of the allegedly deleterious effects of pandemic safety measures, particularly wearing masks. One post claimed, "The CDC just quietly lowered the standards for speech in early childhood development. Now children should know about 50 words at 30 months rather than 24 months. Instead of highlighting the harmful effects masks and lockdowns have had on children, the CDC just lowered the bar for milestones." In February 2022, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a statement describing updates to their developmental milestone checklists. The updates included adding checklists for ages 15 and 30 months; now there is a checklist for every well-child visit from 2 months to 5 years. Before this, in addition to checklists for older age groups, there was already a checklist for children 2 years old (24 months). That checklist is on the CDC's website. The checklist for 24-month-olds never stipulated the number of words a child should be able to speak at that age, only that a 2-year-old says sentences with 2 to 4 words. (See archived versions of that same checklist from 2020 and 2017, for example.) The CDC specified the following in its Language/Communication Milestones for a 30-month-old child: "Says about 50 words; says two or more words, with one action word, like 'Doggie run'; names things in a book when you point and ask, 'What is this?'; says words like 'I,' 'me,' or 'we.'" The point about knowing 50 words was new (for any age group) and had not been part of the 2-year milestones on the CDC website prior to this addition. According to Dr. Paul H. Lipkin, who assisted with the revisions, the goal of the checklist was to identify developmental delays early. "The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay, the better, as treatment and learning interventions can begin," he said. "At the same time, we don't want to cause unnecessary confusion for families or professionals. Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals." Review of a child's development with these milestones also opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the healthcare provider about their child's present and future development. Dr. Paul H. Lipkin noted that according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), a child saying fewer than 50 words at 2 years old is a sign of a language disorder. ASHA released a statement about the updated milestones, expressing concern: "ASHA has reached out to the CDC, expressing its concern about inconsistencies and urging the agency to utilize the expertise of SLPs when making changes to developmental milestones in speech, language, feeding, and social communication." In general, ASHA is supportive of efforts to help identify children earlier, but the milestones presented to parents must be evidence-based for families to make well-informed decisions about their children's care. That said, the CDC's milestone revisions were already in development before the pandemic began, with a broad literature search underway in 2019. According to a research article detailing the process and philosophy behind the revisions, the new milestones aim to capture the 75th percentile, or what three-quarters of children are expected to achieve at a particular age, instead of the previously used 50th percentile, which was found to be less helpful for families and clinicians. The CDC's milestones are intended to help parents identify autism and developmental delays in their children, and not act as a screening tool for medical professionals. "The revised developmental milestones are written in family-friendly language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children can be expected to exhibit at a certain age based on data, developmental resources, and clinician experience," their news release stated. As of this writing, no evidence has emerged that shows masking negatively affects childhood development. The AAP website states, "A key part of learning to communicate for a child is watching the faces, mouths, and expressions of the people closest to them. Babies and young children study faces intently, so the concern about solid masks covering the face is understandable. However, there are no known studies that show the use of a face mask negatively impacts a child's speech and language development." Furthermore, consider this: visually impaired children develop speech and language skills at the same rate as their peers. In fact, when one sense is taken away, the others may be heightened. Young children will use other clues provided to them to understand and learn language. They will watch gestures, hear changes in tone of voice, see eyes convey emotions, and listen to words. A 2021 University of Miami study also found, "Wearing a mask in school does not hinder a young child's ability to learn language, even if they have hearing loss." Meanwhile, studies of the effects of a range of pandemic lockdowns on childhood development have shown mixed results. A study conducted by the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) in the U.K. showed that the pandemic had a significant adverse impact on mostly vulnerable, low-income older children and those from minority ethnic backgrounds. However, the study emphasized that more research was needed on the effects of the pandemic on childhood development for children aged 0-5 years. A number of studies by an international consortium of researchers from 13 countries, including the University of Oslo, the University of Göttingen, and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, looked at the effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on early development. Shortly after isolation began in March 2020, parents were asked to fill out questionnaires and were then contacted at the end of the lockdown. The studies found that "despite having increased exposure to screen time during lockdown, children learned more words during the lockdown period in March 2020, relative to before the pandemic. This is potentially due to other activities that parents undertook with their children during lockdown." Another report on behalf of the International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) included studies conducted across 22 countries and a wide age range (0-18 years) and concluded that "pandemic school closure and lockdown have adverse effects on child health and well-being in the short and probably long term." A January 2022 report in Nature detailed how varied the data could be: "Some babies born during the past two years might be experiencing developmental delays, whereas others might have thrived, if caregivers were at home for extended periods and there were more opportunities for siblings to interact." As with many aspects of health during the pandemic, social and economic disparities have a clear role in who is affected the most. Early data suggest that the use of masks has not negatively affected children's emotional development, but prenatal stress might contribute to some changes in brain connectivity. The picture is evolving, and many studies have not yet been peer-reviewed. One particular study by Brown University's Advanced Baby Imaging Lab found that the pandemic-born babies they tested scored lower during early learning tests, including for language, puzzle-solving, and motor skills. However, other researchers argued that these tests were not necessarily indicative of longer-term problems, and the findings are currently under revision. While the CDC did update its checklist to include developmental milestones for 30-month-old children, those changes were already in process before the pandemic began. The 50-word expectation was new and did not exist in older versions of the milestones. Furthermore, there is no evidence to date that masks cause developmental delays in children, and the evidence regarding the effects of lockdowns on childhood development has been mixed. Given all of the above, we rate this claim as false.

['income']

False

Internet rumors abounded, including one claiming that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) actually lowered the standard milestones for measuring childhood development largely because of the allegedly deleterious effects of pandemic safety measures, particularly wearing masks. In February 2022, the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) did release a statement describing updates to their developmental milestone checklists. The updates included Adding checklists for ages 15 and 30 months; now there is a checklist for every well-child visit from 2 months to 5 years.Before this, in addition to checklists for older age groups, there was already a checklist for children 2 years old (24 months). That checklist is on the CDC's website. The checklist for 24-month-olds never stipulated the number of words a child should be able to speak at that age, only that a 2-year-old says sentences with 2 to 4 words. (See archived versions of that same checklist from 2020 and 2017, for example.) The CDC specified the following in its Language/Communication Milestones for a 30-month-old child:The point about knowing 50 words was new (for any age group), and had not been part of the 2-year milestones on the CDC website prior to this addition. According to Dr. Paul H. Lipkin who assisted with the revisions, the goal of the checklist was to identify developmental delays early. The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin, he said. At the same time, we dont want to cause unnecessary confusion for families or professionals. Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals. Review of a childs development with these milestones also opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their childs present and future development.It should be noted that according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), a child saying fewer than 50 words at 2 years old is a sign of a language disorder. ASHA released a statement about the updated milestones, expressing concern:That said, the CDCs milestone revisions were already in development before the pandemic began, with a broad literature search underway in 2019. According to a research article detailing the process and philosophy behind the revisions, the new milestones aim to capture the 75th percentile, or what 3/4 of children are expected to achieve at a particular age, instead of the previously used 50th percentile, which was found to be less helpful for families and clinicians. The CDCs milestones are intended to help parents identify autism and developmental delays in their children, and not act as a screening tool for medical professionals. "The revised developmental milestones are written in family-friendly language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children can be expected to exhibit at a certain age based on data, developmental resources and clinician experience," their news release stated. As of this writing, no evidence has emerged that shows masking negatively affects childhood development, so the claim that the CDC intentionally obscured masking harm is incorrect. The AAP website states:A 2021 University of Miami study also found, Wearing a mask in school does not hinder a young childs ability to learn language, even if they have hearing loss. Meanwhile, studies of the effects of a range of pandemic lockdowns on childhood development have shown mixed results. A study conducted by the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) in the U.K. showed that the pandemic had a significant adverse impact on mostly vulnerable, low-income older children, and those who were from minority ethnic backgrounds. But the study emphasized that more research was needed on the effects of the pandemic on childhood development for children aged 05 years.A number of studies by an international consortium of researchers from 13 countries, including from the University of Oslo, the University of Gttingen, and University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, looked at the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on early development. Shortly after isolation began in March 2020, parents were asked to fill out questionnaires, and then contacted at the end of the lockdown. The studies found that "despite having increased exposure to screen time during lockdown, children learned more words during the lockdown period in March 2020, relative to before the pandemic. This is potentially due to other activities that parents undertook with their children during lockdown." Another report on behalf of the International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) included studies conducted across 22 countries, and a wide age range (0-18 years) and concluded that "pandemic school closure and lockdown have adverse effects on child health and well-being in the short and probably long term." A January 2022 report in Nature detailed how varied the data could be:And one particular study by Brown Universitys Advanced Baby Imaging Lab found that the pandemic-born babies they tested scored lower during early learning tests including for language, puzzle-solving, and motor skills. But other researchers argued that these tests were not necessarily indicative of longer term problems, and the findings are currently under revision.

Did Stalin claim that 'America resembles a robust body possessing triple resistance'?

['Despite how frequently these words are shared in his name, there appears to be no record of Josef Stalin writing or uttering them.']

One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne. "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed.

['debt']

False

A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre:The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few.

Does GSA's Approval of Transition Process Mean Trump Conceded Defeat to Biden?

['Losing candidates are not required to acknowledge defeat in order for a U.S. presidential transition to begin.']

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it indicated that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone, winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified the results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document fulfilled the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aides, and other staff—otherwise known as a transition team—to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before the swearing-in ceremonies that would take place in January after general elections. Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Murphy's letter stated: "Because of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution." In short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in the federal government receives. But it was a misinterpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolizes a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. In recent days, senior Trump aides, including chief of staff Mark Meadows and

['economy']

False

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.On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy an appointee of President Donald Trump wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency.Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly.Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics."It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III.Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College.Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff otherwise known as a transition team to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections.Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported.Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. The Associated Press reported:Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed.

Was Kelly Clarkson 'Forced' by 'The Voice' to Lose Weight?

['An online article bearing the logo for NBC\'s "Today" show read, "Kelly Clarkson Forced To Lose 30 Pounds By \'NBC\' Producers ... She Lost 50!"']

In May 2023, an old rumor began to spread in a scammy article that claimed singer and talk show host Kelly Clarkson was "forced" by producers of NBC's "The Voice" to lose weight. However, this was a false story. It was created in order to push a scam meant to fool consumers into signing up for expensive monthly subscription charges for keto and apple cider vinegar (ACV) weight loss gummies. The scam article appeared on exclusiveinsiderdeals.com. The website's domain was registered with Namecheap, while its hosting was with Cloudfare. exclusiveinsiderdeals.com registered The story showed the false headline, "Kelly Clarkson Forced To Lose 30 Pounds By 'NBC' Producers... She Lost 50! (Her Diabetes Finally In Control)." The page was misleadingly designed by scammers to resemble the "Today" show website. According to the story, Clarkson consulted with Dr. Mehmet Oz of the former "Dr. Oz" talk show, who told her to try to start her supposed weight loss journey with keto and ACV gummies. None of this was true. Clarkson, Oz, NBC, "The Voice," and "Today" had no involvement with any of this. Names and faces were used completely without permission. Over the years, a large number of CBD and keto products have been featured with this same sort of scammy article. For example, in 2018, we previously published a very similar fact check about Clarkson being fired from "The Voice." It, too, led to a diet supplement scam. fact check As of May 26, one of the products that was being pushed with Clarkson's name was SlimDNA Keto + ACV Gummies. Dr. Oz's name and a number of other scammy aspects also appeared on a SlimDNA product page on slimdnabrands.com. This domain was registered with Tucows and received hosting from Cloudfare. slimdnabrands.com If any readers were victim to one of these gummy scams, we recommend reaching out to your credit card company to alert them of the matter. These sorts of CBD and keto gummies scams often attempt to rope customers into hidden subscription charges of hundreds of dollars per month. We recommend being proactive and calling your credit card company immediately in order to stop further charges from taking place. Brockington, Ariana. "Blake Shelton Announces He Is Leaving 'The Voice' after Season 23." TODAY.Com, 12 Oct. 2022, https://www.today.com/popculture/tv/blake-shelton-leaving-voice-season-23-rcna51798. Evon, Dan. "Was Kelly Clarkson Fired from 'The Voice'?" Snopes, 20 Dec. 2018, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clarkson-fired-voice/. "WHOIS Domain Lookup." GoDaddy.Com, https://www.godaddy.com/whois/.

['credit']

False

The scam article appeared on exclusiveinsiderdeals.com. The website's domain was registered with Namecheap, while its hosting was with Cloudfare.Over the years, a large number of CBD and keto products have been featured with this same sort of scammy article. For example, in 2018, we previously published a very similar fact check about Clarkson being fired from "The Voice." It, too, led to a diet supplement scam.As of May 26, one of the products that was being pushed with Clarkson's name was SlimDNA Keto + ACV Gummies. Dr. Oz's name and a number of other scammy aspects also appeared on a SlimDNA product page on slimdnabrands.com. This domain was registered with Tucows and received hosting from Cloudfare.

Iconic Pic Captures Joan Baez and Jimi Hendrix Smoking a Bong in 1968?

['Baez and Hendrix gave performances at the same benefit concert for Biafran refugees in 1968.']

Since as early as 2013, a photo of Joan Baez and Jimi Hendrix apparently smoking marijuana and sharing a bong repeatedly goes viral on various social media platforms: as 2013 repeatedly viral This picture has been manipulated. The original photo, taken in August 1968, contains no bong: original photo The caption provided by Getty Images explains the context behind the photograph, which occurred during a relief concert for refugees of the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War: caption Folk singer Joan Baez and rock singer Jimi Hendrix chat between acts at a Biafran Relief Benefit show at a place in Manhattan called Steve Paul's Scene. Both Miss Baez and Hendrix performed free of charge and Hendrix contributed $500 cash to the fund. The benefit was to raise food and money for refugees of the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War. It is unlikely that Baez would be photographed smoking marijuana, as she has publicly stated her distaste for drugs. In discussing her short-lived relationship with Bob Dylan with Rolling Stone Magazine, for example, Baez referenced her lack of interest in drugs: discussing By 1965, though, Dylan's desire to move toward rock and his waning interest in protest songs helped drive them apart. Baez thinks her distaste for drugs distanced her from Dylan in the Sixties and later, during their reunion on the 197576 Rolling Thunder Revue. "I was the only one who didn't do drugs," she says of those shows. "It was the same as that trip to England," she adds, referring to the 1965 Dylan tour documented in Don't Look Back. "I couldn't connect with what their brains were doing." In a 2021 interview with CBS, Baez said that she did "zero" drugs during her heyday as a musician in the 60s, though she has, periodically, tried marijuana more recently. "I try periodically because people say it's a great way to relax or whatever," she said. "It doesn't work for me." 2021 interview Because the image is photoshopped to add a bong and marijuana smoke that were not there in the original photo, we rate it Fake. alihamzah23023. "Joan Baez & Jimi Hendrix Sharing a Bong before a Performance, Early 1970." R/OldSchoolCool, 7 Apr. 2016, www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/4dpoo4/joan_baez_jimi_hendrix_sharing_a_bong_before_a/. Browne, David. "Joan Baez's Fighting Side: The Life and Times of a Secret Badass." Rolling Stone, 5 Apr. 2017, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/joan-baezs-fighting-side-the-life-and-times-of-a-secret-badass-129051/. "CBS Mornings on TikTok." TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@cbsmornings/video/6969232037899275526?lang=en. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. "Folk Singer Joan Baez and Rock Singer Jimi Hendrix Chat between Acts..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/folk-singer-joan-baez-and-rock-singer-jimi-hendrix-chat-news-photo/515448732. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. insanepuma. "Hits from the Bong with Jimi Hendrix and Joan Baez." R/OldCoolSchool, 24 Feb. 2017, www.reddit.com/r/OldCoolSchool/comments/5vxope/hits_from_the_bong_with_jimi_hendrix_and_joan_baez/. https://www.instagram.com/p/iMxB20P_RD/?hl=af. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023.

['interest']

False

Since as early as 2013, a photo of Joan Baez and Jimi Hendrix apparently smoking marijuana and sharing a bong repeatedly goes viral on various social media platforms:This picture has been manipulated. The original photo, taken in August 1968, contains no bong:The caption provided by Getty Images explains the context behind the photograph, which occurred during a relief concert for refugees of the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War:It is unlikely that Baez would be photographed smoking marijuana, as she has publicly stated her distaste for drugs. In discussing her short-lived relationship with Bob Dylan with Rolling Stone Magazine, for example, Baez referenced her lack of interest in drugs:In a 2021 interview with CBS, Baez said that she did "zero" drugs during her heyday as a musician in the 60s, though she has, periodically, tried marijuana more recently. "I try periodically because people say it's a great way to relax or whatever," she said. "It doesn't work for me."

Obama's Agenda: Overwhelm the System

['']

Conservative political commentator Wayne Allyn Root opined back in 2010 that President Obama "is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos." Example: [Root, June 2010] Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency. Obama is no fool; he is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos, thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually, they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it. [Rest of article here.] Origins: Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, is a political commentator whose columns appear on various conservative websites and the author of several books, including The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts. He penned a biweekly political opinion column published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and his entry for June 6, 2010, was the article excerpted above, entitled "Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system," in which he opined that President Obama is "purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos." Some online-circulated versions of this column are entitled "Obama's college roommate speaks out," but that heading reflects a misreading of the word "classmate," as Wayne Allyn Root never was, or claimed to be, Barack Obama's roommate. Root merely attended Columbia University at the same time as Barack Obama and later claimed (despite substantial evidence to the contrary) that neither he nor anyone else attending Columbia during that time had ever heard of or met Barack Obama. Root's credentials as a political prognosticator are rather suspect, as he predicted in May 2012 that Barack Obama would lose the upcoming presidential election to Republican candidate Mitt Romney "in a landslide." (Obama handily won with 62% of the electoral vote.)

['economy']

True

[Rest of article here.]Origins: Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, is a political commentator whose columns appear on various conservative web sites and the author of several books, including The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts. He penned a biweekly political opinion column published the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and his entry for 6 June 2010 was the article excerpted above, entitled "Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system," in which he opined that President Obama is "purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos."Some online-circulated versions of this column are entitled "Obama's college roommate speaks out," but that heading reflects a misreading of the word "classmate," as Wayne Allyn Root never was, or claimed to be, Barack Obama's roommate Root merely attended Columbia University at the same time as Barack Obama did and later claimed (despite substantial evidence to the contrary) that neither he nor anyone else attending Columbia during that time had ever heard of or met Barack Obama.Root's credentials as a political prognosticator are rather suspect, as he predicted in May 2012 that Barack Obama would lose the upcoming presidential election to Republican candidate Mitt Romney "in a landslide." (Obama handily won with 62% of the electoral vote.)

We had bipartisan legislation that got through the Senate that would have prevented bonuses like AIG's and then somehow mysteriously disappeared.

[]

As public outrage builds over bonuses issued by bailout recipient AIG, two senators are claiming they tried to outlaw such bonuses but were thwarted by the White House and fellow lawmakers. Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, say they proposed an amendment to the stimulus bill in February that would have imposed heavy penalties on bailout recipients that refused to pay back bonuses over $100,000. Wyden made the claim during an appearance onThe Rachel Maddow Showon MSNBC, and in other interviews. Back in early February, you and Senator Snowe added an amendment to the stimulus bill that, I think, would have prevented AIG from giving out these millions of dollars worth of bonuses, Maddow said to Wyden. That amendment was taken out of the bill. Am I right that your amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now? You are right, Wyden said. And that's what's so sad about this situation. It simply didn't need to happen. Wyden went on to predict that a similar measure would pass now that the issue has gained so much public attention. I think finally, we'll get it done, he said. The tragedy is it should have been done a month ago when we had bipartisan legislation that got through the Senate and then somehow mysteriously disappeared. In a separate interview with the Huffington Post, Wyden blamed both the White House and fellow legislators, suggesting they caved to lobbyists for Wall Street who opposed the measure. Wyden and Snowe announced the amendment Feb. 4, proposing it be tacked onto another amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill. Last year's financial rescue package, commonly known as the bailout, had left open the escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street, Snowe, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said at the time. This amendment insists on strong taxpayer protections and guarantees that no tax dollars be used to prop up Wall Street executives. The amendment required companies that received government rescue funds in 2008 to repay within four months any bonuses above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35 percent on the portion of the bonus over $100,000. It reportedlywould have raisedas much as $3.2 billion, a substantial chunk of the $18.4 billion in employee bonuses paid out in 2008 by companies that received more than $274 billion of bailout funds. Wyden pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the amendment at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Feb. 11. Given the fact that the president, to his credit, called these bonuses shameful, and time is short, where do you stand on getting a solution to the problem of these just-paid excessive bonuses in the economic stimulus legislation? Wyden asked. We've talked about that privately, Geithner said, in part, in a lengthy response. Our staffs are working together. We'd like to work with you on how to achieve that objective. American Banker, a trade publication, reported on Feb. 12 that the banking industry strongly opposes the provision, which the banking industry hopes to scale back when the House and Senate hash out differences between the stimulus bills. They appear to have succeeded. On Feb. 12, the Associated Press reported: The provision was removed as House and Senate negotiators hammered out final details of the $789 billion economic stimulus legislation this week. There is no documentation in the public record of exactly who removed the provision. Wyden overstated the case a bit when he responded in the affirmative to Maddow's suggestion that the amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now. It would not have eliminated the bonuses entirely only that portion over $100,000 per person. And the tax that would have been imposed on companies that did not comply would have recovered just 35 percent of the excessive amount. But Wyden can legitimately claim to have taken on the issue with gusto well before the current outrage over AIG's bonuses. We find his claim to be Mostly True.

['National', 'Corporations', 'Economy']

True

It reportedlywould have raisedas much as $3.2 billion, a substantial chunk of the $18.4 billion in employee bonuses paid out in 2008 by companies that received more than $274 billion of bailout funds.

Chattanooga Who's Who

['Memes incorrectly stated Chattanooga shooter Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a "refugee," but he was a naturalized American citizen who emigrated as an infant.']

Claim: Chattanooga shooter Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a refugee. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2015] It seems like another false message is being spread, but I can't verify it. Origins: The ongoing worldwide debate about Syrian refugees escalated after a series of terror attacks in Paris in November 2015. Among the threads of that larger discussion were assertions that specific individuals involved in previous attacks were "refugees." In the aftermath, rumors circulated claiming that Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan (born in Virginia) was a refugee, and similar memes asserted that the Tsarnaev brothers (who emigrated as children, one of whom was a naturalized American citizen) were "asylum seekers." A concurrent rumor held that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the perpetrator of the July 2015 Chattanooga shootings, was also a refugee. On 16 July 2015, Abdulazeez engaged in a shooting spree at two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing five servicemen before he himself died in a shootout. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) later indicated that Abdulazeez's motives were unclear but possibly religious in nature. Why Abdulazeez perpetrated the shooting remained somewhat of a mystery, but whether the Chattanooga shooter was a refugee was far less complicated. He was "a Kuwait-born U.S. citizen." The gunman who targeted U.S. military service members in a late-morning shooting in Tennessee was a 24-year-old electrical engineer who had grown up in Chattanooga as part of a conservative Muslim family. Kuwait-born citizen Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was born in Kuwait but moved with his family to the United States as an infant after the start of the Persian Gulf War and became a U.S. citizen, according to accounts given by friends and one of his sisters. TIME reported that he was of Jordanian descent and was born in Kuwait in 1990, according to a federal official quoted in the New York Times. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen after moving to the country with his mother, who is from Kuwait, and his father, Youssuf Abdulazeez, who is Palestinian, reported the SITE Intelligence Group. Little is known about the circumstances under which Abdulazeez emigrated to the United States. Born in Kuwait in 1990, Mr. Abdulazeez became an American citizen in 2003 through the naturalization of his mother, federal officials said; his father was also naturalized. Because he was a minor, he did not have to apply separately for citizenship. A divorce complaint filed by his mother in 2009 and then withdrawn stated that the parents were from the State of Palestine. On 13 November 2015, the Associated Press reported that investigators remained circumspect about Abdulazeez's motive: "We're still trying to make sure we understand Abdulazeez, his motivations and associations, in a really good way," FBI Director James Comey told reporters during a visit to Nashville's FBI field office on Friday. Comey said he understands the public interest in the shooting, but he did not know whether there would ever be a public report on it. "Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret. That's a good thing. We don't want to smear people," he said. That article stated that the FBI considered "Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez [to be] a homegrown violent extremist." However, he emigrated to the United States as an infant, was a naturalized U.S. citizen, and was never once described as a "refugee" prior to the November 2015 controversy over asylum seekers. Last updated: 20 November 2015. Originally published: 20 November 2015.

['interest']

False

In the aftermath rumors circulated claiming Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan (born in Virginia) was a refugee, and similar memes assertedthe Tsarnaev brothers (who emigrated as children, and one of whom was a naturalized American citizen) were "asylum seekers." A concurrent rumor held thatMuhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, perpetrator of the July 2015 Chattanooga shootings, was also a refugee.On 16 July 2015 Abdulazeez engaged in a shooting spree attwo military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing five servicemen before he himself died in a shootout. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) later indicated that Abdulazeez's motives were unclear, but possibly religious in nature.Why Abdulazeez perpetrated the shooting remained somewhat of a mystery, but whether the Chattanooga shooter was a refugee was far less complicated. He was "a Kuwait-born U.S. citizen":The gunman who targeted U.S. military service members in a late-morning shooting Thursday in Tennessee was a 24-year-old electrical engineer who had grown up in Chattanooga as part of a conservative Muslim family. TIME reported:He was of Jordanian descent and was born in Kuwait in 1990, according to a federal official quoted in the New York Times. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen after moving to the country with his mother, who is from Kuwait, and father Youssuf Abdulazeez, who is Palestinian, reported the SITE Intelligence Group. Little is known about the circumstances under which Abdulazeez emigrated to the United States:Born in Kuwait in 1990, Mr. Abdulazeez became an American citizen in 2003 through the naturalization of his mother, federal officials said; his father was also naturalized. Because he was a minor, he did not have to apply separately for citizenship. A divorce complaint filed by his mother in 2009 and then withdrawn, said the parents were from the State of Palestine. On 13 November 2015, the Associated Press reported that investigators remained circumspect about Abdulazeez's motive:"We're still trying to make sure we understand Abdulazeez, his motivations and associations, in a really good way," FBI Director James Comey told reporters during a visit to Nashville's FBI field office on Friday.Comey said he understands the public interest in the shooting, but he did not know whether there would ever be a public report on it."Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret. That's a good thing. We don't want to smear people," he said. That article stated that the FBI considered "Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez [to be]a homegrown violent extremist." However, he emigrated to the United States as an infant, was a naturalized U.S citizen, and was never once described as a "refugee" prior to the November 2015 controversy over asylum seekers.Last updated: 20November 2015Originally published: 20November 2015 On 13 November 2015, the Associated Press reported that investigators remained circumspect about Abdulazeez's motive:"We're still trying to make sure we understand Abdulazeez, his motivations and associations, in a really good way," FBI Director James Comey told reporters during a visit to Nashville's FBI field office on Friday.

Paid in Full

["Can you discharge a debt by writing 'Paid in full' on your check?"]

Claim: A debtor can discharge his obligations by sending his creditor a check made out for a fraction of the amount owed with the words "Paid in full" written on it. Example: [Los Angeles Times, 2002] A friend of a friend has accumulated credit card debt and student loans totaling $100,000. Not securely employed, she has been planning to continue her dinners out, lavish shopping trips, car purchases, and vacations, figuring it all will be wiped out soon enough. She says she is working with a lawyer who advised her to write $10 checks to all her creditors, with a note saying "paid in full" on the check. Origins: "Get rich quick" (or, in this case, "get poor more slowly") schemes never seem to lose their appeal, even though common sense should warn that if getting rich quickly were truly so easy, everyone would be wealthy. Obviously, if getting out of debt were as simple as executing the method described above, no one would ever lend money or extend credit. Nonetheless, these schemes maintain their hold on the public because people are willing to entertain the fiction that they are a form of "secret knowledge" and that such loopholes exist because only a select few are smart enough to know about and take advantage of them. It's not uncommon for creditors to agree to settle debts for less than the full amount due. After all, some payment is better than none, and if debtors can be encouraged to pay at least a portion of their debts back through promises that they will be relieved of any further financial obligations toward their creditors, then both sides come out ahead. Better to accept a fraction of what you're owed than to risk your debtor declaring bankruptcy or choosing to pay off other debts instead, leaving you with nothing. For such arrangements to be valid, however, both sides must agree to them. A debtor cannot unilaterally declare a partial payment to be "payment in full" simply by attaching a note with those words to his check or writing them in the memo field and assuming that if the creditor fails to notice the notation, then the entire debt has been discharged. This "paid-in-full" nonsense has achieved the status of urban legend, says J. Scott Bovitz, a Los Angeles bankruptcy lawyer. A creditor sometimes will reduce a claim for a disputed payment, but this kind of settlement usually won't happen if the debtor acts in bad faith, Bovitz says. The act of writing "paid in full" on a $10 check pretty much defines the term "bad faith." Section 3-311 of the Uniform Commercial Code does state that a debt can be discharged with a check designated as payment in full "if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim." However, it's up to the claimant to prove "that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim." So if you receive a check marked "paid in full" made out for less than the amount you have agreed upon, you'd best not cross out the words "paid in full" or write "disputed" on it and cash it anyway, as you risk having the entire debt discharged. However, this condition does not apply to "transactions conducted or performed, in whole or in part, by electronic means or electronic records, in which the acts or records of one or both parties are not reviewed by an individual in the ordinary course [of business]," which means that this scheme will not work at all for most bill or credit card payments, as those payments are typically handled by automated systems and not humans. The best method for paying off debts with small payments remains not to run up large debts in the first place. Last updated: 18 April 2011.

['loan']

NEI

Section 3-311 of the Uniform Commercial Code does state that a debt can be discharged with a check designated as payment in full "if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim." However, it's up to the claimant to prove "that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim." So if you receive a check marked "paid in full" made out for less than the amount you have agreed upon, you'd best not cross out the words "paid in full" or write "disputed" on it and cash it anyway, as you risk having the entire debt discharged. However, this condition does not apply to "transactions conducted or performed, in whole or in part, by electronic means or electronic records, in which the acts or records of one or both parties are not reviewed by an individual in the ordinary course [of business]," which means that this scheme will not work at all for most bill or credit card payments, as those payments are typically handled by automated systems and not humans.

Is this Unflattering Image of President Trump Real?

['A doctored image of Trump circulated with a tongue-in-cheek request not to repost it. ']

A doctored image created to mock President Trump by purportedly showing an unflattering view of his profile was recirculated on social media in October 2017 along with the claim that the president was unhappy with the photograph and didn't want it shared on the internet: recirculated This image was originally posted to Facebook on 14 July 2017 by Vic Berger, a viral video creator with a penchant for poking fun at Trump, along with the following tongue-in-cheek claim: Facebook Vic Berger A friend of a friend of mine works in the White House and said Trump is extremely unhappy with this photo of himself. Do NOT share this photo! I'm serious. It's not nice. Don't do it! The original post racked up tens of thousands of shares within a few weeks. When the image was re-circulated in October 2017 with a similar claim about Trump's dislike for the photograph, it gathered more than 400,000 shares. This image, however, is fake. Berger created it using a photograph that Getty Images photographer Matthew Cavanaugh took on 27 April 2011 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Berger flipped the original photograph, enlarged Trump's throat, and colored his skin a darker shade of peach. Here's a comparison between the genuine image (left) and the doctored image (right). We flipped the doctored image back to its original position for an easier comparison: Getty Images Berger scored several viral hits during the 2016 election with videos skewering the candidates. videos Raftery, Brian. "Meet Vic Berger, the Genius Behind This Elections Dopest Viral Videos." Wired. 27 September 2017.

['share']

False

A doctored image created to mock President Trump by purportedly showing an unflattering view of his profile was recirculated on social media in October 2017 along with the claim that the president was unhappy with the photograph and didn't want it shared on the internet:This image was originally posted to Facebook on 14 July 2017 by Vic Berger, a viral video creator with a penchant for poking fun at Trump, along with the following tongue-in-cheek claim:This image, however, is fake. Berger created it using a photograph that Getty Images photographer Matthew Cavanaugh took on 27 April 2011 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Berger flipped the original photograph, enlarged Trump's throat, and colored his skin a darker shade of peach. Here's a comparison between the genuine image (left) and the doctored image (right). We flipped the doctored image back to its original position for an easier comparison: Berger scored several viral hits during the 2016 election with videos skewering the candidates.

Theres 21 congressmen and senators that have been convicted of felonies that still get their retirement, even in jail. They dont have to wait until theyre 65.

[]

Jesse Ventura doesn't hold back when it comes to criticizing the government. As a former governor of Minnesota, he has seen his share of politics on both sides of the aisle and details in his new book, DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government, why he likens the two mainstream political parties to infamous street gangs. Ventura notes that while gang activity generally affects neighborhoods, the actions of both parties affect the nation. "There are 21 congressmen and senators who have been convicted of felonies that still get their retirement, even in jail," Ventura said in an interview with MyCentralJersey.com, ahead of a Sept. 16 appearance at Rutgers University in New Brunswick. "They don't have to wait until they're 65." There are quite a few congressmen and senators who have been convicted of felonies, but multiple public databases with conflicting information about the number of convicted federal lawmakers make it impossible to assess an exact number. We were intrigued, however, by the claim that federal lawmakers can collect taxpayer-funded pensions while incarcerated. And short of those officials being convicted of treason or espionage, it's true. Let's look at how pensions work for members of Congress. Officials participate in one of two retirement systems, depending on when they were first elected to the House or Senate. But they do not forfeit their pensions or accumulated retirement income if indicted or convicted of most felonies. That struck a nerve with the National Taxpayers Union, which, in mid-2011, sent a letter to Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, to express support for his bill to increase the number of circumstances under which a member of Congress could lose his pension. Since the 1980s, the NTU has identified lawmakers convicted on charges ranging from bribery to fraud who were each receiving pensions worth tens of thousands of dollars annually (or more), sometimes while serving prison terms, NTU Executive Vice President Pete Sepp wrote. The NTU advocates for lower taxes. But can a member of Congress simultaneously receive a taxpayer-funded pension while incarcerated? The short answer is yes, John David, a senior research fellow with the Conservative Heritage Foundation, said in an email. Times have changed to some extent, but if the member is not convicted of one of the offenses that would cost him/her the pension, it will be paid as promised -- even to prison. Congressmen and senators can lose their pensions if they are convicted of a national security offense or a crime relating to public corruption and abuse of one's official position, according to the 2008 Congressional Research Service report Status of a Senator Who Has Been Indicted for or Convicted of a Felony. So, there are circumstances in which a member of Congress can't receive pension benefits. As for the rest of Ventura's claim, members don't have to be 65, either, to get their retirement. A 2007 Congressional Research Service report, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress, states members are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. The age requirement drops to 50 for members with 20 years of service or any age after 25 years of service. Ventura did not return three requests for comment. Our ruling: Ventura claimed in an interview that there are 21 congressmen and senators convicted of felonies who still get their retirement, even in jail. They don't have to wait until they're 65. For this fact-check, we looked only at the claim that federal lawmakers convicted of felonies can still collect retirement benefits while in jail. We attempted to count the number of convicted national lawmakers, but there are multiple public databases with conflicting information on the number of congressmen and senators convicted of felonies. In most cases, a congressman or senator convicted of a felony can receive his pension as long as the charge is not one that violates national security or relates to public corruption and abuse of official position. Members also receive pensions based on completed years of service, not an age requirement of 65. We rate the claim Mostly True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.

['New Jersey', 'Congress', 'Crime', 'Pensions', 'Retirement']

True

Jesse Ventura doesnt hold back when it comes to criticizing government.As a former governor of Minnesota, hes seen his share of politics on both sides of the aisle and details in his new book, DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government, why he likens the two mainstream political parties to the infamous street gangs. Ventura notes that while gang activity generally affects neighborhoods, the actions of both parties affect the nation.Theres 21 congressmen and senators that have been convicted of felonies that still get their retirement, even in jail, Ventura said in an interview with MyCentralJersey.com, ahead of a Sept. 16 appearance at Rutgers University in New Brunswick. They dont have to wait until theyre 65.There are quite a few congressmen and senators who have been convicted of felonies, but multiple public databases with conflicting information about the number of convicted federal lawmakers makes it impossible to assess an exact number. We were intrigued, however, by the claim that federal lawmakers can collect taxpayer-funded pensions while incarcerated. And short of those officials being convicted of treason or espionage, its true.Lets look at how pensions work for members of Congress.Officials participate in one of two retirement systems, depending on when they were first elected to the House or Senate. But they do not forfeit their pensions or accumulated retirement income if indicted, or convicted of most felonies.That struck a nerve with the National Taxpayers Union which, in mid-2011, sent a letter to Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, to express support for his bill to increase the number of circumstances under which a member of Congress could lose his pension.Since the 1980s, NTU has identified lawmakers convicted on charges ranging from bribery to fraud who were each receiving pensions worth tens of thousands of dollars annually (or more) sometimes while serving prison terms, NTU Executive Vice President Pete Sepp wrote. The NTU advocates for lower taxes.But can a member of Congress simultaneously receive a taxpayer-funded pension while incarcerated?The short answer is yes, John David, a senior research fellow with the Conservative Heritage Foundation, said in an e-mail. Times have changed to some extent, but if the Member is not convicted of one of the offenses that would cost him/her the pension, it will be paid as promised -- even to prison.Congressmen and senators can lose their pensions if they are convicted of a national security offense or a crime relating to public corruption and abuse of ones official position, according to the 2008 Congressional Research Service report Status of a Senator Who Has Been Indicted for or Convicted of a Felony.So, there are circumstances in which a member of Congress cant receive pension benefits.As for the rest of Venturas claim, members dont have to be 65, either, to get their retirement.A 2007 Congressional Research Service report, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress, states members are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. The age requirement drops to 50 for member with 20 years of service or any age after 25 years of service.Ventura did not return three requests for comment.Our rulingVentura claimed in an interview that theres 21 congressmen and senators convicted of felonies that still get their retirement, even in jail. They dont have to wait until theyre 65.For this fact-check, we looked only at the claim that federal lawmakers convicted of felonies and can still collect retirement benefits while in jail. We attempted to count the number of convicted national lawmakers, but there are multiple public databases with conflicting information on the number of congressmen and senators convicted of felonies.In most cases, a congressman or senator convicted of a felony can receive his pension as long as the charge is not one that violates national security or relates to public corruption and abuse of official position.Members also receive pensions based on completed years of service, not an age requirement of 65.We rate the claim Mostly True.To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.

Did Kanye West Buy Spotify?

['The rapper was rumored to have replaced all music on the platform with his own. ']

On April 1, 2021, a rumor circulated online that billionaire rapper Kanye West bought Spotify, a popular music streaming platform with 155 million subscribers globally. The claim appeared to have originated with an article published by Thissongissick (TSIS), an online blog dedicated to music news. Thissongissick Its official: As of today, the fashion and music mogul has just acquired the ever-popular audio streaming platform, Spotify, wrote the website. Something big like this isnt unpredictable for West, but people are curious about his intentions for buying out Spotify. Screengrab/Thissongissick Thissongissick The article also claimed that the billionaire rapper was going to delete all songs but his own a claim that sparked concern among some of the platforms 345 million active monthly users. Snopes contacted TSIS and Spotify for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication. Even so, we should note that the article was published on April Fools' Day, and news of the buyout did not appear in any other reputable news publications. And a look through the Spotify news releases through April 2 did not reveal an announcement that marked the alleged buyout. April Fools' Day news releases As such, we rate this claim False. According to a statement released by Spotify on March 18, founder Daniel Ek was still the platforms CEO and had been overseeing the audio-streaming subscription service since it was launched in 2006. Spotify is headquartered and legally domiciled in Sweden, and because it is a foreign company, it is not required to disclose the same information as U.S. firms concerning share ownership, reported the financial website Investopedia on Jan. 7. The site noted that the top institutional shareholders of Spotify include Ek, as well as Sven Hans Martin Lorentzon, Baillie Gifford & Co., Morgan Stanley, Tencent Holdings Ltd., and T. Rowe Price Associates Inc. Still, no sign of West. Investopedia And though the Grammy-award-winning musician is indeed a billionaire (though not the richest Black man in American history), his personal fortune caps in around $1.8 billion. As of April 1, Spotify had a market cap valuation of over $52 billion, reported the investment company YCharts. richest Black man in American history YCharts Snopes staff also checked their own Spotify accounts, and found that the usual subscriptions, followers, and playlists were exactly as they should be.

['investment']

False

The claim appeared to have originated with an article published by Thissongissick (TSIS), an online blog dedicated to music news. Screengrab/ThissongissickSnopes contacted TSIS and Spotify for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication. Even so, we should note that the article was published on April Fools' Day, and news of the buyout did not appear in any other reputable news publications. And a look through the Spotify news releases through April 2 did not reveal an announcement that marked the alleged buyout.Spotify is headquartered and legally domiciled in Sweden, and because it is a foreign company, it is not required to disclose the same information as U.S. firms concerning share ownership, reported the financial website Investopedia on Jan. 7. The site noted that the top institutional shareholders of Spotify include Ek, as well as Sven Hans Martin Lorentzon, Baillie Gifford & Co., Morgan Stanley, Tencent Holdings Ltd., and T. Rowe Price Associates Inc. Still, no sign of West.And though the Grammy-award-winning musician is indeed a billionaire (though not the richest Black man in American history), his personal fortune caps in around $1.8 billion. As of April 1, Spotify had a market cap valuation of over $52 billion, reported the investment company YCharts.

Wreaths at Arlington Cemetery

['Photograph shows holiday wreaths laid at headstones in Arlington National Cemetery.']

The photograph displayed above is a Christmas-season picture of graves at Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place of men and women who served the United States in the military and in the government. Every December since 1992, volunteers have laid wreaths donated by the Worcester Wreath Company of Harrington, Maine, at the headstones of thousands of America's honored dead: Arlington Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2005] I had never heard of this. I have only visited in the summer months. I wonder why the press hasn't enlightened the public about it? Arlington National Cemetery Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.Know the line has held, your job is done.Rest easy, sleep well.Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.Peace, peace, and farewell... Readers may be interested to know that these wreaths some 5,000 are donated by the Worcester Wreath Co. of Harrington, Maine. The owner, Merrill Worcester, not only provides the wreaths, but covers the trucking expense as well. He's done this since 1992. A wonderful guy. Also, most years, groups of Maine school kids combine an educational trip to DC with this event to help out. Making this even more remarkable is the fact that Harrington is in one the poorest parts of the state. Morrill Worcester initially brought 4,000 surplus wreaths from the holiday decoration company he owns to adorn gravesites at Arlington in 1992. Every year since then he has set aside several thousand wreaths especially for that purpose, driving to Arlington in December with a trailer full of decorations and dozens of volunteers to distribute them throughout the cemetery. As Mr. Worcester told an Air Force reporter in 2005: We couldn't do anything in this country if it wasn't for the people who gave their lives to protect us. It's a great honor to be able to come here and pay our respects.That first year, there were just a few of us, and it took us five or six hours to get them placed. This year, we had extra help and got done in about an hour. One question we're commonly asked is how the Arlington Wreath Project determines where to place their wreaths, since Arlington National Cemetery encompasses many more graves than the number of wreaths distributed each year. Major Wayne Merritt, a co-director of the Project, told us that the director of the cemetery selects the location for each year's wreath-laying, and the Project's plan is to cover all the areas of the park over a number of years. The answer to another common question is provided in Wreaths Across America's FAQ: "Prior to the wreath-laying ceremonies, cemetery administrative personnel give participants specific instructions regarding placement of wreaths. In most state/national cemeteries, participants are instructed to place wreaths only on graves bearing the Christian cross or nondenominational graves." FAQ In 2007, the Worcester family, along with veterans and other groups and individuals who had helped with their annual Christmas wreath ceremony in Arlington, formed Wreaths Across America, a non-profit organization, to continue and expand the effort to place memorial wreaths at more than 230 State and National Cemeteries and Veterans Monuments across the United States. This project receives no government funding, with the cost of the program being paid for by individual wreath sponsors and corporate donors. Wreaths Across America On 10 December 2011, 15,000 volunteers laid 90,000 wreaths on headstones at Arlington National Cemetery. Photographs of the 2011 wreath-laying ceremony can be viewed on the Washington Post web site. Washington Post The clip displayed below is a seven-minute video of past wreath-laying ceremonies put together by Worcester Wreath to show what the Arlington Wreath Project and Wreaths Across America is all about: Alcindor, Yamiche. Thousands of Wreath-Layers Carry Out Arlington Tradition. The Washington Post. 13 December 2009. Buzanowski, J. G. Airmen, Civilians Lay Wreaths at Arlington. Air Force Print News. 19 December 2005. Crudele, Bethany. Volunteers Lay Wreaths at Arlington in Holiday Tribute to Fallen Veterans. CNN. 12 December 2009. Salas, Randy. Web Search: Wreaths for the Fallen. [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 9 November 2006.

['profit']

True

The photograph displayed above is a Christmas-season picture of graves at Arlington National Cemetery, the final resting place of men and women who served the United States in the military and in the government. Every December since 1992, volunteers have laid wreaths donated by the Worcester Wreath Company of Harrington, Maine, at the headstones of thousands of America's honored dead:The answer to another common question is provided in Wreaths Across America's FAQ: "Prior to the wreath-laying ceremonies, cemetery administrative personnel give participants specific instructions regarding placement of wreaths. In most state/national cemeteries, participants are instructed to place wreaths only on graves bearing the Christian cross or nondenominational graves."In 2007, the Worcester family, along with veterans and other groups and individuals who had helped with their annual Christmas wreath ceremony in Arlington, formed Wreaths Across America, a non-profit organization, to continue and expand the effort to place memorial wreaths at more than 230 State and National Cemeteries and Veterans Monuments across the United States. This project receives no government funding, with the cost of the program being paid for by individual wreath sponsors and corporate donors.On 10 December 2011, 15,000 volunteers laid 90,000 wreaths on headstones at Arlington National Cemetery. Photographs of the 2011 wreath-laying ceremony can be viewed on the Washington Post web site.

Fair allocation

["Did Barack Obama say 'a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably'?"]

Claim: During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.' Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly. As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism. Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record. It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans. Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless. Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins: This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates corporate tax rates on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that. I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things fair distribution and robust economic growth are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated: 17 August 2008 Sources: Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks. "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax." The Wall Street Journal. 17 June 2008 (P. A1). Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks. "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'" The Wall Street Journal. 17 June 2008.

['income']

False

Origins: This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not(The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.)

Is Robert Redford the 'Nodding Meme' Guy?

['Robert Redford is best known for his roles as Roy Hobbs in "The Natural," Bob Woodward in "All the President\'s Men," and the nodding meme guy from the internet. ']

If anyone has ever agreed with something you said on the internet (a phenomenon that is rare, but it does happen), there's a good chance someone posted a gif in response to your comment showing a bearded man nodding his head in approval: Many internet users assumed that the nodding guy pictured in this meme was actor Zach Galifianakis. This is assumption is likely based on two factors. First of all, the bearded Galifianakis does bear a resemblance to the person pictured in the meme: Second, the people who share gifs and memes on the internet tend to be predominantly on the younger side and are generally more familiar with Galifianakis than they are with, let's say, someone who starred in a movie that came out in the 1970s. This gif, which has been making its way around the internet since at least 2012, actually shows actor Robert Redford in a scene from the 1972 film "Jeremiah Johnson," in which Redford portrayed a Mexican War veteran who takes up the life of a mountain man.The "nod of approval" meme can be glimpsed in a trailer for the movie (minus the actual nod part) at the 1:44 mark below: 2012 Here's a more complete look at the nodding scene from "Jeremiah Johnson": Know Your Meme. "Jeremiah Johnson Nod of Approval." 28 September 2018.

['share']

True

This gif, which has been making its way around the internet since at least 2012, actually shows actor Robert Redford in a scene from the 1972 film "Jeremiah Johnson," in which Redford portrayed a Mexican War veteran who takes up the life of a mountain man.The "nod of approval" meme can be glimpsed in a trailer for the movie (minus the actual nod part) at the 1:44 mark below:

Did Delta Air Lines incentivize employees to purchase video game consoles as an alternative to participating in a union?

["In May 2019, social media users shared evidence of the company's controversial campaign to discourage its workers from unionizing. "]

In May 2019, Delta Air Lines came under scrutiny after a photograph emerged on social media that appeared to show a poster encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on video game consoles rather than union dues. Eoin Higgins, an editor and writer at the left-leaning website Common Dreams, tweeted the photograph on May 9. The poster contained the following text: "Union dues cost around $700 a year. A new video game system with the latest hits sounds like fun. Put your money towards that instead of paying dues to the union." The poster featured the Delta logo and the URL of the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com. Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) tweeted, "lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG" on May 9, 2019. The union in question, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), posted photographs of similar fliers encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on watching baseball and football instead of becoming union members. They tweeted, "Oh wow. There's another one. And it's just as bad. Really, @Delta? #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb" on May 9, 2019. The Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) added, "Safe to say @Delta didn't hit a home run with this one either. Three strikes and you're out. Let 'em have it, Twitter. #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY" on May 10, 2019. These photographs prompted multiple inquiries from Snopes readers about whether the fliers were authentic and whether Delta was responsible for producing them. A spokesperson for Delta confirmed to Snopes that the airline had indeed created all of the flyers mentioned above, including the "video game" one, and that Delta was also behind the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com, which discourages employees—at times in provocative terms—from becoming IAM members. In a statement, the Delta spokesperson wrote: "The direct relationship we have with our employees is at the very core of our strong culture, and it has enabled continuous investments in Delta people. Our employees have the best total compensation in the industry, including the most lucrative profit-sharing program in the world. They want and deserve the facts, and we respect our employees' right to decide if a union is right for them. Delta has shared many communications, which on the whole make clear that deciding whether or not to unionize should not be taken lightly." In a press release on May 9, the IAM criticized what it called Delta's "union-busting propaganda," writing: "Delta Air Lines' all-out assault on their employees' legally protected right to unionize with the Machinists Union is confirmation that our campaign to bring the benefits of IAM representation to more than 40,000 Delta ground workers and flight attendants is succeeding... Delta has resorted to defaming and spewing lies and misrepresentations about the IAM. They also continually display anti-IAM propaganda in the workplace. These are all hallmark signs of how well the IAM campaigns are doing and how scared Delta is of their employees having a voice in their careers." International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "Press Release -- IAM Campaigns Strike a Nerve With Delta Bosses." May 9, 2019.

['profit']

True

lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019Oh wow. Theres another one. And its just as bad. Really, @Delta? #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019Safe to say @Delta didnt hit a home run with this one either. Three strikes and youre out. Let em have it, Twitter. #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 10, 2019A spokesperson for Delta confirmed to Snopes that the airline had indeed created all of the flyers mentioned above, including the "video game" one, and that Delta was also behind the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com, which discourages employees at times in provocative terms from becoming IAM members:In a press release on 9 May, the IAM criticized what it called Delta's "union-busting propaganda," writing:

Six pieces of information about healthcare in Japan.

["We fact-check a series of claims about Japan's healthcare and medical insurance system."]

Healthcare reform has been a perennial political project in American politics, spanning the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump. Both proponents and opponents of the United States adopting a universal health care system often use comparisons between the U.S. and other countries to advocate for their positions. A notable example is a post from April 20, 2018, on the "U.S. Democratic Socialists" Facebook page, which featured a widely shared meme purportedly outlining the main features of the Japanese healthcare system. We examine this meme point by point below: 1. 100 percent of Japanese have health insurance. This is essentially true. Japan has universal health care, meaning that everyone who lives there (except undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors) can access affordable care and is required by law to be covered by some form of insurance. Most residents obtain this coverage through two types of insurance administered by the government: employment-based health insurance and National Health Insurance (known as "Kokumin Kenko Hoken"). However, Japan's aging population, low birth rate, and economic stagnation have placed a burden on the country's universal health care system, prompting reforms. 2. Costs are half of what is spent on healthcare in the United States. By the two most commonly used metrics, this is approximately accurate. A country's health spending is typically measured in a couple of ways: the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on healthcare and healthcare spending per capita (the total amount spent on health care divided by the number of people living in the country). According to 2016 data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States spends 17.2 percent of its GDP on healthcare, by far the highest proportion among developed countries. Japan spends 10.9 percent of its GDP, about two-thirds of what the United States spends. In 2016, total healthcare spending in the United States amounted to $9,892 per person per year, again the highest level in the developed world. In Japan, that figure was $4,519 per person, which is less than half of what the United States spends. 3. Japanese can choose their own doctors and see them twice as often as Americans. Japan has what is known as a "free access" system, which means, as the meme correctly states, that for the most part, patients can use whichever doctors and hospitals they choose. According to the Health and Global Policy Institute, patients should obtain a referral letter before presenting at larger hospitals. This is partly because the free access system can sometimes lead individuals with only minor ailments to present at hospital emergency rooms, creating a backlog for patients in more urgent need of care. Japanese people visit doctors even more than twice as often as Americans do, at least according to OECD data. Figures from 2011 (the most recent year for which a direct comparison is possible) show that U.S. residents averaged four doctors' consultations per person that year, while in Japan, the figure was more than three times higher, at 13 doctors' consultations per person. (In 2014, that figure was 12.7 doctors' visits per person per year in Japan.) 4. Japanese have the world's longest life expectancy and the second lowest infant mortality. This is true. According to United Nations data, a Japanese person born in 2014 could expect to live, on average, until the age of 83.6, the highest life expectancy figure among more than 200 countries. (Children born in Hong Kong can expect to live to 84, but Hong Kong is a territory of China, not a sovereign nation.) Research has shown that the relatively healthy diet and lifestyle of Japanese people, along with good healthcare, plays a significant role in their longevity. United Nations data also show that in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, Japan had the joint second-lowest rate of infant mortality in the world, defined as the number of children who died under the age of one for every 1,000 live births. With 2.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, Japan was ranked second, along with Finland, just behind Iceland and Luxembourg. 5. 95 percent of Japanese healthcare is not-for-profit. It's unclear what this claim means, so we can't really evaluate its accuracy. Does this mean 95 percent of healthcare providers operate on a not-for-profit basis? That 95 percent of procedures are performed on a non-profit basis? That 95 percent of all healthcare expenditures relate to not-for-profit providers? We do know that by law, hospitals in Japan cannot operate for profit, with the exception of large for-profit companies that build hospitals for their own employees. According to an analysis by Ryozo Matsuda, a health policy expert at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, 80 percent of hospitals are privately run. Facilities that provide care for the elderly and disabled (e.g., nursing home care, respite care, home care) can operate for profit, and according to Matsuda, most do. 6. The government sets all fees for medical services and drugs. This is true. More specifically, the fees are set by a government-appointed body called the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. A 2016 study in the journal Risk Management and Healthcare Policy described the system as "a uniform fee schedule at the national level," noting that "All providers, no matter whether private or public, share the same prices for their medicines, devices, and services under this nationwide fee schedule."

['profit']

NEI

Healthcare reform has been a perennial political project in American politics, from the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and those of Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump. Both those for and against the concept of the United States' adopting a universal health care system often use comparisons between the U.S. and other countries to advocate for their positions, as exemplified by a 20 April 2018 post on the "U.S. Democratic Socialists" Facebook page featuring a widely-shared meme purportedly outlining the main features of the Japanese healthcare system:This is basically true. Japan has universal health care, which means that everyone who lives there (except undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors) can access affordable care and is required by law to be covered by some form of insurance. For the most part, residents do this through two kinds of insurance, which are administered by the government: employment-based health insurance, and National Health Insurance (known as "Kokumin Kenko Hoken").However, Japan's aging population, low birth rate, and economic stagnation have placed a burden on the country's universal health care system, so reforms to that system are under way.According to 2016 data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States spends 17.2 percent of its GDP on healthcare, by far the highest proportion among developed countries. Japan spends 10.9 percent of its GDP, about two-thirds the relative amount the United States does.According to the Health and Global Policy Institute, patients should get a referral letter before presenting at larger hospitals. This is partly because the free access system can sometimes mean individuals with only minor ailments present at hospital emergency rooms, creating a backlog for patients in more urgent need of care. Japanese people visit doctors even more than twice as often Americans do, at least according to OECD data. Figures from 2011 (the most recent year for which a direct comparison is possible) show that United States residents averaged four doctors' consultations per person that year in the United States, while in Japan the figure was more than three times higher, at 13 doctors' consultations per person that year. (In 2014, that figure was 12.7 doctors' visits per person per year in Japan.)This is true. According to United Nations data, a Japanese person born in 2014 could expect to live, on average, until the age of 83.6, the highest life expectancy figure of more than 200 countries. (Children born in Hong Kong can expect to live to 84, but Hong Kong is a territory of China, not a sovereign nation.)Research has shown that the relatively healthy diet and lifestyle of Japanese people, as well as good healthcare, plays a significant role in their longevity.United Nations data also show that in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, Japan had the joint second-lowest rate of infant mortality in the world, defined as the number of children who died under the age of one for every 1,000 live births. With 2.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, Japan was ranked second, along with Finland and just behind Iceland and Luxembourg.We do know that by law, hospitals in Japan cannot operate for profit, with the exception of large for-profit companies who build hospitals for their own employees. According to an analysis by Ryozo Matsuda, a health policy expert at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, 80 percent of hospitals are privately run. Facilities that provide care for elderly and disabled people (e.g., nursing home care, respite care, home care) can operate for profit, and according to Matsuda, most do. That's true. More specifically, the fees are set by a government-appointed body called the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. A 2016 study in the journal Risk Management and Healthcare Policy described the system as "a uniform fee schedule at national level," noting that "All providers, no matter whether private or public, share the same prices for their medicines, devices, and services under this nationwide fee schedule."

The unemployment rate for Wisconsin workers has reached historic lows. Its never been this low before, ever, ever, ever.

[]

If there's one thing President Donald Trump loves to boast about, it's jobs, jobs, jobs. During an April 27, 2019 rally in Green Bay, Trump made sure his supporters in Wisconsin knew just how good the state unemployment rate had become. "The unemployment rate for Wisconsin workers has reached historic lows," Trump told the crowd. "It's never been this low before, ever, ever, ever." As of March 2019, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that Wisconsin had a 2.9 percent unemployment rate. But was there ever a time in history when it was even lower? We decided to do some digging. The historical data from the BLS shows Wisconsin has been on a downward spiral of unemployment since the height of the financial crisis in 2009. Since then, the highest unemployment rate recorded in Wisconsin reached 9.3 percent, with the lowest being where it stands now at 2.9 percent. But was there a time it was ever below that figure? BLS spokesman Gary Steinberg says it has been close, but the 2.9 percent is the lowest unemployment rate for Wisconsin on record. Unemployment rate data for Wisconsin are comparable back to 1976, Steinberg said. The unemployment rate of 2.9 percent in both January and February 2019 is the lowest on record. Nationally, Wisconsin's 2.9 percent in March 2019 left it tied with Idaho and Virginia, meaning Wisconsin ranked eighth in the country. North Dakota and Vermont tied for first with a 2.3 percent unemployment rate. Alaska, meanwhile, was at the bottom with an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent. Wisconsin's Department of Workforce Development reported the state added 11,400 total non-farm jobs and 19,300 private-sector jobs from February of 2018 to February of 2019. Meanwhile, Wisconsin's labor force participation rate—a measuring stick that looks at the other side of the equation—was 67.5 percent in February, which was more than four points better than the national rate. Our rating: Trump said Wisconsin had the lowest unemployment rate ever at a recent rally in Green Bay. The available data backs up his claim that Wisconsin hasn't had a lower unemployment rate than its 2.9 percent. We rate Trump's claim True.

['Economy', 'Jobs', 'Workers', 'Wisconsin']

True

That means Wisconsin rankedeighthin the country.

'Diesel Brothers' Facebook Giveaway Scam Targets Users After Rittenhouse Acquittal

['The real Diesel Brothers, whose likeness was used without permission, had nothing to do with the scam. ']

In mid-November 2021, scammers targeted social media users who shared a popular post from 2020. The Facebook scam improperly used the names and faces of Diesel Power Gear and "Diesel Brothers," a Discovery Channel television show. Their likenesses were used without permission in posts that promised thousands of dollars to entrants who followed certain steps and simply showed that they had downloaded the Stash finance app. On June 26, 2020, Kevin Passons, a pastor at Cornerstone Pentecostal Church in Grand Saline, Texas, and his wife, Kim, shared a meme on Facebook. It was posted in the aftermath of demonstrations that followed the murder of George Floyd. The meme read: "We need to establish a new law. Anybody caught rioting and looting, who is also on welfare, will forfeit their benefits for life. Instead, we'll redirect that money to the businesses that suffered a loss." The post from 2020 received a wave of new shares in November 2021. The meme had been shared thousands of times in the summer of 2020 and continued to receive shares throughout 2021. According to The New York Times, the picture was captured around August 16, 2014. It showed Mustafa Alshalabi cleaning up damage at Sams Meat Market after his store was looted during unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. The violent demonstrations occurred in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a Black man who was gunned down by a white police officer. Around November 19, 2021, the months-old Facebook post saw a sizable spike in shares following the verdict that acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was on trial after being accused of shooting and killing two people and wounding another in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020. After the Rittenhouse acquittal, the June 2020 Facebook post from the Passons was shared at least an additional 100,000 times over the course of just four days. As of November 23, it had a total of 326,000 shares. Within the new shares were a seemingly countless number of comments from scammers named N'k Santri Nalangsa, Akang Erik Terterter, Arra Razqisyaai HarimNna Mull, Ella Sisca, and likely many others. (The Passons had nothing to do with the scam.) The comments often read either "check my profile you win" or "you win check my profile." Other messages included: "Visit my profile, do it with faith. You have become the winner, which I specifically chose." We also noticed: "I chose you specifically, please visit my profile and fill out the registration form." Comments like these were added to posts as soon as Facebook users shared the meme. On the Facebook profiles, the scammers falsely claimed to be affiliated with Diesel Brothers and Diesel Power Gear. They stated that all users needed to do was follow several steps and install the Stash finance app to be entered to win $10,000. The steps also involved visiting a sites.google.com website for registration, as these kinds of scams often do. The scammers' posts included messages like: "DAVE SPARKS OFFICIAL GIVEAWAY FOR ALL COUNTRIES FOR LUCKY EVERYONE TODAY! I will pick random people to get a $10,000 prize for the 20 chosen winners!!! Congratulations to the people I commented 'YOU WIN,' and all you have to do now is follow the prompts and complete the registration according to the procedure; STEP 1: 'LIKE and SHARE this post and send a private message (HELLO)'; STEP 2: 'REGISTER immediately here (The registration link is in the comments)'; STEP 3: 'Please install the STASH application. After it is installed, please open it and complete your personal data correctly. Send proof of registration in the form (screenshot) in the comments column or message when it's finished & say it is done. Wait a few minutes to receive a gift from me because it has to be processed. Prizes will be sent after you have successfully registered the data correctly, and you will each receive a cash prize of $10,000.' This program is sponsored by several films. I hope this is useful because not everyone is as lucky as you. God bless you." To be clear, there was no evidence that Stash Finance, the company behind the app, had anything to do with the scam. Furthermore, it's true that the real Diesel Brothers and Diesel Power Gear Facebook pages have posted about legitimate giveaways in the past. However, this scam from accounts that asked users to visit their profiles should be avoided. Scams like these could lead to phishing, theft of financial or personal information, or other negative outcomes. A glance at the scammers' profiles showed that they likely originated from Indonesia. While some longtime readers might believe that it should be obvious that these offers are not legitimate, it's important to keep in mind that not all Facebook users are alike. The Akang Erik Terterter scammer profile alone had been followed nearly 2,000 times. It's likely that at least a handful of those followers went through the steps in an attempt to sign up for the Diesel Brothers Facebook scam or another one in the past. This one profile alone had nearly 2,000 followers, perhaps showing how many Facebook users fell for this scam or others in the past. Aside from the four accounts we found, there were likely other profiles used for the scam. Facebook limits the number of comments that a user can make in a short period of time. It was evident that the scammers had a stack of accounts that they used in rotation to keep the ruse going. In summary, neither Diesel Brothers nor Diesel Power Gear were giving away thousands of dollars on Facebook to entrants who followed steps and downloaded the Stash finance app. It was simply a scam that appeared to be run from Indonesia.

['finance']

False

In mid-November 2021, scammers set their sights on social media users who shared a popular post from 2020. The Facebook scam improperly used the names and faces of Diesel Power Gear and "Diesel Brothers," a Discovery Channel television show. Their likeness was used without permission in posts that promised thousands of dollars to entrants who followed steps and simply showed that they downloaded the Stash finance app.On June 26, 2020, Kevin Passons, a pastor at Cornerstone Pentecostal Church in Grand Saline, Texas, and his wife, Kim, shared a meme on Facebook. It was posted in the aftermath of demonstrations that followed the murder of George Floyd. The meme read: "We need to establish a new law. Anybody caught rioting and looting, who is also on welfare, will forfeit their benefits for life. Instead, we'll redirect that money to the businesses that suffered a loss." The post from 2020 received a wave of new shares in November 2021.According to The New York Times, the picture was captured around Aug. 16, 2014. It showed Mustafa Alshalabi cleaning up damage at Sams Meat Market after his store was looted during unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. The violent demonstrations came in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a Black man who was gunned down by a white police officer.Around Nov. 19, 2021, the months-old Facebook post saw a sizable spike in shares in the aftermath of the verdict that acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was on trial after being accused of shooting and killing two people and wounding another in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020.Within the new shares were a seemingly countless number of comments visible from scammers named N'k Santri Nalangsa, Akang Erik Terterter, Arra Razqisyaai HarimNna Mull, Ella Sisca, and likely many others. (The Passons had nothing to do with the scam.) Comments like these were added to posts as soon as Facebook users shared the meme.To be clear, there was no evidence that Stash Finance, the company behind the app, had anything to do with the scam. Further, it's true that the real Diesel Brothers and Diesel Power Gear Facebook pages have posted about legitimate giveaways in the past. However, this scam from accounts that asked users to visit their profiles should be avoided. Scams like these could lead to phishing, theft of financial or personal information, or other negative outcomes. A glance at the scammers' profiles showed that they likely originated from Indonesia.The Akang Erik Terterter scammer profile alone had been followed nearly 2,000 times. It's likely that at least a handful of those followers went through the steps in an attempt to sign up for the Diesel Brothers Facebook scam or another one in the past. This one profile alone had nearly 2,000 followers, perhaps showing how many Facebook users fell for this scam or other ones in the past.

Says middle-class New York State residents will have the lowest tax rate in 70 years.

[]

Gov. Andrew Cuomo believes you can win money by betting with someone on New York State's tax rates. Ask people about what the state has done with the rates, and everyone is going to say they raised taxes because it is inconceivable that a government actually lowers taxes, Cuomo said. At recent public appearances, Cuomo touted what he called the lowest tax rate for the middle class in 70 years. "Wager anyone you know and say, 'Did New York State raise taxes or lower taxes?'" Cuomo said. New York State has lowered taxes for everyone and every income level in the state. Taxes are always a top issue for voters. So does the governor's claim check out? Are middle-class state residents taxed at the lowest rate in seven decades? Who is in the middle? No official state definition exists for the middle class. But in the context of today's tax brackets, the middle class consists of those making between about $40,000 and $300,000 a year. Who is included in the middle class has changed over time with the rate of inflation. A salary today of $80,000 is equivalent to a $9,000 salary in 1953. The tax brackets used today are not the same as those used in past decades. In 1946, anyone making more than $9,000 was taxed at a 3.5 percent rate. The next year, the rate increased to 4.2 percent. In 1948, the rate jumped to 6.3 percent, and that is the year the Cuomo administration bases its claim. The Department of Tax and Finance says most, if not all, earners in the middle class in 1948 would have paid the top rate. That year, the top rate applied to people making about $9,000. That fits what the state has defined as middle class in today's dollars, and the Department of Tax and Finance says that is how the middle class would have been defined in that year. How low? Since 1948, the lowest top tax rate fell to between 6.45 and 6.65 percent for people in the same comparable income bracket. That was in 2014 and remains at that level. That is higher than the now-scheduled rate for 2025 as part of this year's resolution. Anyone making between $40,000 and $150,000 will see their income tax rate drop to 5.5 percent by that year. The tax rate will drop to 6 percent for those making between $150,000 and $300,000. But there are caveats. The rates do not factor in tax exemptions or deductions, as pointed out by E.J. McMahon from the Empire Center for Public Policy. The center researches and analyzes the state's economy, including tax law. To some extent, the tax rates for 2025 and 1948 are like apples to oranges, McMahon said. "It's much like saying the 2016 Ford Focus has the best headroom since the 1946 Ford Tudor—the two tax codes and the household situations to which they apply are that different," McMahon said. He wrote recently that the new rates will be the largest tax cut since the mid-1990s, when lawmakers passed the Taxpayer Relief Act. At the time, the legislation dropped taxes to the lowest rates since 1954. The new tax rates, once fully phased in, will be even lower, according to the Department of Taxation and Finance data. An analysis from the Fiscal Policy Institute confirms Cuomo's claim holds true—but like McMahon, the institute points out that the income range that defines the middle class looks different today than it did 70 years ago. The 1958 exception The Department of Taxation and Finance, in a different report, reveals another interesting historical nugget. Employers were not required by law to withhold tax until 1959. According to the document, because this would have required two years of taxes to be paid in just one year, taxes were canceled for 1958—meaning the tax rate for that year was zero. Our ruling: Governor Andrew M. Cuomo claimed new tax rates passed by lawmakers during this year's state budget process are the lowest in the state in 70 years. Data from the Department of Taxation and Finance backs up his claim. Because of an unusual set of circumstances, there was no income tax rate in 1958 as the state implemented a new system. The first year rates will appear lower than the 1948 rates will be in 2019. We rate this claim as Mostly True.

['Taxes', 'New York']

True

At public appearances recently, Cuomotoutedwhat he called the lowest tax rate for the middle class in 70 years.Wager anyone you know and say, Did New York State raise taxes or lower taxes? Cuomo said. New York State haslowered taxesfor everyone in the state and every income level in the state.But in the scope of todays tax brackets, themiddle class arethose making between about $40,000 to $300,000 a year.The Department of Tax and Financesays most- if not all - earners in the middle class in 1948 would have paid the top rate. That year the top rate applied to people making about $9,000. That fits what the state has defined as middle class in todays dollars, and the Department of Tax and Finance says thats how the middle class would have been defined in that year.Since 1948, the lowest top tax rate fell to between 6.45 and 6.65 percent for people in the same comparable income bracket. That was in 2014, and remains at that level. Thats higher than the now-scheduled rate for 2025 as part ofthis years resolution.Hewrote recentlythe new rates will be the largest tax cut since the mid-1990s, when lawmakers passed the Taxpayer Relief Act. At the time, the legislation dropped taxes to the lowest rates since 1954.The Department of Taxation and Finance, in adifferent report, reveals another interesting historical nugget.Governor Andrew M. Cuomo claimed new tax rates passed by lawmakers during this yearsstate budget processare the lowest in the state in 70 years. Data from the Department of Taxation and Finance backs up his claim.

Did Trapped Zoo Animals Drown After the Nova Kakhovka Dam Collapse?

['Russia initially claimed that the story was false because the city in question which has a zoo did not, in fact, have a zoo. ']

Early on the morning of June 6, 2023, at around the time residents reported hearing explosions, the Nova Kakhovka Dam in the Kherson region of Ukraine failed, leading to catastrophic flooding in several downstream towns and cities. Ukrainian authorities have blamed Russia for the collapse. Russian authorities have denied involvement, blaming Kyiv. Nova Kakhovka Dam failed have blamed denied The city of Nova Kakhovka, directly below the dam, experienced extreme flooding shortly after its failure. As images of the town's administrative center under several feet of water went viral, claims soon emerged that a large portion of a local zoo's animal population had perished in the floodwaters. These reports concern "a recreation complex for children and adults" named Kazkova Dibrova which roughly translates to Fairytale Dibrova that contained, along with sculptures and other attractions, a small zoo. On the morning of the dam's failure, the Facebook page of that park reported the death of its animal population: Kazkova Dibrova Facebook page This morning, the recreation complex "Kazkova Dibrova" was completely flooded with water after the explosion of the Russian Kakhovskaya HPP. About 300 animals that our Novokakhov residents knew and loved died. Monkeys Anfisa and Charlik, pony Malysh, donkey Osya, raccoons Mishka, Lolya, Dinka, parrot Venya, crow Roma, marmots, Cameroonian goats, sheep, parrots, guinea pigs, ferrets and many other small pets of ours. Only a couple of swans and ducks survived. A small swan chick, born only 5 days ago, also died. Already at 6 in the morning, when Dibrova's workers arrived, everything was flooded with water. A video shared on Telegram appeared to show the park as workers arrived that morning. While Snopes can verify that these videos showedthe entrance of the Kazkova Dibrova, we cannot independently confirm the time when the video was filmed: the entrance As viral headlines reported that "300 zoo animals drown in floodwaters," Russian media was quick to deny any aspect of the claim whatsoever, asserting in the English language version of the state-owned news agency TASS that the story couldn't be true because there was no zoo in the town: viral headlines no zoo Ukrainian media reports about animals who were killed by a flood at a zoo in the city of Novaya Kakhovka are untrue, because the city has no zoo at all, a spokesperson for the city's emergencies services has told TASS. "Earlier, the Ukrainian media reported that beavers, swans and dogs were killed in Novaya Kakhovka. Some media said that a zoo with around 300 animals was allegedly flooded," the spokesperson said. "No animals were killed, because our city has no zoo." As tourist guides and years of Instagram and other social media posts predating the war can attest, Kazkova Dibrova is a real place with a real zoo that was, indeed, a home to the animals described in the zoo's viral Facebook post. The park has been around since 1992, and is only meters away from the administrative center that flooded in the immediate wake of the dam collapse. tourist guides (Bing Maps / Snopes) Russian language editions of TASS later reported a slightly narrower denial that accepted the existence of a zoo in Novo Kakhovka (via Google Translate): narrower denial All animals from the zoo in the city of Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region were taken out last year, Mayor Vladimir Leontiev told reporters. "Even last year, all the animals from the Kazkova Dibrova Zoo were evacuated and transported, there was no one left, not a single animal. Volunteers took custody of these animals," he said. According to a TASS correspondent, now it is impossible to get to the place where the zoo was previously located due to the fact that it is flooded. This area is cordoned off for security purposes. Employees and volunteers associated with the zoo deny that narrative, but they did state that their earlier assertion that all the animals perished failed to account for the fact that some animals had been in the care of volunteers. As explained on the park's Facebook page: explained The information on the animals of Kazkova Dibrova, which were saved, is being clarified. Yesterday, the workers, being in a state of shock, gave me inaccurate information. Some animals were not on the territory of Dibrova, but were at home [with a volunteer] That's why they stayed alive! Our favorite parrot Venya, flying squirrels, ferrets, parrots, chinchillas and guinea pigs are protected from the flood. Volunteers had been working to keep many of the animals alive during the war. "A year back, we all raised funds as a group to buy feed for the year. Farmers, entrepreneurs, and many people helped by bringing vegetables and sending money to help animals," the park wrote on Facebook. Two volunteers, according to the zoo, had been risking their lives and taken fire in an effort to feed the animals as fighting intensified. on Facebook Some animals were, indeed, brought to zoo employees' homes during the winter, but the zoo said - these had been returned to the park. "Dibrova survived a terrible winter without light and heating," the park's Facebook page wrote, explaining that their park director "took home all the warm-loving animals" before they were "returned back to Dibrova." wrote The assertion that there were no animals at all present at the zoo at the time of the flooding is hard to support. For one thing, one of the earliest viral images of post-dam-collapse flooding showed two swans matching the description swans from the zoo next door swimming in front of the Novo Khakovka administrative center: The struggle posed by mines and shelling made the full-scale evacuation of all the animals impossible, zoo officials said. These assertions are supported by posts on Facebook by the zoo in late 2022. in late 2022 Because Kazkova Dibrova is a zoo in the city of Nova Kakhovka and because at least a large portion of animals were at that zoo at the time of the catastrophic flooding, the claim that many if not most of the animals died at a zoo following the dam's failure are CNN. "Kremlin Denies Allegations That Russia Attacked Nova Kakhovka Dam, Accuses Ukraine of 'Sabotage.'" CNN, 6 June 2023, https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-06-23/h_5988282ee9df7ca66979a76cb7b45107. ---. "Live Updates: Ukraine Blames Russia for Critical Dam Collapse." CNN, 6 June 2023, https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-06-23/index.html. Kazkova Dibrova, Nova Kakhovka: Information, Photos, Reviews. https://travels.in.ua/en-us/object/1104. Accessed 7 June 2023. Yerushalmy, Jonathan. "Nova Kakhovka Dam: Everything You Need to Know about Ukraine's Strategically Important Reservoir." The Guardian, 6 June 2023. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/nova-kakhovka-dam-everything-you-need-to-know-about-ukraines-strategically-important-reservoir. " , 2022 ." TACC, https://tass.ru/obschestvo/17951039. Accessed 7 June 2023. ... https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid025tTJj5kHXLp4ry9R8jSupoJBZtZxpr3mWyCJBeNkMCetXaJRPN3qf1RfKWon8fcJl&id=100063905471298. Accessed 7 June 2023. , . , , ... | By " " . " | Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/100063905471298/videos/%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8E%D1%8E%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%96%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%96%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%97-%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8-%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85-%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0-/1319108985624200/. Accessed 7 June 2023.

['funds']

True

Early on the morning of June 6, 2023, at around the time residents reported hearing explosions, the Nova Kakhovka Dam in the Kherson region of Ukraine failed, leading to catastrophic flooding in several downstream towns and cities. Ukrainian authorities have blamed Russia for the collapse. Russian authorities have denied involvement, blaming Kyiv.These reports concern "a recreation complex for children and adults" named Kazkova Dibrova which roughly translates to Fairytale Dibrova that contained, along with sculptures and other attractions, a small zoo. On the morning of the dam's failure, the Facebook page of that park reported the death of its animal population:A video shared on Telegram appeared to show the park as workers arrived that morning. While Snopes can verify that these videos showedthe entrance of the Kazkova Dibrova, we cannot independently confirm the time when the video was filmed:As viral headlines reported that "300 zoo animals drown in floodwaters," Russian media was quick to deny any aspect of the claim whatsoever, asserting in the English language version of the state-owned news agency TASS that the story couldn't be true because there was no zoo in the town:As tourist guides and years of Instagram and other social media posts predating the war can attest, Kazkova Dibrova is a real place with a real zoo that was, indeed, a home to the animals described in the zoo's viral Facebook post. The park has been around since 1992, and is only meters away from the administrative center that flooded in the immediate wake of the dam collapse.Russian language editions of TASS later reported a slightly narrower denial that accepted the existence of a zoo in Novo Kakhovka (via Google Translate):Employees and volunteers associated with the zoo deny that narrative, but they did state that their earlier assertion that all the animals perished failed to account for the fact that some animals had been in the care of volunteers. As explained on the park's Facebook page:Volunteers had been working to keep many of the animals alive during the war. "A year back, we all raised funds as a group to buy feed for the year. Farmers, entrepreneurs, and many people helped by bringing vegetables and sending money to help animals," the park wrote on Facebook. Two volunteers, according to the zoo, had been risking their lives and taken fire in an effort to feed the animals as fighting intensified.Some animals were, indeed, brought to zoo employees' homes during the winter, but the zoo said - these had been returned to the park. "Dibrova survived a terrible winter without light and heating," the park's Facebook page wrote, explaining that their park director "took home all the warm-loving animals" before they were "returned back to Dibrova."The struggle posed by mines and shelling made the full-scale evacuation of all the animals impossible, zoo officials said. These assertions are supported by posts on Facebook by the zoo in late 2022.

Did Donald Trump approve of flag burning?

['In response to a controversial 2016 remark made by Donald Trump opposing flag burning, someone faked a 2011 tweet from him expressing the opposite view.']

On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail!" Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016. Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest. Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency. Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted fewer than a hundred of each: "Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75Jiu I want to answer more of your questions, tweet me....." Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011. "Also coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/" Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011. Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services.

['loss']

False

On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning:Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/ Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011

500 percent more traffic here?

[]

A portion of residential Northwest Austin has bristled at the prospect of a low-rise office park transforming into something much larger. Our attention was drawn to yard signs suggesting that the towering redevelopment at the southwest corner of Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) would quintuple area traffic. Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LP seeks a zoning change to build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire stated that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been scaled back to approximately 10-story buildings, according to Steve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case. Initial plans, also modified per Drenner, called for up to 610 apartments and townhomes in three- to five-story buildings, plus retail and restaurant space. The earliest construction was planned to start around 2020, after existing office leases expire. The 500% signs do not reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer with a coalition opposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them. City 'unable to verify' traffic impact We reached out to city officials initially, wondering what data were available. By email, spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola informed us: The project and the traffic impact analysis are currently under review. At this time, we are unable to verify the traffic impact until a full evaluation of the project and accompanying mitigation is provided by the developer. Meanwhile, we found something close to the 500 percent claim in a September 2014 presentation by Jim Duncan of Austin, a city planner by profession. Duncan said he developed the presentation at the urging of a neighborhood friend and based his traffic projection on an engineering report written by another firm at the developer's request. That report, Duncan said, indicated daily car trips near the proposed Austin Oaks Planned Use Development would increase from 4,118 to 23,804 once the expansion was completed—a 478 percent increase. We turned back to Arzola, who agreed by email that it appears the traffic figures indeed came from the developer's consultant's study. However, she noted that a fresh traffic analysis was released in May 2015 based on the developer changing what it seeks to build. Duncan said he had heard about the revision discussions and, for that reason, he believed his calculation of the potential 478 percent increase in daily car trips near the project would likely be outdated. I'm sure the number is lower now, Duncan said. Traffic impact studies Arzola emailed us two traffic studies for the project, dated a year apart, and another city official, Bryan Golden, emailed us excerpts from a study completed in August 2014 (which appeared to be the one Duncan relied on). Each study presents predicted unadjusted daily trips in the area should the project be built out, with predicted increases ranging from more than 300 percent to more than 480 percent. Generally, unadjusted daily trips refer to daily car trips in an area, a city official told us, without reductions accounting for trips internal to a development or trips made on city buses. An unadjusted count includes trips expected due to existing developments plus the additional trips anticipated once the project is completed, Bryan Golden explained via email. The projections are generated by an engineering industry calculator, Golden said. The initial June 26, 2014, traffic impact analysis was completed by professional engineer Bobak J. Tehrany for Bury-AUS, Inc. That analysis, of 14 nearby intersections and 11 proposed driveways, stated that the redevelopment, upon completion in 2031, would generate an additional 20,736 unadjusted daily trips by car compared to approximately 4,248 daily trips attributed to the existing office complex, which breaks down to an eventual 488 percent increase. With the redevelopment, Tehrany wrote, all but two of the nearby intersections would need improvements. He noted that the maximum desirable volumes are currently being exceeded along the evaluated roadway segments, though he also stated that this does not mean the roadways have exceeded their respective capacities. The Aug. 19, 2014, traffic impact analysis—taking into account a nearby intersection the city wanted to add to the analysis, Amanda Swor of Drenner's firm told us by email—suggested the project would result in nearly 19,700 additional unadjusted daily car trips, up 478 percent from 4,118 previously recorded. We did not ascertain why the count of current-day traffic decreased. Most recently, the May 22, 2015, traffic impact analysis filed on behalf of the developers states: Based on the proposed land use intensities, it is anticipated that the development will generate a total of 19,819 unadjusted daily trips; however, due to the existing office land uses, the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to generate a net increase of 15,701 unadjusted daily trips. This takes into consideration the trips that already exist on the roadway network due to the existing development. That is, once the development is completed, nearby traffic would increase by 381 percent from the 4,118 daily car trips recorded previously. Developer's advocate says traffic likely to increase less By phone, Drenner pointed out that the May 2015 analysis includes a chart suggesting that once adjustments are made to account for car trips internal to the development, there would actually be a 332 percent increase in traffic. He noted that this latest analysis was based on Spire's modified development plan, which halved the number of residential units and reduced retail uses, filed with the city on April 30, 2015. Drenner also mentioned that the developers are proposing $1.5 million in spending to improve nearby streets and the creation of a fund that would accumulate money for area road improvements. Next, we wondered how much traffic near the site would increase if the developers added nothing. Denkler and Golden advised that analysts assume a 2 percent annual increase in car trips. At our request, Golden calculated that the 4,118 current unadjusted daily car trips would escalate by 37 percent to 5,653 in 2031—again, provided there is no expansion on the site. Our ruling Yard signs posted in opposition to a proposed Northwest Austin redevelopment state: 500 percent more traffic? Traffic studies filed in 2014 based on the developer's original proposal support the 500-percent figure, yet the developer later submitted a revised plan, and its May 2015 traffic analysis suggests at most a 381 percent increase in daily car trips, still a substantial spike. Perhaps the project and predicted traffic effects will continue to change. For now, taking into account the information available when the signs were made, we rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

['City Budget', 'City Government', 'Texas']

True

Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LPseeks a zoning changeto build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire said that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been trimmed to 10-story buildings or so, according toSteve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case.The 500% signs dont reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer witha coalitionopposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

We have the most productive workers in the world.

[]

On the third night of the Democratic convention, Vice President Joe Biden took vigorous exception to the Republican message of a nation teetering on the brink. Not only do we have the largest economy in the world, we have the strongest economy in the world, Biden said. We have the most productive workers in the world. And given a fair shot, given a fair chance, Americans have never ever ever let their country down. Does American have the most productive workers? Not quite. We checked the numbers and found that we rank third, not first. Productivity is a measure of how much value comes out of each hour worked. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks the performance of the worlds higher income nations. When the OECDcompares the GDP per hour workedacross 47 countries (using dollars corrected for inflation and the purchasing power in each nation), it consistently reports that Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than the United States. This table shows the top six countries since 2010. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Luxembourg 78.4 78.2 76 78.4 79.3 81.2 Norway 77.8 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.9 79.7 United States 61.9 62.1 62.2 62.2 62.4 .. Belgium 61.8 61.6 61.4 61.7 62.2 .. Ireland 58.2 60.7 61 60.2 62 .. Netherlands 59.6 60.1 59.9 60.1 60.6 61.3 For 2014, the most recent year for which we have complete data, America ranks third, as it has since 2010. For each hour worked in Luxembourg, that country gains $79.30. In Norway, the amount is $78.90. In the United States, the value is $62.40. We reached out to Bidens press office and were told that when hes made this comparison before, he has referred to other larger economies, which means the United States ranks first. He left out that qualification this time. Our ruling Biden said that America has the most productive workers in the world. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks how much value comes out of each hour worked in the worlds higher income nations. According to its data, Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than America. That ranking has been in place since 2010. Third is not first. But to place in the top three out of the worlds 47 most wealthy nations is still an achievement. Biden is wrong on the details, but the general point is correct. We rate this claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Workers']

True

When the OECDcompares the GDP per hour workedacross 47 countries (using dollars corrected for inflation and the purchasing power in each nation), it consistently reports that Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than the United States.

Sotomayor Speech From 2001 Recirculates After Trump Comments on Judge's Mexican Heritage

['Several outlets attempted to defend Donald Trump\'s comments about a "Mexican" judge by invoking a 2001 speech given by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.']

In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump stated that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he was overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, claiming that Curiel may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage. The presumptive GOP nominee asserted that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico had resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case involving Trump's for-profit university. "He's proud of his heritage, OK? I'm building a wall," Trump told Tapper. "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico," he added. Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana. "We live in a society that's very pro-Mexico, and that's fine. That's all fine," Trump said at another point in the interview. "But I think he should recuse himself." "Because he's a Latino?" Tapper asked. "I'm building a wall," Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with those made by Trump: "textbook racism." Justice Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion." She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. "She's basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are." Pundit Ann Coulter criticized Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist." In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor, who was at that point an appeals court judge, took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. "I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." While Sotomayor's speech centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said, as insinuated by Bolling, that her heritage—rather than the merits of the case—would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor stated that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: "I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable." As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues, including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Others simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference will exist due to the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. "My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She stated that the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law.

['interest']

NEI

In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage:While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump:In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments:

Permanent Closure at Walt Disney World Due to Hurricane Irma?

['Rumors holding that Walt Disney World would close the Fort Wilderness Campgrounds due to damage from Hurricane Irma originated on a prank web site.']

On 13 September 2017, an article claiming that Disney World was permanently closing the Fort Wilderness Campground due to damage sustained from Hurricane Irma was posted to the prank news web site BreakingNews247.com: article prank Walt Disney has officially announced that they will be permanently closing Fort Wilderness Campgrounds due to damage exceeding over $1 Million from one estimate. This article, along with everything else published on BreakingNews247.com, is fabricated. "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook:This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information.The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke":Despite the article's deletion, however, the rumor continued to circulate as web sites like ViralDisney.net republished near verbatim copies of the story. These web sites are unaffiliated with Walt Disney World, which has indicated in public statements that Fort Wilderness will soon reopen. "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook: Prank This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information. The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke": message ViralDisney.net The Florida theme park did sustain some damage during Hurricane Irma and the Fort Wilderness campground was temporarily closed. A message on the official Disney World web site explained that the campground will likely reopen by the end of September 2017: damage message explained All Disney Resorts have begun normal operation, with the exception of Fort Wilderness Campground and Disney's Saratoga Springs Treehouse Villas.We anticipate that Disneys Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground will reopen next week, but it remains closed at this time as we clean up the property following the storm. Disney's Wilderness Lodge remains open. We anticipate that Disneys Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground will reopen next week, but it remains closed at this time as we clean up the property following the storm. Disney's Wilderness Lodge remains open.To allow Disneys Fort Wilderness to prepare the property after Hurricane Irma, all shows at The Hoop Dee Doo Musical Revue and Mickeys Backyard BBQ will be canceled up to and including To allow Disneys Fort Wilderness to prepare the property after Hurricane Irma, all shows at The Hoop Dee Doo Musical Revue and Mickeys Backyard BBQ will be canceled up to and including Tuesday September 19th. Any existing reservations will be automatically canceled and refunded. Fox News. "Disney World Photos Show Hurricane Irma's Damage to Parks." 13 September 2017.

['share']

False

On 13 September 2017, an article claiming that Disney World was permanently closing the Fort Wilderness Campground due to damage sustained from Hurricane Irma was posted to the prank news web site BreakingNews247.com:"Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook:This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information.The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke":Despite the article's deletion, however, the rumor continued to circulate as web sites like ViralDisney.net republished near verbatim copies of the story. These web sites are unaffiliated with Walt Disney World, which has indicated in public statements that Fort Wilderness will soon reopen. "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook:The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke":The Florida theme park did sustain some damage during Hurricane Irma and the Fort Wilderness campground was temporarily closed. A message on the official Disney World web site explained that the campground will likely reopen by the end of September 2017:

Washington Redskins Predict Presidential Elections

['Have the Washington Redskins home game results correctly predicted presidential election outcomes since 1936?']

Claim: The outcome of Washington Redskins home football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936. OUTDATED Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] Did you know....?? The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power. This election year, that deciding game takes place on Sunday, October 31 ... vs. Green Bay. Go Pack!!! Origins: Our desire to understand and assert some control over the world around us is often manifested by our attempts to find predictive signs that enable us to prognosticate events even when there is no seeming connection between predictor and event. Sometimes one natural phenomenon supposedly forecasts another, as in the belief that a groundhog's seeing his shadow on February 2 portends another six weeks of winter. In other instances the linkage is between affairs of mankind, as in the superstition that the winner of football's Super Bowl augurs that year's stock market performance (or vice-versa). groundhog Super Bowl One item of this ilk which gained currency in 2004 maintained that the results of the last game played at home by the NFL's Redskins (a football team based in the national capital, Washington, D.C.) before a U.S. presidential election foretold the winner of that contest. If the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the party that occupied the White House continued to hold it; if the Redskins lost that last home game, the challenger from the out-of-office party unseated the incumbent party. And up until that 2004 election, the Redskins indicator had a rather remarkable record: Since 1936, the earliest presidential election year in which the current Redskins franchise played under that team name, the team's results had currently predicted the outcome of 17 straight presidential contests. Reality finally trumped coincidence in 2004, however: Despite the Green Bay Packers' 28-14 defeat of the Redskins at the latter's home field on 31 October, presaging a victory for Democratic challenger John Kerry in upcoming the presidential election, two days later incumbent President George W. Bush was re-elected, breaking the Redskins' predictive pattern. The Redskins indicator failed again in 2012 as Washington suffered a 21-13 home loss at the hands of the Carolina Panthers on 4 November 2012, just two days before that year's election, but Republican nominee Mitt Romney failed to unseat incumbent president Barack Obama. defeat loss While we don't presume there is anything more behind the phenomenon than random correlation, the Redskins indicator can still boast an accuracy rate of 90% with 18 correct matches out of the last 20 elections: After stumbling in 2004, the Redskins' power as election predictors got back on track in 2008. In a Monday night game contested on 3 November 2008, the evening before Election Day, the Redskins were defeated at home, 23-6, by the Pittsburgh Steelers, a loss that foretold a change in party which would bring the Democratic candidate into the White House. The following day, the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, defeated the Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, for the White House. defeated On 30 October 2000 the Washington Redskins lost a Monday night game at home to the Tennessee Titans, 27-21, presaging a loss for the incumbent Democratic party. Since President Bill Clinton had already been elected to the constitutionally-mandated maximum of two terms in office, the 7 November 2000 presidential election pitted Democratic Vice-President Al Gore against Republican Governor George W. Bush of Texas. In the closest (and most controversial) presidential election since 1876, Governor Bush gained the White House by the slim margin of five electoral votes, thereby fulfilling the Redskin prophecy. lost On 27 October 1996 the Washington Redskins defeated the Indianapolis Colts at home, 31-16, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Sure enough, in the 5 November 1996 general election, Democratic President Bill Clinton won re-election over his Republican challenger, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. defeated On 1 November 1992 the Washington Redskins lost to the New York Giants at home, 24-7, predicting a similar loss for the incumbent Republicans. As expected, in the 3 November 1992, Republican President George H. W. Bush lost his re-election bid to Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. lost On 6 November 1988 the Washington Redskins edged the New Orleans Saints at home, 27-24, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans. As President Ronald Reagan had already been elected twice, the 8 November 1988 election once again matched a sitting Vice-President, Republican George H. W. Bush, against a challenger, Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. True to form, Vice-President Bush emerged victorious. edged On 5 November 1984 the Washington Redskins bested the Atlanta Falcons in a Monday night home game, 27-14, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans. The next day, President Ronald Reagan handily defeated his Democratic challenger, former Vice-President and Senator Walter F. Mondale of Minnesota, winning re-election with an electoral vote landslide. bested On 2 November 1980 the Washington Redskins were trounced at home by the Minnesota Vikings, 39-14, predicting a loss for the incumbent Democrats. As expected, on 4 November 1980 President Jimmy Carter failed in his re-election bid, losing to his Republican opponent, former California governor Ronald Reagan. trounced On 31 October 1976 the Washington Redskins were spooked by the Dallas Cowboys in a Halloween Day home game, losing 20-7 and predicting a loss for the incumbent Republicans. Two days later, on 2 November 1976, Democratic Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia unseated President Gerald Ford (who had been appointed Vice-President after the resignation of Spiro Agnew in 1973 and became chief executive in 1974 after President Richard Nixon also resigned). spooked On 22 October 1972 the Washington Redskins edged the Dallas Cowboys, 24-20, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans. The 7 November 1972 election resulted in the electoral vote landslide re-election of President Richard Nixon over the Democratic nominee, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota. edged On 27 October 1968 the Washington Redskins lost a close game to the New York Giants, 13-10, predicting a loss for the incumbent Democrats. Since President Lyndon B. Johnson had announced several months earlier that he would not seek another term as president, the November 1968 election was a contest between sitting Vice-President Hubert Humphrey and a former Vice-President, Republican Richard Nixon. In a mirror of the Redskins game, the Democrats lost in a close contest (the two candidates were separated by a slim 0.6% margin in the popular vote). lost On 25 October 1964 the Washington Redskins beat the Chicago Bears, 27-20, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. As predicted, on 3 November 1964 President Lyndon Johnson (who had ascended to the White House after the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963) won a landslide victory over Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. beat On 30 October 1960 the Washington Redskins were pasted at home by the Cleveland Browns, 31-10, predicting a loss for the incumbent Republicans. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had already served two terms, so Vice-President Richard Nixon took up the Republican mantle against Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts in the 8 November 1960 presidential election. Like the Redskins, the Republicans lost; unlike the Redskins, the Republicans made the contest a very close one. (Kennedy bested Nixon by a mere 0.2% margin in the popular vote.) pasted On 21 October 1956 the Washington Redskins soundly defeated the Cleveland Browns at home, 20-9, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans on 6 November 1956. And, for the second straight election, the Republicans and their standard-bearer, Dwight D. Eisenhower, prevailed over the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson. defeated On 2 November 1952 the Washington Redskins lost a squeaker to the Pittsburgh Steelers at home, 24-23, predicting a similar loss for the incumbent Democrats. President Harry S. Truman declined to run for re-election (he had already served eight years), leaving the field open for former Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson to stand against the Republican candidate, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Democrats' loss on 4 November 1952 was not nearly as close as the Redskins' had been. lost On 31 October 1948, the Washington Redskins walloped the Boston Yanks at home, 59-21, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Two days later, In one of the most stunning political upsets in U.S. history, President Harry S. Truman (who had assumed office in 1945 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt died shortly after beginning his fourth term) defeated his Republican challenger, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. walloped On 5 November 1944, the Washington Redskins trimmed the Cleveland Rams at home, 14-10, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. And win the Democrats did, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt secured an unprecedented fourth term by defeating the Republican nominee, Thomas Dewey, on 7 November 1944. trimmed On 3 November 1940, the Washington Redskins thrashed the Pittsburgh Pirates (forebears of today's Steelers team) at home, 37-10, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Likewise, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first (and only) three-term president as he thrashed Republican challenger Wendell Willkie of New York (a former Democrat who had never held high elected office) on 5 November 1940. thrashed Going back to 1936 puts us beyond the beginnings of the Washington Redskins, as that year the Redskins franchise was still playing in Boston. Nonetheless, their knack for foretelling the outcome of presidential elections was already in place. On 1 November 1936 the Boston Redskins downed the Chicago Cardinals at Fenway Park, 13-10, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Two days later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt won re-election over Republican Governor Alf Landon of Kansas. downed That is as far back as the streak goes. In 1932 the Washington Redskins were neither the Redskins nor a Washington team: they were the Boston Braves, and they played in Braves Field, which they shared with the National League baseball team of the same name. On 6 November 1932 they won at home against the Staten Island Stapletons, 19-6, a result that should have foretold a presidential victory for the incumbent Republican party. Neither the Redskins' team name nor their predictive powers were yet evident, however, as President Herbert Hoover lost to his Democratic challenger, Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York, on 8 November 1932. won Sightings: This Redskins home game election predictor was mentioned in an episode of the AMC television drama Mad Men ("The Wheel," original air date 18 October 2007): Last updated: 7 November 2012

['stock market']

True

groundhog's seeing his shadow on February 2 portends another six weeks of winter. In other instances the linkage is between affairs of mankind, as in the superstition that the winner of football's Super Bowl augurs that year's stock market performance (or vice-versa).Reality finally trumped coincidence in 2004, however: Despite the Green Bay Packers' 28-14 defeat of the Redskins at the latter's home field on 31 October, presaging a victory for Democratic challenger John Kerry in upcoming the presidential election, two days later incumbent President George W. Bush was re-elected, breaking the Redskins' predictive pattern. The Redskins indicator failed again in 2012 as Washington suffered a 21-13 home loss at the hands of the Carolina Panthers on 4 November 2012, just two days before that year's election, but Republican nominee Mitt Romney failed to unseat incumbent president Barack Obama. After stumbling in 2004, the Redskins' power as election predictors got back on track in 2008. In a Monday night game contested on 3 November 2008, the evening before Election Day, the Redskins were defeated at home, 23-6, by the Pittsburgh Steelers, a loss that foretold a change in party which would bring the Democratic candidate into the White House. The following day, the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, defeated the Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, for the White House. On 30 October 2000 the Washington Redskins lost a Monday night game at home to the Tennessee Titans, 27-21, presaging a loss for the incumbent Democratic party. Since President Bill Clinton had already been elected to the constitutionally-mandated maximum of two terms in office, the 7 November 2000 presidential election pitted Democratic Vice-President Al Gore against Republican Governor George W. Bush of Texas. In the closest (and most controversial) presidential election since 1876, Governor Bush gained the White House by the slim margin of five electoral votes, thereby fulfilling the Redskin prophecy. On 27 October 1996 the Washington Redskins defeated the Indianapolis Colts at home, 31-16, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Sure enough, in the 5 November 1996 general election, Democratic President Bill Clinton won re-election over his Republican challenger, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. On 1 November 1992 the Washington Redskins lost to the New York Giants at home, 24-7, predicting a similar loss for the incumbent Republicans. As expected, in the 3 November 1992, Republican President George H. W. Bush lost his re-election bid to Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. On 6 November 1988 the Washington Redskins edged the New Orleans Saints at home, 27-24, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans. As President Ronald Reagan had already been elected twice, the 8 November 1988 election once again matched a sitting Vice-President, Republican George H. W. Bush, against a challenger, Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. True to form, Vice-President Bush emerged victorious. On 5 November 1984 the Washington Redskins bested the Atlanta Falcons in a Monday night home game, 27-14, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans. The next day, President Ronald Reagan handily defeated his Democratic challenger, former Vice-President and Senator Walter F. Mondale of Minnesota, winning re-election with an electoral vote landslide. On 2 November 1980 the Washington Redskins were trounced at home by the Minnesota Vikings, 39-14, predicting a loss for the incumbent Democrats. As expected, on 4 November 1980 President Jimmy Carter failed in his re-election bid, losing to his Republican opponent, former California governor Ronald Reagan. On 31 October 1976 the Washington Redskins were spooked by the Dallas Cowboys in a Halloween Day home game, losing 20-7 and predicting a loss for the incumbent Republicans. Two days later, on 2 November 1976, Democratic Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia unseated President Gerald Ford (who had been appointed Vice-President after the resignation of Spiro Agnew in 1973 and became chief executive in 1974 after President Richard Nixon also resigned). On 22 October 1972 the Washington Redskins edged the Dallas Cowboys, 24-20, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans. The 7 November 1972 election resulted in the electoral vote landslide re-election of President Richard Nixon over the Democratic nominee, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota. On 27 October 1968 the Washington Redskins lost a close game to the New York Giants, 13-10, predicting a loss for the incumbent Democrats. Since President Lyndon B. Johnson had announced several months earlier that he would not seek another term as president, the November 1968 election was a contest between sitting Vice-President Hubert Humphrey and a former Vice-President, Republican Richard Nixon. In a mirror of the Redskins game, the Democrats lost in a close contest (the two candidates were separated by a slim 0.6% margin in the popular vote). On 25 October 1964 the Washington Redskins beat the Chicago Bears, 27-20, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. As predicted, on 3 November 1964 President Lyndon Johnson (who had ascended to the White House after the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963) won a landslide victory over Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. On 30 October 1960 the Washington Redskins were pasted at home by the Cleveland Browns, 31-10, predicting a loss for the incumbent Republicans. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had already served two terms, so Vice-President Richard Nixon took up the Republican mantle against Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts in the 8 November 1960 presidential election. Like the Redskins, the Republicans lost; unlike the Redskins, the Republicans made the contest a very close one. (Kennedy bested Nixon by a mere 0.2% margin in the popular vote.) On 21 October 1956 the Washington Redskins soundly defeated the Cleveland Browns at home, 20-9, predicting a win for the incumbent Republicans on 6 November 1956. And, for the second straight election, the Republicans and their standard-bearer, Dwight D. Eisenhower, prevailed over the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson. On 2 November 1952 the Washington Redskins lost a squeaker to the Pittsburgh Steelers at home, 24-23, predicting a similar loss for the incumbent Democrats. President Harry S. Truman declined to run for re-election (he had already served eight years), leaving the field open for former Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson to stand against the Republican candidate, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Democrats' loss on 4 November 1952 was not nearly as close as the Redskins' had been. On 31 October 1948, the Washington Redskins walloped the Boston Yanks at home, 59-21, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Two days later, In one of the most stunning political upsets in U.S. history, President Harry S. Truman (who had assumed office in 1945 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt died shortly after beginning his fourth term) defeated his Republican challenger, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. On 5 November 1944, the Washington Redskins trimmed the Cleveland Rams at home, 14-10, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. And win the Democrats did, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt secured an unprecedented fourth term by defeating the Republican nominee, Thomas Dewey, on 7 November 1944. On 3 November 1940, the Washington Redskins thrashed the Pittsburgh Pirates (forebears of today's Steelers team) at home, 37-10, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Likewise, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first (and only) three-term president as he thrashed Republican challenger Wendell Willkie of New York (a former Democrat who had never held high elected office) on 5 November 1940. Going back to 1936 puts us beyond the beginnings of the Washington Redskins, as that year the Redskins franchise was still playing in Boston. Nonetheless, their knack for foretelling the outcome of presidential elections was already in place. On 1 November 1936 the Boston Redskins downed the Chicago Cardinals at Fenway Park, 13-10, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Two days later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt won re-election over Republican Governor Alf Landon of Kansas.That is as far back as the streak goes. In 1932 the Washington Redskins were neither the Redskins nor a Washington team: they were the Boston Braves, and they played in Braves Field, which they shared with the National League baseball team of the same name. On 6 November 1932 they won at home against the Staten Island Stapletons, 19-6, a result that should have foretold a presidential victory for the incumbent Republican party. Neither the Redskins' team name nor their predictive powers were yet evident, however, as President Herbert Hoover lost to his Democratic challenger, Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York, on 8 November 1932.

Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry requesting that he reject the equal pay bill.

[]

A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

['Income', 'Legal Issues', 'Workers', 'Texas']

True

A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013.Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts.AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law.Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us.One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation.Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement.Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts.The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday.Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Free $1,000 Best Buy Gift Card Scam

['Best Buy is distributing free $1,000 gift cards to users who click an online link?']

Claim: Best Buy is distributing free $1,000 gift cards to users who click an online link. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, April 2012] Your entry last month has won!! Go to [URL elided] and enter your winning code: 3333 to claim your free $1,000 Best Buy gift card! [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] Your entry last month has won! Go to [URL elided] and enter your winning code 5555 to claim your FREE $1,000 Best Buy gift card within 24 hours. Origins: In October 2012, a scam purporting to offer free $1,000 Best Buy gift cards to those who accessed a provided link and then entered a "winning code" spread via cell phone text message. It was a reprise of a March 2012 scam that invoked the name of the same retailer to lure the unwary. Those who attempted to claim the enticing freebie were then led to a web page (which was not operated or sponsored by the electronics retailer Best Buy) that asked them to certify they were U.S. residents over the age of 18 and had agreed to the privacy policy and terms and conditions of the site they had been sent to. The latter stated: This Gift Redemption Program is an independent rewards program for consumers and is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by any of the listed products or retailers. Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners. THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. SEE TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Members are being accepted subject to the following Program Requirements: 1) Must be a legal U.S. resident; 2) must be at least 18 years old; 3) must have a valid email and shipping address; 4) Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Silver and Gold reward offer page options and nine reward offers from the Platinum reward offer page options and referring 3 friends to do the same. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. Those still in hot pursuit of the promised $1,000 gift cards were then asked to provide their names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, cell phone numbers, and dates of birth, or were taken directly to web pages that required them to select a number of "free" offers. As always, it was just a con meant to trick the credulous into divulging their personal information and signing up for expensive services. The Better Business Bureau provides this advice on avoiding being victimized by such scams: If you receive a questionable or unsolicited text message, check the URL or phone number for free on the Better Business Bureau website. Most financial institutions, utilities, or other businesses will not communicate with you via text message. If you do not recognize the website or phone number being sent to you, don't visit or call it. Don't e-mail or text personal and financial information. Review your credit card and bank statements to make sure there are no unauthorized charges. Other recent scams of similar construction include: $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks, $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons, Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple, $1,000 Costco gift cards [December 2011] Costco, $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart, and a pair of JetBlue air travel tickets [April 2012] JetBlue. Last updated: 5 October 2012.

['loan']

NEI

As always, it was just a con meant to trick the credulous into divulging their personal information and signing up for expensive services. The Better Business Bureau provides this advice on avoiding being victimized by such scams:If you receive a questionable or unsolicited text message, check the URL or phone number for free on the Better Business Bureau website.Other recent scams of similar construction include: $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] $1,000 Costco gift cards [December 2011] $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Pair of JetBlue air travel tickets [April 2012]

A photo shows a $123,199 turkey for sale at Target this year.

['The viral photo of a frozen turkey priced at over $123,000 at Target is outdated, and the price was listed in error.', 'The photo was posted online as early as 2015.']

Assupply chain issuesmount, some Facebook users are sharing an image that purports to show a turkey for sale at Target for an eye-popping price: $123,199, and $9,999.99 per pound. No Turkey for Thanksgiving this year, said one suchFacebook postuploaded Oct. 12. The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) Some Facebook users who reacted to the post blamed President Joe Biden for the crazy cost the viral image showed, leaving comments such as inflation is killing us and thanks Joe. An Oct. 12 Facebook post falsely claimed this old photo was this year. But while supply chain backlogscould affectthe cost and availability of Thanksgiving turkeys, the photo of a $123,000 bird at Target is several years old and its nowhere near reflective of the true cost of a frozen turkey at the retail and grocery giant, which is many times lower. PolitiFact found the same photo posted in November 2015 onRedditand the image sharing serviceImgur. The price tag in the photo also includes an expiration date of April 15, 2016. The price tag lists a Target store at the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis as the location of the photo, and PolitiFact confirmed that the pricing was an error at a single store in 2015. The Reddit user who appears to have first uploaded the image in November of that year wrote on the forum that he brought the turkey to a cashier, but the ticket didnt have a barcode to scan. The $123,000 price is exponentially higher than the cost of a frozen turkey at Target or at other U.S. grocery stores, according torecent datafrom theU.S. Department of Agriculture. Targets websitecurrently showsthat similarly sized frozen turkeys are going for a max price of about $23 at the same location in Minneapolis, and $1.39 per pound. We rate this Facebook post False.

['Economy', 'Food', 'Facebook Fact-checks']

False

Assupply chain issuesmount, some Facebook users are sharing an image that purports to show a turkey for sale at Target for an eye-popping price: $123,199, and $9,999.99 per pound.No Turkey for Thanksgiving this year, said one suchFacebook postuploaded Oct. 12.The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.)But while supply chain backlogscould affectthe cost and availability of Thanksgiving turkeys, the photo of a $123,000 bird at Target is several years old and its nowhere near reflective of the true cost of a frozen turkey at the retail and grocery giant, which is many times lower.PolitiFact found the same photo posted in November 2015 onRedditand the image sharing serviceImgur. The price tag in the photo also includes an expiration date of April 15, 2016.The $123,000 price is exponentially higher than the cost of a frozen turkey at Target or at other U.S. grocery stores, according torecent datafrom theU.S. Department of Agriculture.Targets websitecurrently showsthat similarly sized frozen turkeys are going for a max price of about $23 at the same location in Minneapolis, and $1.39 per pound.

Elena Kagan Tied to Obama's Birth Certificate

['WND falsely claimed Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court as a reward for getting 9 eligibility challenges about his birth certificate dismissed.']

Claim: President Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court as a reward for her help in getting nine challenges to his eligibility dismissed. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2010] Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for theSupreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docketand search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suitsagainst him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural borncitizenship. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course.They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about paybacktime for those that compromised themselves to elect someone thatreally has no true right to even be there. We should be getting sosick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughingstock of the world. GOD help and deliver us. Variations: An e-mailed screed claiming that thisarticle is wrong is itself wrong. screed Origins: Rumors that Elena Kagan was nominated for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama as a tit-for-tat payment of Kagan's assistance in using her position as U.S. Solicitor General to fend off lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility for the presidency began circulating in August 2010, prompted by a 4 August 2010 online article published byWorldNetDaily (WND). That article claimed that Kagan "has actually been playing a role forsome time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House" and that a "simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues," then went on to suggest that all nine of the referenced docket items article were dismissed due to Kagan's influence, an action for which President Obama "owes her big time" and has rewarded her with a quid pro quo Supreme Courtnomination. One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House." The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.* search * Each of the docket items included the name of the lower court from which it was appealed, as well as a case number. Using those pieces of information as reference points for looking up the subject of each of the cited docket items (as WND utterly failed to do) revealed that NONE of the nine entries cited by WND had anything at all to do with cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States; in fact, most of them actually stemmed from cases which were originally filed against the federal government long before the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama (but which since "rolled over" to the current administration). The nine entries cited by WND comprised cases filed by: Gary William Holt, a federal prisoner in Tennessee who was convicted of firearms-related offenses and whose case is a prisoner civil rights issue filed during the Bush administration. Gary William Holt Jerome Julius Brown, whose case not only long antedates the Obama administration, but is also largely incomprehensible and has nothing do to with eligibility issues. The case was originally dismissed by a lower court that could not discern either "which claims are made against which defendants on what basis" nor what "relief [the] plaintiff demands," and a description of the case provides some idea of why the lower court found it unworthy of consideration: Jerome Julius Brown description This matter is before the Court on the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jerome Julius Brown ("Brown"), who refers to himself as "U.S. Bounty # 1014, U.S.A., Mr. Jerome Julius Brown Sr. et al." On June 7, 2010, Brown filed a one-page Complaint accompanied by 167 pages of attachments. The one-page Complaint is incomprehensible. It consists of several disjointed sentence fragments that do not make sense. It refers to a "petition for writ and attachments," an appeal from a magistrate judge, the United States Marshals Service, "assessment & taxation no real property data land condemnation business check card" and demands $70,000.00. The attachments include copies of his Maryland Driver's License, a business check card apparently issued to him by Chevy Chase Bank, and a Federal Express account card. Other attachments demonstrate that he has filed other lawsuits against Chevy Chase Bank, and that he has filed other lawsuits against other various persons and entities. Also included among the attachments are copies of various checks drawn on what appears to be a business account for "Zip One Mail Contractor Courier" and "Jerome Julius Brown," an "ID Theft Affidavit" that refers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a credit report for Brown that includes handwritten notes regarding purported fraud and identity theft, and what appears to be a copy of a home equity loan application. Louis Lutz, a truck driver who was employed as a U.S. Army civilian contractor in Iraq between 2004 to 2006 (long before the advent of the Obama administration) and whose case has to do with the combatant status of civilian contractors and employees working in Iraq and Afghanistan, not presidential eligibility issues. Louis Lutz Two filings involving Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan citizen seeking release from his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. (Al-Ghizzawi was finally released in March 2010, after seven years of imprisonment.) Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi released Three filings involving Jamal Kiyemba, a Ugandan who was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station for four years beginning in 2002. (Although Kiyemba was released from Guantanamo in 2006, due to "some procedural detail of the American legal system, Jamal Kiyembas name remains in the headlines of the highly public legal battle that began as Kiyemba v. Bush and which sits now on the desks of the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States under its new name: Kiyemba v. Obama." The case is a separation-of-powers issue that has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.) Jamal Kiyemba The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., a case which, although the plaintiff's name might suggest a presidential eligibility issue, is actually a challenge to three Federal Election Commission regulations which the plaintiff organization alleges are "unconstitutionally overbroad" and thereby infringed their right "to disseminate information about presidential candidate Senator Obama's position on abortion." The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. After we published our article on this topic, WND hurriedly scrubbed the original article from their site without explanation, then misleadingly replaced it three days later with a thoroughly rewritten article on a different topic which was prefaced by an Editor's Note acknowledging their error: replaced Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report. Many people unfamiliar with the function of the Solictor General's office have claimed that even if the referenced docket items are not cases involving eligibility issues, they somehow demonstrate a questionable or inappropriate connection between Barack Obama and Elena Kagan, as if the latter personally represented the former in court and was rewarded for her efforts with a Supreme Court nomination. This claim is also false One of the duties of the Solicitor General is, in layman's terms, to act as advocate for the United States before the Supreme Courtin any lawsuits filed against the federal government over abridgements of constitutional rights; thus the current Solicitor General's name will appear on virtually every Supreme Court docket item entered during his or her tenure. (Indeed, a simple search of docket items for the name "Elena Kagan" turns up over 500 matching entries.) Because such lawsuits often name the President of the United States as a respondent, it is also not uncommon for the current president's name to appear on such docket items (even if he was not yet in office at the time the underlying cases were originally filed in lower courts). In all such cases, however, the Solicitor General functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government, not as personal counsel for the President. (Several dozen Supreme Court docket items still identify Barack Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, as a respondent, and in every one of those cases the Solicitor General is likewise listed as an attorney for the respondent.) search George W. Bush *NOTE: Immediately after we published this piece, WND scrubbed all references to the original article from their web site without explanation. Three days later, WND misleadingly replaced the original with a thoroughly rewritten article on a completely different topic. Last updated: 3 August 2015

['loan']

NEI

Variations: An e-mailed screed claiming that thisarticle is wrong is itself wrong.Origins: Rumors that Elena Kagan was nominated for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama as a tit-for-tat payment of Kagan's assistance in using her position as U.S. Solicitor General to fend off lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility for the presidency began circulating in August 2010, prompted by a 4 August 2010 online article published byWorldNetDaily (WND). That article claimed that Kagan "has actually been playing a role forsome time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House" and that a "simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues," then went on to suggest that all nine of the referenced docket items One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House." The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.* Gary William Holt, a federal prisoner in Tennessee who was convicted of firearms-related offenses and whose case is a prisoner civil rights issue filed during the Bush administration. Jerome Julius Brown, whose case not only long antedates the Obama administration, but is also largely incomprehensible and has nothing do to with eligibility issues. The case was originally dismissed by a lower court that could not discern either "which claims are made against which defendants on what basis" nor what "relief [the] plaintiff demands," and a description of the case provides some idea of why the lower court found it unworthy of consideration: Louis Lutz, a truck driver who was employed as a U.S. Army civilian contractor in Iraq between 2004 to 2006 (long before the advent of the Obama administration) and whose case has to do with the combatant status of civilian contractors and employees working in Iraq and Afghanistan, not presidential eligibility issues.Two filings involving Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan citizen seeking release from his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. (Al-Ghizzawi was finally released in March 2010, after seven years of imprisonment.) Three filings involving Jamal Kiyemba, a Ugandan who was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station for four years beginning in 2002. (Although Kiyemba was released from Guantanamo in 2006, due to "some procedural detail of the American legal system, Jamal Kiyembas name remains in the headlines of the highly public legal battle that began as Kiyemba v. Bush and which sits now on the desks of the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States under its new name: Kiyemba v. Obama." The case is a separation-of-powers issue that has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.)The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., a case which, although the plaintiff's name might suggest a presidential eligibility issue, is actually a challenge to three Federal Election Commission regulations which the plaintiff organization alleges are "unconstitutionally overbroad" and thereby infringed their right "to disseminate information about presidential candidate Senator Obama's position on abortion."After we published our article on this topic, WND hurriedly scrubbed the original article from their site without explanation, then misleadingly replaced it three days later with a thoroughly rewritten article on a different topic which was prefaced by an Editor's Note acknowledging their error:One of the duties of the Solicitor General is, in layman's terms, to act as advocate for the United States before the Supreme Courtin any lawsuits filed against the federal government over abridgements of constitutional rights; thus the current Solicitor General's name will appear on virtually every Supreme Court docket item entered during his or her tenure. (Indeed, a simple search of docket items for the name "Elena Kagan" turns up over 500 matching entries.) Because such lawsuits often name the President of the United States as a respondent, it is also not uncommon for the current president's name to appear on such docket items (even if he was not yet in office at the time the underlying cases were originally filed in lower courts). In all such cases, however, the Solicitor General functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government, not as personal counsel for the President. (Several dozen Supreme Court docket items still identify Barack Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, as a respondent, and in every one of those cases the Solicitor General is likewise listed as an attorney for the respondent.)*NOTE: Immediately after we published this piece, WND scrubbed all references to the original article from their web site without explanation. Three days later, WND misleadingly replaced the original with a thoroughly rewritten article on a completely different topic.

Says Tommy Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.

[]

If you havent heard U.S. Rep.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, say she is fighting for the middle class in her bid for the U.S. Senate, you havent been listening.But you can be forgiven. The gubernatorial recall all but filled Wisconsins political bandwidth until the election was held June 5, 2012.Now, more attention will turn to Baldwin and the four Republicans seeking to succeed Democrat Herb Kohl in the November 2012 Senate election.Baldwin sounded the middle class theme in attacking the best known GOP candidate, former governorTommy Thompson, in amemoreleasedto the media May 30, 2012.She declared:Thompsons tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.The 1 percent are people with incomes over $343,000, according to the memo.Sounds like a good deal for them. But is Baldwin on target?Baldwins evidenceBaldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin's is based on a flat tax provision in a tax reformplanthat Thompsonreleasedin April 2012.Two paragraphs in the four-page document are devoted to the flat tax.For two years, individual taxpayers could opt to file a tax return with a 15 percent rate, or file a return using existing exemptions. After two years, Thompson would move to an across-the board flat tax with provisions to encourage savings, investment, home ownership and support for charities, the plan says.Heres the Baldwin math:In 2009,accordingto the latest figures available from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of federal income tax returns amounts to nearly 1.38 million people. They all earned more than $343,927.That group generated just over $1.32 trillion in adjusted gross income, which resulted in a total of just over $318 billion in income taxes paid.Had a 15 percent flat rate been in effect, the 1 percent would have paid $198.7 billion in taxes or $119.3 billion less, under Thompsons plan.That means those taxpayers would have paid an average of $86,502 less in income taxes.Thompson campaign spokesman Brian Nemoir noted that tax rates ranged from 10 percent to 35 percent in 2009 (as they do now). He said Thompsons plan better balances the nearly half of all Americans that dont pay income taxes against the nations top 1 percent of earners, who pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected.As for Baldwins figures, he said her analysis seems sufficient.While Thompson's proposal lacks enough detail for analysis, the Tax Policy Centerevaluatedthe more detailed 15 percent flat tax plan advanced by Newt Gingrich during his 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination. The center concluded that no one, regardless of income, would see a tax increase under Gingrich's plan. Under onescenario, which divided all taxpayers into five groups based on income, all five groups would get a tax cut under Gingrich's plan.So, its likely Thompsons plan would benefit many more groups than the 1 percent cited by Baldwin, who is using that approach to bolster her underlying point.As for the specifics of Baldwin's claim, we ran her numbers by three tax experts: Tax Policy Center senior fellowRoberton Williamsand Tax Foundation economistMark Robyn, both in Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance presidentTodd Berryin Madison.All three said Baldwin is generally on target, but that Thompsons plan is too short on details to know for sure whether Baldwins $87,000 figure is on the money.Williams said Baldwins numbers, on their face, are accurate.Its a back-of-the-envelope calculation, thats what it is, said Robyn.Robyn and Berry agreed the 1 percent would almost certainly get a tax break under Thompsons plan, but they couldnt say whether Baldwins figure is accurate because Thompsons plan doesnt specify what deductions and exemptions might remain under his flat tax and who would qualify for them.Her calculations are probably overstated a little, but we dont know how much, said Berry.Our ratingBaldwin said Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent and Thompson didnt refute the figure.Tax experts said Baldwins figure is in the ballpark, at least as an estimate, but that Thompsons flat tax proposal lacks too much detail to know for sure.Baldwins claim is accurate but needs additional information -- our definition of Mostly True.

['Federal Budget', 'Taxes', 'Wisconsin']

True

If you havent heard U.S. Rep.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, say she is fighting for the middle class in her bid for the U.S. Senate, you havent been listening.But you can be forgiven. The gubernatorial recall all but filled Wisconsins political bandwidth until the election was held June 5, 2012.Now, more attention will turn to Baldwin and the four Republicans seeking to succeed Democrat Herb Kohl in the November 2012 Senate election.Baldwin sounded the middle class theme in attacking the best known GOP candidate, former governorTommy Thompson, in amemoreleasedto the media May 30, 2012.She declared:Thompsons tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.The 1 percent are people with incomes over $343,000, according to the memo.Sounds like a good deal for them. But is Baldwin on target?Baldwins evidenceBaldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin's is based on a flat tax provision in a tax reformplanthat Thompsonreleasedin April 2012.Two paragraphs in the four-page document are devoted to the flat tax.For two years, individual taxpayers could opt to file a tax return with a 15 percent rate, or file a return using existing exemptions. After two years, Thompson would move to an across-the board flat tax with provisions to encourage savings, investment, home ownership and support for charities, the plan says.Heres the Baldwin math:In 2009,accordingto the latest figures available from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of federal income tax returns amounts to nearly 1.38 million people. They all earned more than $343,927.That group generated just over $1.32 trillion in adjusted gross income, which resulted in a total of just over $318 billion in income taxes paid.Had a 15 percent flat rate been in effect, the 1 percent would have paid $198.7 billion in taxes or $119.3 billion less, under Thompsons plan.That means those taxpayers would have paid an average of $86,502 less in income taxes.Thompson campaign spokesman Brian Nemoir noted that tax rates ranged from 10 percent to 35 percent in 2009 (as they do now). He said Thompsons plan better balances the nearly half of all Americans that dont pay income taxes against the nations top 1 percent of earners, who pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected.As for Baldwins figures, he said her analysis seems sufficient.While Thompson's proposal lacks enough detail for analysis, the Tax Policy Centerevaluatedthe more detailed 15 percent flat tax plan advanced by Newt Gingrich during his 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination. The center concluded that no one, regardless of income, would see a tax increase under Gingrich's plan. Under onescenario, which divided all taxpayers into five groups based on income, all five groups would get a tax cut under Gingrich's plan.So, its likely Thompsons plan would benefit many more groups than the 1 percent cited by Baldwin, who is using that approach to bolster her underlying point.As for the specifics of Baldwin's claim, we ran her numbers by three tax experts: Tax Policy Center senior fellowRoberton Williamsand Tax Foundation economistMark Robyn, both in Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance presidentTodd Berryin Madison.All three said Baldwin is generally on target, but that Thompsons plan is too short on details to know for sure whether Baldwins $87,000 figure is on the money.Williams said Baldwins numbers, on their face, are accurate.Its a back-of-the-envelope calculation, thats what it is, said Robyn.Robyn and Berry agreed the 1 percent would almost certainly get a tax break under Thompsons plan, but they couldnt say whether Baldwins figure is accurate because Thompsons plan doesnt specify what deductions and exemptions might remain under his flat tax and who would qualify for them.Her calculations are probably overstated a little, but we dont know how much, said Berry.Our ratingBaldwin said Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent and Thompson didnt refute the figure.Tax experts said Baldwins figure is in the ballpark, at least as an estimate, but that Thompsons flat tax proposal lacks too much detail to know for sure.Baldwins claim is accurate but needs additional information -- our definition of Mostly True.

Does This Photograph Show ICE Arresting Small Children?

['Although a photograph of handcuffed children is shared with the claim the youngsters were arrested by ICE, the image is unrelated to immigration.']

An image circulated on Facebook shows small children in handcuffs being led into a law enforcement vehicle, along with claims that the pictured children were immigrants who had been taken by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of the Trump administration's controversial "zero tolerance" policy. Under that policy, migrant parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry were criminally charged and their children taken from them: Although hundreds of immigrant children, including some infants, were taken from their parents, the image seen here is unrelated to that activity. The photograph has been online since 2009 and is associated with a Tea Party protest in West Palm Beach, Florida, during which parents brought their kids for a mock arrest to demonstrate how they are being saddled with debt from government spending. taken The alternate weekly newspaper Broward Palm Beach New Times featured the image in a 14 April 2014 story about the demonstration under the caption "Hopefully the cops won't mistake the protesters for real criminals." The New Times reported of the event that: story If you have children, and you'd like to exploit those children for your political gains, and if you have the money to rent those children prison uniforms, you should totally bring them to downtown West Palm Beach on Wednesday. That's when people protesting government spending will bring 20-30 children dressed in prison uniforms and put them in fake debtor jails. It's meant to show how children will have to pay for wasteful government spending of today. And it's also a great way to ensure continued work for psychologists of tomorrow. The event is part of a nationwide Tea Party demonstration put on by Libertarians, Republicans, and others who think economic stimulus bills are a good occasion to put our children into fake debtor jails. Sid Dinerstein, chairman of the Republican Party of Palm Beach County and an organizer of the event, said the fake jails will be two dimensional, meaning the kids won't actually be held captive at any point. Except by the government's excessive debt. This same photograph was similarly used outside its original context as part of a meme in 2012, but that time it was employed to scare parents about the looming "police state" as behavioral issues in school were being treated as crimes: meme Barton, Eric. "Children with No Financial Future to Be Jailed." [Broward Palm Beach] New Times. 14 April 2009. Shapiro, Leslie and Manas Sharma. "How Many Migrant Children Are Still Separated from Their Families?" The Washington Post. 8 August 2018. Ainsley, Julia and Jane C. Timm. "1,995 Children Separated from Families at Border Under 'Zero Tolerance' Policy." NBC News. 15 June 2018.

['debt']

False

Although hundreds of immigrant children, including some infants, were taken from their parents, the image seen here is unrelated to that activity. The photograph has been online since 2009 and is associated with a Tea Party protest in West Palm Beach, Florida, during which parents brought their kids for a mock arrest to demonstrate how they are being saddled with debt from government spending.The alternate weekly newspaper Broward Palm Beach New Times featured the image in a 14 April 2014 story about the demonstration under the caption "Hopefully the cops won't mistake the protesters for real criminals." The New Times reported of the event that:This same photograph was similarly used outside its original context as part of a meme in 2012, but that time it was employed to scare parents about the looming "police state" as behavioral issues in school were being treated as crimes:

IRS Refund Notification

['Is the IRS sending out e-mail notices about tax refunds?']

Phishing bait: Notice from the IRS indicating the recipient is eligible for a tax refund. Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2006] IRS Notification - Please Read This. After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity, we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $163.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons, such as submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here. Regards, Internal Revenue Service. Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved. Origins: Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make effective phishing bait for several reasons. Notices from federal government institutions, especially an agency with the ominous reputation of the IRS, grab people's attention. Unlike other phishing schemes that emulate mailings from various private financial institutions (e.g., Bank of America) and are therefore easily recognized as phony by many recipients (because they do not do business with those companies), a forged IRS notice has the potential to ensnare a much larger pool of victims, as most adult U.S. residents have dealings with that agency. Many people find the federal income tax filing process complicated and confusing, so the idea that they might have unclaimed tax refunds waiting for them seems plausible. A March 2006 mass phishing email took advantage of these points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that included the IRS logo, advising recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of $63.80 or $163.80), and inviting them to click on a link that took them to an IRS website form through which they could claim those refunds. Of course, the links included in the messages did not actually send users to the genuine IRS website; they redirected claimants to imposter IRS sites (hosted on servers in various countries) and instructed them to enter all sorts of sensitive personal information (credit card number, expiration date, CVV code, and ATM PIN) into an online form so that the supposed refunds could be posted directly to their debit/credit card or bank accounts. Any information entered into such forms can be harvested by scammers and used for identity theft and other financial crimes. The IRS never offers refunds through email or sends out unsolicited emails to taxpayers. When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, they send notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation. Should you need to visit the IRS website for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in email messages. Last updated: 17 March 2006 Sources: Miller, Anita. "Internet Scammers Using IRS Logo for Bait." San Marcos Daily Record. 17 March 2006. Speier, Drew. "E-Mail Scam Uses Fake IRS Web Site." WFIE-TV. 2 March 2006. KPHO-TV. "Consumers Warned of IRS 'Phishing' Scam." 2 March 2006. KXAN-TV. "New E-Mail Scam Promises Money From the IRS." 17 March 2006. WFSB-TV. "Latest Scam Targets Tax Returns." 2 March 2006. WHEC-TV. "IRS Warning Taxpayers About Fake E-Mail Scam." 2 March 2006. WLNS-TV. "Beware of Tax Scam." 7 March 2006.

['income']

False

To access the form for your tax refund, please click hereOrigins: Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good phishing bait for a number of reasons:

Sen. Rubios (tax plan) would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family.

[]

Hillary Clinton outlined her economic vision in detailfor the first time during her presidential campaign, calling for a growth and fairness economy in a speech at the New School in Manhattan on July 13, 2015. She also lambasted a select groupRepublican presidential candidates for their purportedly out-of-touch approach toward the working class.Among the targets were Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Clinton singled out Rubiosproposed tax plan: Another priority must be reforming our tax code. Now, we hear Republican candidates talk a lot about tax reform. But take a good look at their plans. Sen. Rubio's would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family. We decided to fact-check the somewhat intricate claim. Rubios plan Clintons campaign directed us to ablog postfrom the Tax Policy Center,an independent think tank that analyzes tax policy. The article concerns Rubios plan in general, but the pertinent part reads, Those in the top 0.1 percent, who make $3.3 million and up, would be in line for an average tax cut of $240,000 a boost in after-tax income of 3.8 percent. Is $240,000 more than three times the earning power of a typical family? Her campaign pointed usto U.S. Census Bureau data that showed median household incomeas $53,046 for the period 2009 to 2013. So those numbers back up Clintons statement. But there is one minor complication: The article from the Tax Policy Center is based on an analysis of Utah Sen. Mike Lees 2013 plan,notRubios plan (actually a joint venture with Lee) that was released in 2015 and is similar to the original Lee plan. Generally speaking, the Rubio-Lee plan groups people into two income tax brackets, 15 percent or 35 percent, the higher of which would kick in at an individual income of $75,000. Thats a decrease from the seven brackets currently in place. Another centerpiece of the plan is a $2,500 tax credit given to parents for each child under sixteen. Thats the broad outline, but the plan still lacks some details. There are critical unresolved issues that make it difficult for us to do an analysis of Rubios current plan, said Howard Gleckman, resident fellow at the Tax Policy Center and author of the blog post. For example, Gleckman points out that the Rubio-Lee plannever specifiesexactly what would happen to apersonal tax credit of $2,000, a subsidy that would be available to anybody who claimed it on their tax returns. If it were included as a refundable tax credit (meaning people could get a check back), it would have a significant impact on low-income families. As of now, their incomes would actually decrease under the Lee plan, according to the Tax Policy Centers analysis. Qualitatively, the rough sense is a very generous tax cut for high-income people, said Gleckman, adding, What were not sure about is low-income people. So low-income people might get some kind of tax break under Rubios plan, or they might not. The other thing to know about Clintons statement is that the wealthy get a tax break under Rubios plan because he wants tax reductions, and the wealthy pay the most taxes. The reason why the top is getting whats seemingly a big tax cut is that theyre already taxed at a much higher rate, said Kyle Pomerleau, an economist at the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group. Under the Rubio plan, the top tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Pomerleau added that its crucial to remember that the plan proposes tax cuts across all income brackets, not just the top ones, and often at higher percentages for those with lower incomes. Pomerleau, however, did say that he found Clintons claim plausible. Our ruling Clinton said that Rubios tax plan would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family. It is possible to take issue with the statement in some ways. The source of her claim uses an earlier version of Rubios plan in its analysis, and she said $3 million when she should have said $3.3 million. But the thrust of her statement is sound. An analysis of a plan extremely similar to the one put forth by Rubio would cut taxes for those making $3.3 million and more by nearly $240,000, which is more than three times the U.S. median household income of $53,046. We rate her statement MostlyTrue.

['National', 'Taxes']

True

Clintons campaign directed us to ablog postfrom the Tax Policy Center,an independent think tank that analyzes tax policy. The article concerns Rubios plan in general, but the pertinent part reads, Those in the top 0.1 percent, who make $3.3 million and up, would be in line for an average tax cut of $240,000 a boost in after-tax income of 3.8 percent.For example, Gleckman points out that the Rubio-Lee plannever specifiesexactly what would happen to apersonal tax credit of $2,000, a subsidy that would be available to anybody who claimed it on their tax returns. If it were included as a refundable tax credit (meaning people could get a check back), it would have a significant impact on low-income families. As of now, their incomes would actually decrease under the Lee plan, according to the Tax Policy Centers analysis.

Are Chase and Wells Fargo among the banks funding the Dakota Pipeline?

['JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo are just two of a number of major banks acting as lenders for the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project.']

As the protests against an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation escalated in November 2016, environmental activists began targeting financial institutions backing the Dakota Access Pipeline and urging supporters to boycott them through various memes shared on social media and petitions calling on the banks to withdraw their funds from the project. Financial documents from Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline builder, list a number of large banking institutions that have provided credit for the project, including Credit Suisse, Royal Bank of Canada, SunTrust Bank, BNP Paribas, HSBC, Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase. The Standing Rock Sioux, who fear the pipeline's route poses a threat to their sacred sites and water supply, have been fighting the project since 2014. However, protesters calling themselves "water protectors," led by the tribe, have been camping near the site since April 2016 in an effort to stop the project. As of late November 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages the land, and the governor of North Dakota have made statements indicating they want the thousands of demonstrators encamped near the project site to leave. But the demonstration and continued opposition by the Standing Rock Sioux have transformed an oil pipeline project into an intensifying cause that has drawn international scrutiny. The debacle has escalated into a national crisis and an international scandal. A member of the UN's Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has been deployed to North Dakota to monitor the situation, while President Obama has intervened to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to examine alternative routes for the pipeline. Meanwhile, the protest at Standing Rock is backed by over a million and growing allies worldwide, with numerous solidarity actions springing up across the United States and beyond, including protests at EPFI headquarters and outlets. The world is closely watching how all actors involved will address the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project. Given the presumed Indigenous rights commitments of EPFIs, it is inexplicable that gross violations of Native land titles, threats to water sources, and the desecration of burial grounds have not been identified early on as reasons for EPFIs to refrain from funding this project. However, this unfortunately fits into a documented and consistent pattern of disrespect for local communities and Indigenous rights by EPFI-backed projects worldwide. We understand that it is not the role of the EP Association to intervene in specific project situations. Nevertheless, we consider it crucial for the credibility of the Equator Principles as an effective safeguard against violations of Indigenous Peoples' rights that your meeting calls upon the EPFIs involved in financing DAPL to take swift action to stop the ongoing violation of the rights of Native Americans. The letter urges the banks to halt further loan payments and raises concerns that the project falls out of line with the Equator Principles, a consortium that sets minimum standards to which signing institutions are expected to adhere regarding community and environmental accountability. According to Energy Transfer Partners, the end project will be a 1,172-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline that will connect the rapidly expanding Bakken and Three Forks production areas in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois, enabling the domestic production of light sweet crude oil to reach major refining markets in a more direct, cost-effective, safer, and environmentally responsible manner. The pipeline is expected to carry 470,000 barrels of oil per day. Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren has stated that the company will not reroute the pipeline.

['loan']

True

Financial documents from Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline builder, lists a number of large banking institutions that have provided credit for the project, including: Credit Suisse; Royal Bank of Canada; Suntrust Bank; BNP Paribas; HSBC; Citibank; Morgan Stanley; Wells Fargo, Bank of America; and JP Morgan Chase.The Standing Rock Sioux, who fear the pipeline's route presents a threat to their sacred sites and water supply, have been fighting the project since 2014, but protesters calling themselves "water protectors," lead by the tribe, have been camping near the site since April 2016 in an effort to stop the project. As of late November 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages the land, and the governor of North Dakota, have made statements indicating they want the thousands of demonstrators encamped near the project site to leave.But the demonstration and continued opposition by the Standing Rock Sioux have turned an oil pipeline project into an intensifying cause that has drawn international scrutiny, an open letter from BankTrack notes:

Did Gov. Cuomo Just Get a $71,000 Pay Raise?

['The New York governor was one of several state officials who were voted substantial, phased-in pay raises recommended by a compensation committee.']

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO During the coronavirus pandemic of spring 2020, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York remained at the top of the news cycle for two reasons: His state saw by far the largest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and his daily press briefings were a staple of television news coverage of the crisis. The New York governor was also praised as a model of political leadership during an emergency by those who were highly critical of President Donald Trump and his handling of the U.S. federal response to COVID-19. largest number During that period, a meme circulated via social media stating that Cuomo had recently requested and been granted a $71,000 pay raise that made him the highest-paid governor in the U.S., and that this activity had taken place "while most NYers were sleeping": It was true that Cuomo had been granted a pay raise that would make him (at least temporarily) the highest-paid governor of any state. But that pay adjustment had been recommended and enacted a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020), the $71,000 increase was phased in across the span of three years (rather than given all at once), and the matter involved multiple recommendations and approvals from state authorities (largely given because the governor's salary not increased since 1999) which were openly publicized and not hidden from New York residents. On April 1, 2019, both houses of the New York Legislature (Assembly and Senate) approved a pay hike that would increase Cuomo's compensation from $179,500 to $200,000 in 2019, $225,000 in 2020, and $250,000 in 2021. In terms of base salary, that raise created the potential for Cuomo to become the nation's highest-paid governor in 2020, out-earning Gov. Gavin Newsom of California (assuming that no other state raised its chief executive's pay to a higher level before then). Gov. Gavin Newsom The gubernatorial pay hike was one of several salary increases that had been recommended back in December 2018 by the New York State Compensation Committee, which "after months of research and public hearings," advocated substantial pay raises for multiple high-level state officers -- many of whom would, like the governor, would see phased pay increases eventually garnering them well over $200,000 per year: recommended A four-member committee has recommended substantial pay raises for members of the state Legislature, the governor, lieutenant governor, state comptroller and state attorney general. The New York State Compensation Committee consisting of current and former New York state and New York City comptrollers unveiled their recommendations Monday, December 10, 2018, after months of research and public hearings. The Compensation Committee recommends that, starting on Jan. 1 of 2019, state legislators will receive an annual salary of $110,000. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2020, lawmakers will receive an annual salary of $120,000 and their outside income would be capped at $18,000, which 15 percent of their legislative pay. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2021, lawmakers would receive $130,000 a year and their outside income would be capped at $19,500, which is 15 percent of their legislative pay. This would be the long-term compensation for state legislators moving forward. The Compensation Committee is also recommending pay increases for the governor, who would receive an annual salary of $250,000 after a three-year phase-in; the lieutenant governor, who would receive $220,000 after a three-year phase-in; and an annual salary of $220,000 for both the state comptroller and state attorney general after a phase-in period. Executive branch commissioners and department heads would also receive pay raises under the plan, with Tier A commissioners making $220,000 after a three-year phase-in. As the New York Post reported, some legislators "grumbled that the [pay raise] measure was thrown in at the last minute" while they were working overtime to pass a state budget, but Cuomo and others defended it by noting that the compensation committee's recommendations had been published and accepted months earlier: reported Because the governor cant sign off on his own pay hike, the raise required legislative action. The state Senate approved the increase at 2:45 a.m. and the Assembly acted a few hours later. Some lawmakers grumbled that the measure was thrown in at the last minute, while they were grappling with the new $175.5 billion state budget. The salary adjustments were done last December by the pay commission which publicized and put out a report, which was accepted by the legislature, Cuomo said. That was published and discussed in December, so theres nothing new on that. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) backed up Cuomo. It has a fiscal component to it, so theres always the realization to do it, Heastie told reporters. We felt that all the statewide officials were able to get raises ... the governor and the lieutenant governors salaries arent fixed by statute, they have to be done by a concurrent resolution between the Assembly and the Senate and thats the reason why they were done. Gormley, James. "Pay Committee Recommends $50,000 Annual Salary Increase for Lawmakers." Legislative Gazette. 11 December 2018. Davis, Dominic-Madori and Marguerite Ward. "Here's the Salary of Every Governor in All 50 US States." Business Insider. 20 April 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Coronavirus Disease 2019 -- Cases in the U.S." Accessed 20 May 2020. Feis, Aaron. "Andrew Cuomo to Become the Highest-Paid Governor in the US." New York Post. 1 April 2019. Hogan, Bernadette. "Andrew Cuomo Defends His Huge Pay Raise." New York Post. 2 April 2019.

['income']

NEI

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. During the coronavirus pandemic of spring 2020, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York remained at the top of the news cycle for two reasons: His state saw by far the largest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and his daily press briefings were a staple of television news coverage of the crisis. The New York governor was also praised as a model of political leadership during an emergency by those who were highly critical of President Donald Trump and his handling of the U.S. federal response to COVID-19.On April 1, 2019, both houses of the New York Legislature (Assembly and Senate) approved a pay hike that would increase Cuomo's compensation from $179,500 to $200,000 in 2019, $225,000 in 2020, and $250,000 in 2021. In terms of base salary, that raise created the potential for Cuomo to become the nation's highest-paid governor in 2020, out-earning Gov. Gavin Newsom of California (assuming that no other state raised its chief executive's pay to a higher level before then).The gubernatorial pay hike was one of several salary increases that had been recommended back in December 2018 by the New York State Compensation Committee, which "after months of research and public hearings," advocated substantial pay raises for multiple high-level state officers -- many of whom would, like the governor, would see phased pay increases eventually garnering them well over $200,000 per year:As the New York Post reported, some legislators "grumbled that the [pay raise] measure was thrown in at the last minute" while they were working overtime to pass a state budget, but Cuomo and others defended it by noting that the compensation committee's recommendations had been published and accepted months earlier:

Did 50,000 'Freedom Convoy' Trucks Set Guinness World Record?

['The vast majority of truck drivers in Canada are vaccinated. ']

In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada to protest the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, various claims emerged regarding the number of trucks involved in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even asserted that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the largest truck convoy. As of this writing, the freedom convoy has not earned a place in the Guinness World Records book. Furthermore, the claim that this convoy involved 50,000 trucks appears to be a gross exaggeration that contradicts all available evidence. The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness states: "The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and was achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020. With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks amid harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks; thus, the Tahya Misr Fund became the new record holder." This Guinness World Records entry provides a data point that makes us skeptical of the 50,000 truck claim. If a 480 truck convoy stretched 7.5 km, a 50,000 truck convoy would stretch 750 km (about 460 miles). We have seen no evidence to support the idea that the freedom convoy is anywhere near 460 miles long. So just how many trucks participated in this freedom convoy? There's no official count for the number of trucks involved. Estimates are also difficult because this big rig convoy includes a number of cars and other smaller vehicles. Furthermore, the "freedom convoy" has been a multi-day event, and some trucks may only participate for a portion of the journey. These variables make it challenging to estimate the number of trucks involved. We reached out to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for more information and will update this article if more information becomes available. Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply." Adrian Ghobrial, a reporter for the Toronto news outlet City News, stated that while thousands of people have come out to watch and support the truckers as they drive by, he was skeptical that the convoy consisted of more than 100 trucks. David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that recorded 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg. On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown with each tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number exceeded 50,000 trucks. The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. However, the organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, as they have reason to inflate these numbers. The number also seems implausible given what we know about the trucking industry in Canada. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they would also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate. The Canadian Trucking Alliance stated that "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated, with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nation's hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function."

['economy']

False

In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada in protest of the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, so did a number of claims concerning just how many trucks were participating in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even claimed that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest truck convoy. The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness writes:Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply."On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown by the tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number was in excess of 50,000 trucks. The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. The organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, however, as they have reason to inflate these numbers. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they'd also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate. The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement that the "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nations hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function."

Trump Sons Sell Access to Father for Hunting Trip Fundraiser

['An invitation for a fundraising event stated that donors could meet Donald Trump and hunt with his sons.']

In December 2016, several web sites reported that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sons of President-elect Donald Trump, were selling access to their father via a fundraising event called "Opening Day 45" scheduled for the day after his inauguration: several reported BREAKING: Donald Trumps Kids Are Selling Access To Their Father For A $1 Million Donation This Is IMPEACHABLE! [DETAILS] The shamelessness of President-elect Donald Trump and his family is limitless and without boundaries. They do not care about the appearance of impropriety or actual impropriety. That is why Trumps sons, Eric and Donald Jr., founded a non-profit organization to funnel money through when they sell access to Trump once he is inaugurated. Indeed, Fascism has come to America in the form of an orange failed businessman with a penchant for using racial slurs. The non-profit the Trump offspring founded is named the Opening Day Foundation, and they are offering Trumps richest supporters the grand opportunity of private access. However, the access comes with a price tag of a cool one million dollars. Individuals who are rich, but not rich enough to attempt to buy a favor from the president, can also purchase time with either of the Trump boys for as little as $25,000. What does one purchase besides time with Trump? Certain packages include pictures and a private reception with the president. Others include a multi-day hunting trip, or a fishing trip with Eric or Donald Jr. Reports that the Trump sons were selling access to their father began on 16 December 2016 when the gossip web site TMZ published a draft of an invitation for the "Opening Day 45" event. The unofficial invitation featured several packages which donors could buy, such as the $1 million "Bald Eagle" package (which included a photo opportunity with the president-elect) or the $500,000 "Grizzly Bear" package (which included a hunting trip with Donald Jr. and Eric Trump): TMZ published The Washington Post reported that the Trump sons were temporarily listed as "hosts" of the event on the "Opening Day 45" web site. However, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that the initial invitation was just a draft and had not been approved by Trump's transition team. Furthermore, Hicks added, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were not involved with the event: reported Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid outdoorsman and supporters of conservation efforts, which align with the goals of this event, however they are not involved in any capacity, she said in a statement. Additionally, the President-elect is not aware of the event or the details pertaining to. While Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump may not be involved with the planning of this particular event, they were listed as members of the Board of Directors on paperwork filed to register the non-profit "Opening Day" foundation on 14 December 2016. Again, however, Trump's transition team asserted that Eric and Donald Jr. were included on the foundation's paperwork without their permission: paperwork But transition officials said the Trump sons were listed on the document without their permission and have asked the Texas secretary of state to remove their names. [Mark Brinkerhoff, a spokesman for the event] confirmed that they should not have been named as directors of the Opening Day Foundation. He said that the paperwork filed last week was not the official filing and that new documents would be submitted shortly. Still, he said the Trump brothers were supportive of the foundation and its goals. Eric and Donald Trump Jr.'s level of involvement with the organization is still unclear. A new version of the invitation for "Opening Day 45" published on the event web site on 20 December 2016 listed them as "honorary chairmen" but not organizers or hosts. invitation The photo opportunity with President-elect Donald Trump, as well as the hunting trip with his sons, was also absent from the newer invitation. Instead, donors who spent $1 million on the "Bald Eagle" package would get a private reception with unnamed VIPs and celebrities associated with the event: This version of the invitation is no longer available on the web site, however, which now leads to a "Coming Soon" page. We've reached out to event spokesman Mark Brinkerhoff to clarify some information regarding the event. TMZ. "Donald Trump & Family Celebrate Hunters and Fisherman at Inauguration Bash." 20 December 2016. Gold, Matea. "Offer of Access to Trump and Family at Fundraiser Is Pulled Back, But Ties Remain." The Washington Post. 20 December 2016. The Center for Public Integrity. "Donald Trump's Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access to President-Elect." 19 December 2016.

['profit']

NEI

In December 2016, several web sites reported that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sons of President-elect Donald Trump, were selling access to their father via a fundraising event called "Opening Day 45" scheduled for the day after his inauguration:Reports that the Trump sons were selling access to their father began on 16 December 2016 when the gossip web site TMZ published a draft of an invitation for the "Opening Day 45" event. The unofficial invitation featured several packages which donors could buy, such as the $1 million "Bald Eagle" package (which included a photo opportunity with the president-elect) or the $500,000 "Grizzly Bear" package (which included a hunting trip with Donald Jr. and Eric Trump):The Washington Post reported that the Trump sons were temporarily listed as "hosts" of the event on the "Opening Day 45" web site. However, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that the initial invitation was just a draft and had not been approved by Trump's transition team. Furthermore, Hicks added, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were not involved with the event:While Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump may not be involved with the planning of this particular event, they were listed as members of the Board of Directors on paperwork filed to register the non-profit "Opening Day" foundation on 14 December 2016. Again, however, Trump's transition team asserted that Eric and Donald Jr. were included on the foundation's paperwork without their permission:Eric and Donald Trump Jr.'s level of involvement with the organization is still unclear. A new version of the invitation for "Opening Day 45" published on the event web site on 20 December 2016 listed them as "honorary chairmen" but not organizers or hosts.

When Terry McAuliffe was governor, Unemployment went down in every single county, including rural Virginia by nearly 50%.

["Unemployment went down in all 38 cities and 95 counties in Virginia when Terry McAuliffe was governor from 2014-2018., Unemployment in rural Virginia fell by 39% during his term., McAuliffe governed during boom years and Virginia's economy largely followed national trends."]

President Joe Biden recently lauded once and possibly future Gov. Terry McAuliffes record as a job creator when he led Virginia from 2014 to 2018. Unemployment went down in every single county, including rural Virginia by nearly 50%,Biden saidduring a July 23 campaign speech for McAuliffe in Arlington County. Bidens statement has a familiar ring; McAuliffe has madesimilar claimsfor years. As we examine the presidents claim, keep in mind that McAuliffe was governor during a prosperous time. The United States had shaken the Great Recession and was well advanced into what became arecord 128-montheconomic expansion. Both the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed people dropped in all 95 Virginia counties and 38 cities during McAuliffes term, according todatafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Virginia's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was5%when McAuliffe took office in January 2014 and sank to3.6%during his last full month as governor in December 2017. During the same span, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped from6.7%to4.1%. Virginia had the13thlowest unemployment rate among states and the District of Columbia when McAuliffe took office. It ranked17thin the nation when he left. The number of unemployed Virginians fell from almost228,000to about144,000during McAuliffes term a 37% decrease. The number of unemployed people in the U.S. dropped from almost10.2 millionto almost6.6 millionduring the same time a 35% decrease. To define rural areas in the state, we relied on amapposted by the Virginia Department Health that identifies rural counties and towns. Then we added BLS estimates for the number of unemployed people in each of those 50 localities. There were about 37,000 unemployed people in those rural areas when McAuliffe took office and 22,500 when he left. Thats a 39% decrease which, although sizable, seems a little below Bidens claim of almost 50%. We asked the White House for the evidence supporting Bidens statement and did not hear back. McAuliffes campaign tied the presidents remark to a 2018PolitiFact Virginia fact-checkon a similar claim by the former governor. McAuliffe said that when he had been governor, every single city and county in Virginia, their unemployment dropped, and in most of the rural communities, it dropped by over 50 percent. We rated McAuliffes statement Mostly True, taking slight issue with the part of his claim that most rural areas saw their unemployment cut by more than half. If McAuliffe had said most rural localities had seen a 45 percent drop in their number of unemployed people, he would have been correct, we wrote. Bidens statement, however, is slightly different. He says unemployment went down across rural Virginia by nearly 50%. That requires different math than McAuliffes claim. PolitiFact usually puts a caveat on fact-checks about employment numbers. Although presidents, governors and mayors love to take credit for good numbers, economists generally say politicians have only a marginal effect on the numbers. The economy, they say, ebbs and flows with global trends over which politicians have little control. While Virginia unemployment significantly fell during McAuliffes years, the decreases were in step with national trends. Biden said that during McAuliffes term as governor, Unemployment went down in every single county, including rural Virginia by nearly 50%. Biden is right on the first part; each Virginia locality did see a drop in unemployment during McAuliffes term from 2014 to 2018. McAuliffe governed during boom years and unemployment rates fell in every state. The second part of Bidens statement, that unemployment decreased by almost 50 percent in rural Virginia, is slightly inflated. It fell by 39%. On the whole, we rate Bidens statement Mostly True.

['Economy', 'Jobs', 'Virginia']

True

Unemployment went down in every single county, including rural Virginia by nearly 50%,Biden saidduring a July 23 campaign speech for McAuliffe in Arlington County.Bidens statement has a familiar ring; McAuliffe has madesimilar claimsfor years. As we examine the presidents claim, keep in mind that McAuliffe was governor during a prosperous time. The United States had shaken the Great Recession and was well advanced into what became arecord 128-montheconomic expansion.Both the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed people dropped in all 95 Virginia counties and 38 cities during McAuliffes term, according todatafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Virginia's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was5%when McAuliffe took office in January 2014 and sank to3.6%during his last full month as governor in December 2017. During the same span, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped from6.7%to4.1%.Virginia had the13thlowest unemployment rate among states and the District of Columbia when McAuliffe took office. It ranked17thin the nation when he left.The number of unemployed Virginians fell from almost228,000to about144,000during McAuliffes term a 37% decrease. The number of unemployed people in the U.S. dropped from almost10.2 millionto almost6.6 millionduring the same time a 35% decrease.To define rural areas in the state, we relied on amapposted by the Virginia Department Health that identifies rural counties and towns. Then we added BLS estimates for the number of unemployed people in each of those 50 localities.We asked the White House for the evidence supporting Bidens statement and did not hear back. McAuliffes campaign tied the presidents remark to a 2018PolitiFact Virginia fact-checkon a similar claim by the former governor. McAuliffe said that when he had been governor, every single city and county in Virginia, their unemployment dropped, and in most of the rural communities, it dropped by over 50 percent.

Foxy Hate-y

['']

Claim: The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared the Fox News Channel a hate group. Example: [Collected via Twitter, June 2015] So. Southern Poverty Law Center declares Fox News a hate group. Origins: On 10 June 2015, the web siteFree Wood Postpublished an articledeclaring that the Fox News Channel had been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a legal advocacy organization known for its representation of victims of hate groups. The SPLC is also known for maintaining a list of hate groups, which they define as groups that "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." article The Free Wood Post article reported: In what should come as a surprise to no one, considering their coverage of unarmed black people being brutalized by the police, the Southern Poverty Law Center has added Fox News to their list of hate groups, as they meet the criteria. From calling any black person who stands up in protest against the policethugs to thinking black people will shank officers, to glossing over a white biker gang that actually killed nine people, to thinking gay people are persecuting Christians with their audacity to think, they too can, should be able to file for taxes under married. While many social media users (particularly on Twitter) took the headline at face value, Free Wood Postis a satirical web site that prominently features a "Satire Disclaimer" on their pages: Satire Disclaimer Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience. The article was not dissimilar to a previous satirical piece published by theFree Wood Post in March 2012, claiming that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had reclassified the Fox News Channel "from a valid news source to that of satire." reclassified Last updated: 10 June 2015

['taxes']

True

Origins: On 10 June 2015, the web siteFree Wood Postpublished an articledeclaring that the Fox News Channel had been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a legal advocacy organization known for its representation of victims of hate groups. The SPLC is also known for maintaining a list of hate groups, which they define as groups that "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."While many social media users (particularly on Twitter) took the headline at face value, Free Wood Postis a satirical web site that prominently features a "Satire Disclaimer" on their pages:The article was not dissimilar to a previous satirical piece published by theFree Wood Post in March 2012, claiming that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had reclassified the Fox News Channel "from a valid news source to that of satire."

Are Cash for Clunkers Rewards Subject to Taxation?

["Are incentive from the 'Cash for Clunkers' program taxable in some states?"]

Claim: Incentives received by consumers through the "Cash for Clunkers" program are subject to taxes. Origins: People are often surprised to find that zero-cost items (e.g., prize winnings, free goods offered as marketing promotions, items given as gifts) may not require any immediate outlay of money, but they frequently do later in the form of taxes on the value of the goods and services received. One group recently caught by such a surprise was some consumers who took advantage of the federal government's CARS program (commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers"), which offered incentives of up to $4,500 to those who traded in qualifying "clunkers" and purchased new vehicles. Although incentives received through participation in the CARS program are not taxable at the federal level, residents of some states may have to pay some form of state and/or local taxes (such as excise or sales taxes) on the value of the incentives. Residents of Maryland, for example, find that each state determines whether to tax the clunker money. Pennsylvania does not, for instance, but Maryland applies its 6 percent excise tax to the incentive. "We treat that $4,500 as a down payment toward [the] car. We still tax the total value of the car," says Caryn Coyle, a spokeswoman with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, which collects the excise tax. Additionally, you cannot travel to Pennsylvania to buy your new car there to avoid the Maryland excise tax. States have agreements with one another to collect taxes owed on car purchases by residents in other states, Coyle explains. Therefore, a Pennsylvania dealer would have charged the Maryland excise tax anyway if the car had been bought there. If it's any consolation, there is no federal tax on the clunker incentive, and you may be able to deduct any state or local taxes paid on a new vehicle purchased this year from February 17 through December 31 on your federal tax return. In Nebraska, residents who take advantage of the government's Cash for Clunkers rebate might be surprised to learn that those rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 do not reduce the amount of sales tax a car buyer must pay. State Tax Commissioner Doug Ewald says he has received a number of complaints since the program started, but officials anticipated the issue and ensured that dealers were informed beforehand. Nebraska law treats the government's clunker rebates as a "third-party rebate," so they do not reduce the taxable value of the new car like a trade-in or manufacturer's rebate does. Thus, someone buying a $25,000 vehicle with the $4,500 clunker rebate would still have to pay taxes on the full $25,000. In South Dakota, many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they reach the treasurer's office. This is because the government's rebate of up to $4,500 for every clunker is taxable. "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," says Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam Nelson. In North Carolina, however, the CARS incentives are not subject to the state's highway use tax or its income tax. According to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, "the highway use tax should be calculated on the final sales price of the purchased vehicle less the amount allowed for the trade-in." For example, if you bought a car with a $20,000 price tag and the dealership gave you $3,000 for your trade-in, then you received the $4,500 Cash for Clunkers incentive, you would have paid $12,500 for the car. That is the amount you paid plus 3% as the standard Highway Use Tax. Hence, you are not paying taxes on the $4,500. The North Carolina Department of Revenue states that because the incentive is taken as a coupon at the dealership, you will not have to report it as income on your taxes. Consumers who took advantage of the CARS program should check with their state tax departments for information about whether such incentives are taxable in their home states. Last updated: 29 August 2009 Neisteadt, Shawn. "Some Surprised by 'Clunker' Tax." KELO-TV [Sioux Falls, SD]. 24 August 2009. Zash, Chelsi. "Can the Cash for Clunkers Incentive Be Taxed?" WFMY-TV [Greensboro, NC]. 24 August 2009. Associated Press. "Neb. Clunker Buyers Still Pay Full Sales Tax." Newsday. 21 August 2009. WJRH-TV [Tulsa, OK]. "Is Your Tax for Clunkers Taxable?" 21 August 2009.

['income']

NEI

goods offered as marketing promotions, items given as gifts) may not require any immediate outlay of money, but they frequently do later in the form of taxes on the value of the goods and services received.

Did Amy Coney Barrett Reverse a Decision to Make a Jail Guard Pay Damages for Raping a Female Inmate?

['The law "does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs," a three-judge panel held in a case involving sexual assault by a jail guard.']

In June 2017, a federal jury awarded $6.7 million in damages to Shonda Martin, a woman who testified that she had been raped multiple times by guard Xavier Thicklen while she was being held in the Milwaukee County Jail in 2013: testified Martin arrived at the jail in February 2013 at the age of 19. She soon learned she was pregnant. She testified she could not control her activities or movements in jail; the guards did. Thicklen raped Martin in jail. He had sexual contact with her three times while she was pregnant, including vaginal intercourse, and two times after delivery. [Thicklen] told her he was in gray and she was in blue, and his co-workers would believe him and not her. She understood him to mean "he's in authority and ... he has power over me." She understood him to mean his co-workers would believe anything he said; he could falsely say she tried to grab or hit him, or tried to take his taser or gun, and she would be punished. She testified, "I believed everything he said.... I knew that his authority over me would trump anything that I said." Martin testified that during each sexual assault, Thicklen was in uniform, armed, and on duty working for County. All five assaults occurred in jail. Every time, he had to use his keys, power, and authority. He told her he would be fired if people found out. He took steps to hide the assaults. For example, he assaulted her off camera. Finally, on December 3, 2013, she reported the sexual assaults when she was concerned he possibly gave her a disease which spread to her child. An investigation began that day. She was transferred the next day. Thicklen was dismissed and prosecuted. This case (Martin v. Milwaukee County) came to widespread public attention over three years later, in October 2020, after President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett had been involved in an appeal of the case two years earlier, during which, a popular meme held, she had "reversed the lower court's decision to award" money to the victim: Martin v. Milwaukee County As is often the case, the meme presented a simplified version of facts that could be considered misleading. Barrett was part of a three-judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard an appeal from Milwaukee County. That panel did not "overturn" the damages award to Martin; rather, it ruled that because Thicklen's actions in sexually assaulting Martin were outside the scope of his employment, Thicklen alone and not the county was liable for paying those damages: scope of his employment Here, we may take it as granted that the sexual assaults occurred during the authorized time and space limits of Thicklen's employment (although there may be some question about whether Thicklen was actually authorized to be in the particular locations of the sexual assaults at the times he perpetrated them). But even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Martin and the verdict, we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his employment ... Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County's training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff's Office's mission. Martin argues [Thicklen] might have intended to exert power, dominion, and control over her by sexually assaulting her. But that inference, while reasonable, still does not bring the sexual assaults within the scope because under that theory he would still have pursued purely personal goals. Any power, dominion, and control asserted or achieved through these sexual assaults would "belong to" and "benefit" only him, not County, on these facts. Olson reminds us that an employee's being "at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer" is a sine qua non of scope. Olson Martin presented no evidence at trial that the sexual abuse was similar in kind to work Thicklen was employed to perform. This case is distinguishable from cases involving excessive force by police officers. Some force, even deadly force, is sometimes permissible for police officers. But the rapes in this case were not part of a spectrum of conduct that shades into permissible zones. Inmate rape by a guard usually involves no gray areas. Even though all of the judgments against Thicklen (who was not a party to the appeal) were allowed to stand, in a practical sense the ruling meant the victim would likely collect little in damages, since Thicklen was not required to be indemnified by the county and likely does not possess assets worth anything close to $6.7 million a fact the panel recognized: indemnified As an aside, we note our conclusion is consistent with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's understanding of the public policy behind [the state's indemnification statute]. Wisconsin courts have determined that the purpose of the statutory indemnification is to enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of having to pay out of pocket for such performance. Indemnification here would not further this purpose. We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But [the law] does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs. Critics of Barrett's have noted that in a similar case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2018 (Cox v. Evansville Police Department), involving sexual assaults committed by police officers, that court arrived at the opposite conclusion: Cox v. Evansville Police Department Two on-duty police officers one in Fort Wayne and one in Evansville sexually assaulted women, who then brought civil actions against the officers city employers. We address two theories of employer liability: (1) the scope-of-employment rule, traditionally called respondeat superior, and (2) the rules common-carrier exception, which imposes a more stringent standard of care on certain enterprises. We hold that the cities may be liable under the scope-of-employment rule and that the exception does not apply. Resounding in our decision today is the maxim that great power comes with great responsibility. Cities are endowed with the coercive power of the state, and they confer that power on their police officers. Those officers, in turn, wield it to carry out employment duties duties that may include physically controlling and forcibly touching others without consent. For this reason, when an officer carrying out employment duties physically controls someone and then abuses employer-conferred power to sexually assault that person, the city does not, under respondeat superior, escape liability as a matter of law for the sexual assault. Investing officers with considerable and intimidating powers comes with an inherent risk of abuse. When that abuse is a tortious act arising naturally or predictably from the police officers employment activities, it falls within the scope of employment for which the city is liable. Thus, if an on-duty police officer commits a sexual assault by misusing official authority, the sexual assault is within the scope of employment if the employment context naturally or predictably gave rise to that abuse of official authority. Oddly, perhaps, in 2019 another three-judge Seventh Circuit panel (not including Barrett) similarly reversed a lower court's ruling to hold a Wisconsin county responsible for paying damages over the sexual assault of female inmates by a male jailer: reversed ruling Darryl Christensen, a former Polk County jailer, was convicted in 2016 of sexually assaulting five female inmates hundreds of times over a three-year period. Two of his victims, identified as J.K.J. and M.J.J., sued Christensen and Polk County over the assaults in federal court. The complaint claimed the county sheriffs department was indifferent to the risk of assault because it allowed one male officer with the ability to prevent the entrance of other jailers to supervise female inmates in areas without cameras. The county also deliberately chose not to accept state training materials regarding sexual assault in jails. A jury awarded the women $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, of which the county was responsible for paying $4 million. Given that Christensen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his conduct, this figure is the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive. But in June [2019], a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling against the county, holding that it could not be held accountable for the actions of a rogue guard who knew that he was violating jail policy, his training and the law. In that case, however, the full court voted to rehear the issue, and in a non-unanimous decision with Barrett joining the majority the court vacated the three-judge panel's opinion and upheld the original jury verdict that held both the county and Christensen liable for the latter's abuse of female inmates: vacated Darryl Christensens long-term abuse of J.K.J. and M.J.J. more than justified the jurys verdict against him. And the jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensens horrific acts but rather the countys own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J., U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote for the full courts majority. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all, Scudder said. His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Wood, Michael Kanne, Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who authored the original opinion, wrote a blistering 62-page dissent, and was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Sykes and William Bauer. Under the majority opinion, a single subordinate employee may secretly override municipal policy and create a new policy under which that public employer is accountable. That is vicarious liability, a collapse into respondeat superior against which the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned for 60 years, Brennan said. Diedrich, John. "Woman Describes Rapes by Milwaukee County Jail Guard and Giving Birth While Shackled." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 5 June 2017. Diedrich, John. "Jury Awards $6.7M to Inmate Raped by Guard in Milwaukee County Jail, Shackled During Childbirth." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 7 June 2017. Bailey, Lorraine. "Full Seventh Circuit Finds Wisconsin County Liable in Prison Rape Case." Courthouse News Service. 15 May 2020. Bailey, Lorraine. "Full Seventh Circuit Hears Debate Over Municipal Liability in Prison Rape." Courthouse News Service. 5 December 2019.

['asset']

NEI

In June 2017, a federal jury awarded $6.7 million in damages to Shonda Martin, a woman who testified that she had been raped multiple times by guard Xavier Thicklen while she was being held in the Milwaukee County Jail in 2013:This case (Martin v. Milwaukee County) came to widespread public attention over three years later, in October 2020, after President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett had been involved in an appeal of the case two years earlier, during which, a popular meme held, she had "reversed the lower court's decision to award" money to the victim:Barrett was part of a three-judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard an appeal from Milwaukee County. That panel did not "overturn" the damages award to Martin; rather, it ruled that because Thicklen's actions in sexually assaulting Martin were outside the scope of his employment, Thicklen alone and not the county was liable for paying those damages:Martin argues [Thicklen] might have intended to exert power, dominion, and control over her by sexually assaulting her. But that inference, while reasonable, still does not bring the sexual assaults within the scope because under that theory he would still have pursued purely personal goals. Any power, dominion, and control asserted or achieved through these sexual assaults would "belong to" and "benefit" only him, not County, on these facts. Olson reminds us that an employee's being "at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer" is a sine qua non of scope.Even though all of the judgments against Thicklen (who was not a party to the appeal) were allowed to stand, in a practical sense the ruling meant the victim would likely collect little in damages, since Thicklen was not required to be indemnified by the county and likely does not possess assets worth anything close to $6.7 million a fact the panel recognized:Critics of Barrett's have noted that in a similar case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2018 (Cox v. Evansville Police Department), involving sexual assaults committed by police officers, that court arrived at the opposite conclusion:Oddly, perhaps, in 2019 another three-judge Seventh Circuit panel (not including Barrett) similarly reversed a lower court's ruling to hold a Wisconsin county responsible for paying damages over the sexual assault of female inmates by a male jailer:In that case, however, the full court voted to rehear the issue, and in a non-unanimous decision with Barrett joining the majority the court vacated the three-judge panel's opinion and upheld the original jury verdict that held both the county and Christensen liable for the latter's abuse of female inmates:

Did Steve Scalise Attend a White Supremacist Convention?

['"Throughout his career in public service, Mr. Scalise has spoken to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints."']

On 28 December 2014, the website CenLamar published an article titled "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention." According to the site, current House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, then a Louisiana state representative, was a guest speaker at an event hosted by the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group headed by former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, at the Landmark Best Western Hotel in Metairie, Louisiana, in May 2002. (EURO was a renamed version of Duke's NOFEAR group that advocated fighting for "white civil rights" for "Europeans and Americans wherever they may live.") The dozen years that elapsed between the EURO event in 2002 and the article's publication in 2014 made it markedly difficult to investigate the article's claims. At the time of the convention, much internet-based political discussion occurred solely on message boards, many of which have long since been retired due to inactivity, abandoned, or become otherwise inaccessible for a variety of reasons. Following the article's publication, the claim was circulated and reposted on a number of left-leaning websites. This repetition created the impression that multiple sources were documenting the claim, but the information all pointed back to the same single source: Stormfront.org, a white supremacist message board with a lengthy and notorious history on the web. A 2002 post claiming Scalise attended the EURO conference held in Metairie that year became suddenly notable in late 2014. In that post, the writer stated that EURO's recent national convention held in the greater New Orleans area was a convergence of ideas represented by Americans from diverse geographical regions like California, Texas, New Jersey, and the Carolinas. This indicates that concerns held are pervasive in every sovereign state and republic alike, within an increasingly diminishing view of where America stands on individual liberty for whites. In addition to plans to implement tactical strategies that were discussed, the meeting was productive locally as State Representative Steve Scalise discussed ways to oversee the gross mismanagement of tax revenue or "

['funds']

NEI

On 28 December 2014, the web site CenLamar published an article titled "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention." According to the site, current House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, then a Louisiana state representative, was a guest speaker at an event hosted by the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group headed by former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, at the Landmark Best Western Hotel in Metairie, Louisiana, in May 2002. (EURO was a renamed version of Duke's NOFEAR group that advocated fighting for "white civil rights" for "Europeans and Americans wherever they may live.")A 2002 post claiming Scalise attended the EURO conference held in Metairie that year became suddenly notable in late 2014. In that post, the writer stated:Aside from the single mention by a single user on one internet forum back in 2002, no other record of such an appearance by Scalise emerged. A newsletter of indeterminate origin appearing to be the work of David Duke, EURO's founder, listed the May 2002 event's speakers but did not mention Scalise:Scalise himself also seemingly confirmed that he addressed a EURO group (again without actually stating that he did) in an interview with the New Orleans Time-Picayune, asserting that he didn't remember speaking at the event:Kenny Knight, a longtime associate of David Duke who said he booked space for the 2002 EURO conference, asserted that Scalise didn't actually speak at the EURO conference itself, but rather to a contingent of people (including some EURO attendees) who had gathered earlier in the day prior to the EURO conference kick-off:However, the Times-Picayune then poked holes in a number of Knight's statements, namely his claims that he was not himself a member of EURO, did not line up speakers for the 2002 EURO conference, and was not himself present at the conference:EURO head David Duke himself stated in a Washington Post interview that Scalise had indeed been invited to address the EURO gathering and had accepted that invitation and was present at the conference (although Duke was not himself present at the event and therefore didn't personally witness whatever Scalise may have done there):

Did Michael Cohen Once Act as Hillary Clinton's Personal Attorney?

["President Donald Trump's former lawyer came under renewed scrutiny in February 2019. "]

Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to U.S. President Donald Trump, became the focus of renewed scrutiny in February 2019 when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform. This was Cohen's first Congressional testimony since he was sentenced to three years in prison for tax fraud and campaign finance violations related to his payment of "hush money" to women who alleged they had sexual relationships with Donald Trump before he became president. Cohen also admitted he had previously misled Congress when he told the House and Senate Intelligence committees that a proposed deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, had fallen apart in January 2016, when in fact negotiations continued until June of that year—by which time Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Following Cohen's dramatic testimony on February 27, 2019, some observers, including Trump himself, attempted to portray Cohen as an agent of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was dishonestly smearing Trump on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee whom Trump defeated in 2016. The president highlighted the links between Clinton and Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, even suggesting that the former secretary of state was paying Cohen to provide damning testimony against Trump. Trump tweeted, "Michael Cohen's book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clinton's lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one? Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary? Using her lawyer?" We couldn't find any evidence that Davis has ever acted as Clinton's personal attorney as Trump alleged, but the ties between Davis and the Clintons are longstanding. He served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, attended Yale Law School with Hillary Clinton, and was a frequent public supporter of her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns, as shown in a July 2016 Fox News panel discussion. Against that background, a meme emerged on social media in late February 2019 that claimed an even more direct historical link between Cohen and Clinton, alleging that Cohen had previously served as her personal attorney and was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Bill Clinton that has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories promulgated by right-leaning opponents of the Clintons. The meme included a photograph of Hillary Clinton standing alongside two men identified as "Michael Cohen" and "Clinton Foundation Chairman," along with text proclaiming, "Michael Cohen used to be Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer and was a member of the Clinton Foundation." The man identified as Cohen in the meme is indeed Cohen. The man identified as "Clinton Foundation Chairman" is, in fact, Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic former U.S. representative from Rhode Island and son of the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has never acted as chairman of the Clinton Foundation. The underlying photograph is authentic. Cohen himself tweeted it in June 2014, writing, "Being received by two great Americans ... Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound." The photograph appears to have been taken in 2004 at a fundraising event for Kennedy's re-election campaign, which was attended by then-New York Sen. Clinton as well as Cohen. Greg Ehrlich, who co-chaired the fundraiser in question, later told the Washington Post that it was an opportunity to say he [Cohen] went to the Kennedy compound. And he loved the Clintons. They were like rock stars. Michael was always a climber. He wanted to be the guy. Although they once attended the same campaign fundraiser, we could find no evidence to corroborate the claim that Cohen ever acted as Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, despite our search of federal and New York state court records as well as news archives that extend back decades. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen was publicly hostile towards Clinton, on one occasion tweeting out a meme that included the false claim she had "murdered an ambassador." On another occasion, Cohen tweeted at Clinton to say, "When you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free." Cohen deleted that tweet after he himself was given a three-year prison sentence for tax fraud and campaign finance violations. The Clinton Foundation does not have a membership structure, so it is unclear what the precise meaning is of the claim that Cohen was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, but we also found no evidence that he has ever had any formal or informal association with that organization. We contacted representatives for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Michael Cohen in order to definitively clarify the veracity of the February 2019 meme, but unfortunately, none of them responded in time for publication. For that reason, we issue a rating of "Unproven."

['finance']

NEI

This was Cohen's first Congressional testimony since he was sentenced to three years in prison for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations relating to his payment of "hush money" to women who alleged they had sexual relationships with Donald Trump before he became president.Cohen also admitted he previously misled Congress when he told the House and Senate Intelligence committees that a proposed deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, had fallen apart in January 2016, when in fact negotiations continued until June of that year -- by which time Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019We couldn't find any evidence that Davis has ever acted as Clinton's personal attorney as Trump alleged, but the ties between Davis and the Clintons are longstanding. He served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, attended Yale law school with Hillary Clinton, and was a frequent public supporter of her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns, such as is shown in this July 2016 Fox News panel discussion:Against that background, a meme emerged on social media in late February 2019 that claimed an even more direct historical link between Cohen and Clinton, alleging that Cohen had previously served as her personal attorney and was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Bill Clinton that has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories promulgated by right-leaning opponents of the Clintons.#tbt being received by two great Americans...Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 26, 2014The photograph appears to have been taken in 2004 at a fundraising event for Kennedy's re-election campaign, which was attended by then-New York Sen. Clinton as well as Cohen. Greg Ehrlich, who co-chaired the fundraiser in question, later told the Washington Post that It was an opportunity to say he [Cohen] went to the Kennedy compound. And he loved the Clintons. They were like rock stars. Michael was always a climber. He wanted to be the guy.NBC/WSJ poll has @realDonaldTrump beating #CrookedHillary on #Honesty & #NationalSecurity. This picture says it all! pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 28, 2016Cohen deleted that tweet after he himself was given a three-year prison sentence for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations.

Purchasing SpaceX shares prior to its public offering is a fraudulent tactic employed by misleading online posts.

['The scam was being promoted in Facebook ads and perhaps also on Instagram by an account that showed signs of originating in Vietnam.']

On Oct. 10, 2022, a paid ad on Facebook promoted a fake investment opportunity with the words, "How To Buy SpaceX Stock Before It Goes Public." The ad showed a picture of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and directed users to chat with a person on Messenger, who then told users to visit a WhatsApp group chat named "Stock Learning Group 28." But none of this was legitimate. It was all a scam to steal users' money. Stock Learning Group 28 The full scam post that promised a way to "buy SpaceX stock before it goes public" read as follows: Bullish on the future of space travel? See how to invest in SpaceX before it goes Public! We help you pre-buy stocks in the latest up-and-coming companies, before most retail investors. Getting in on the best companies before they go public is how you can get the returns like recent IPOs such as: AirBnB - 130% return in 7 months.Palantir - 226% return in 10 months.Snowflake - 331% return in 10 months. We do one thing very well.....get you access to the most popular companies before the public market has a chance. Click the Learn More button now and well show you how to invest in SpaceX before the public This post appeared to follow the same playbook we had seen before with numerous crypto scams. In those scams, users were also led from one social media platform to another, where they were told that their money would be invested in a special crypto opportunity. However, it was all a lie. Just like the scam post about SpaceX, some of the crypto scams featured photos of Musk as a way of trying to create trust. crypto scams featured photos of Musk The Facebook account that hosted the ads showed up as a personal profile and not a page. It was named Tut Pro 1 38801324. The profile picture showed an image that said "Half Price Books," a company that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam. We asked the account about the strange profile photo. They responded, "This event is sponsored by Mr. Nino, a senior stock analyst. Join Mr. Nino's stock research group now and receive a stock book when you join the group." The crypto scams we covered in the past also claimed to feature a specialist who could help deliver on the scam's promise. In the crypto scams, the scammers called this person "the teacher." We asked the user if this "Mr. Nino" was "the teacher." The account responded, "Yes." If the strange account name weren't enough of a red flag, the profile also once featured two seemingly random pictures of young girls. According to TinEye.com, a handy reverse image search website, at least one of the photos was traced to websites that were managed in Vietnam. This may have indicated that the scam was being operated from Southeast Asia. TinEye.com reverse image search As for the reality of SpaceX going public in the future, CNBC previously reported that Musk told employees the company was not likely to go public until 2025 or later. reported Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes.com, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Sheetz, Michael. Elon Musk Says an IPO of SpaceXs Starlink Satellite Internet Business Is Still 3 or 4 Years Away. CNBC, 7 June 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/spacex-starlink-ipo-elon-musk-says-offering-is-3-or-4-years-away.html. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. Tut Pro 1 38801324. Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100084130714561. On Oct. 18, 2022, we added a note that said a real company named Half Price Books had nothing to do with the scam.

['investment']

False

On Oct. 10, 2022, a paid ad on Facebook promoted a fake investment opportunity with the words, "How To Buy SpaceX Stock Before It Goes Public." The ad showed a picture of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and directed users to chat with a person on Messenger, who then told users to visit a WhatsApp group chat named "Stock Learning Group 28." But none of this was legitimate. It was all a scam to steal users' money.This post appeared to follow the same playbook we had seen before with numerous crypto scams. In those scams, users were also led from one social media platform to another, where they were told that their money would be invested in a special crypto opportunity. However, it was all a lie. Just like the scam post about SpaceX, some of the crypto scams featured photos of Musk as a way of trying to create trust.If the strange account name weren't enough of a red flag, the profile also once featured two seemingly random pictures of young girls. According to TinEye.com, a handy reverse image search website, at least one of the photos was traced to websites that were managed in Vietnam. This may have indicated that the scam was being operated from Southeast Asia.As for the reality of SpaceX going public in the future, CNBC previously reported that Musk told employees the company was not likely to go public until 2025 or later.

Mr. T Death Hoax

["A false rumor reported that 'A-Team' actor Mr. T passed away in May 2016."]

In May 2016, a message reporting that actor Mr. T (the stage name of Laurence Tureaud), best known for his portrayal of B.A. Baracus on the 1980s television series The A-Team, had passed away was widely circulated on Facebook: Wow.. I was shocked...R. I. P. Mr. T You were an inspiration to everyone. Show respect and share to let people know. Like if you liked Mr. T ?? However, no news outlets have reported on the action star's alleged passing, and reports of his death are belied by the fact that Mr. T is still active on his social media accounts and recently made an appearance at a Fairfield Hotel event. accounts event Fake Facebook obituaries for non-dead celebrities are an example of "like farming," a popular social media scheme aimed at getting more likes, shares, and comments: like farming Facebook's algorithms in particular emphasize popular content, and therefore gathering "likes" and "shares" receives a high premium. Sometimes, it's just an annoyance maybe that kid really does want a hundred thousand "likes" so that a Victoria's Secret model will go to a school dance with him, so he's inundating people with appeals (although that's doubtful at best) but more often, the intent is scammy. Like-farmers will gather clicks, which denote popularity, then scrub the original content and replace it with something else (usually a scammy ad of some sort) to bypass Facebook constraints. Facebook has moved to quash this behavior by adjusting their algorithms, but of course, some scammers' efforts always get by the online gatekeepers. efforts Although Mr. T did not pass away in May 2016, one factor that may have contributed to the spread of this death hoax is that the actor celebrated his64th birthday on 21 May 2016. birthday

['share']

False

However, no news outlets have reported on the action star's alleged passing, and reports of his death are belied by the fact that Mr. T is still active on his social media accounts and recently made an appearance at a Fairfield Hotel event.Fake Facebook obituaries for non-dead celebrities are an example of "like farming," a popular social media scheme aimed at getting more likes, shares, and comments:Facebook's algorithms in particular emphasize popular content, and therefore gathering "likes" and "shares" receives a high premium. Sometimes, it's just an annoyance maybe that kid really does want a hundred thousand "likes" so that a Victoria's Secret model will go to a school dance with him, so he's inundating people with appeals (although that's doubtful at best) but more often, the intent is scammy. Like-farmers will gather clicks, which denote popularity, then scrub the original content and replace it with something else (usually a scammy ad of some sort) to bypass Facebook constraints. Facebook has moved to quash this behavior by adjusting their algorithms, but of course, some scammers' efforts always get by the online gatekeepers.Although Mr. T did not pass away in May 2016, one factor that may have contributed to the spread of this death hoax is that the actor celebrated his64th birthday on 21 May 2016.

Scam involving false promises of airline ticket giveaways

['Airlines are not giving away free tickets or spending money to Facebook users who share and like a page. Those offers are a form of online scam.']

Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion. Virtually every major U.S. air carrier including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, Emirates, United Airlines, US Airways, Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines, WestJet Airlines, Allegiant Air, and Air Canada has been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years: Air Canada The primary type of free ticket fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free air travel tickets to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the airlines they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" tickets offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies: Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it.

['loan']

False

Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion. Virtually every major U.S. air carrier including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, Emirates, United Airlines, US Airways, Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines, WestJet Airlines, Allegiant Air, and Air Canada has been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years:Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well.

Did Members of Congress Each Make $100K While Debating $600 Stimulus Checks?

['Members of Congress make $174,000 per year.']

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On Dec. 21 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Its aim was to merge a COVID-19 relief bill with the annual appropriations bill that allocates funds for the federal government. For COVID-19 relief, the bill authorized a one-time payment of $600 to most Americans an amount criticized as inadequate compared to the economic suffering it seeks to mitigate. passed most Americans criticized One popular tweet expressing this frustration asserted that each member of "Congress made almost $100,000 during the time they were arguing whether or not we deserved $600." popular tweet The veracity of this statement depends at least in part on how the assertion is specifically defined, but in general it is factually defensible. Members of Congress both senators and representatives each get paid $174,000 per year. What remains to be defined is the amount of time they spent "arguing" over the bill that provided a $600 stimulus check. $174,000 per year In our view, it is fair to say that the fight for a second stimulus check began the moment after the CARES Act (which included authorization of a $1200 stimulus payment) was signed into law on March 27, 2020. There was bipartisan recognition that this massive spending bill would be insufficient to combat the economic problems caused by COVID-19. "The minute were done with phase three," Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Roy Blunt said to The Hill on March 27, referring to the CARES act, "well start talking about phase four because all of us know that phase three cant have included everything that needs to be included. For Democrats, this explicitly included a desire for further direct payments to individual American citizens. Even before CARES officially became law, on March 25, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN, "We'll get more direct payments in another bill." CARES Act said told CNN The "fight" over these direct payments, then, started as the first checks were authorized. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 was approved and sent to the president for his signature (or potential veto) on Dec. 21, 2020. potential veto Dec. 21, 2020 Using these endpoints, the period of time "during" which this debate occurred would be 269 days. This represents 74% of the year. The most straightforward solution to the question would be to take 74% of the annual $174,000 salary. By this math, each lawmaker made at least $128,760 "during" the time it took the bill to pass. 269 days $128,760 More restricted definitions might argue for a shorter time period of debate or argue that only days in which Congress was in session should count. The fact that politicians were talking about a second check even before CARES act was signed, however, makes that argument a hard sell. Because debates surrounding COVID-19 stimulus are not limited to session days, the latter argument does not make much sense either. As such, a simple approach that looks only at the amount of time it took members of Congress to pass a second bill suggests earnings of over $100,000 each, leading us to rank the claim in session

['funds']

True

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On Dec. 21 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Its aim was to merge a COVID-19 relief bill with the annual appropriations bill that allocates funds for the federal government. For COVID-19 relief, the bill authorized a one-time payment of $600 to most Americans an amount criticized as inadequate compared to the economic suffering it seeks to mitigate.One popular tweet expressing this frustration asserted that each member of "Congress made almost $100,000 during the time they were arguing whether or not we deserved $600."The veracity of this statement depends at least in part on how the assertion is specifically defined, but in general it is factually defensible. Members of Congress both senators and representatives each get paid $174,000 per year. What remains to be defined is the amount of time they spent "arguing" over the bill that provided a $600 stimulus check.In our view, it is fair to say that the fight for a second stimulus check began the moment after the CARES Act (which included authorization of a $1200 stimulus payment) was signed into law on March 27, 2020. There was bipartisan recognition that this massive spending bill would be insufficient to combat the economic problems caused by COVID-19. "The minute were done with phase three," Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Roy Blunt said to The Hill on March 27, referring to the CARES act, "well start talking about phase four because all of us know that phase three cant have included everything that needs to be included. For Democrats, this explicitly included a desire for further direct payments to individual American citizens. Even before CARES officially became law, on March 25, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN, "We'll get more direct payments in another bill."The "fight" over these direct payments, then, started as the first checks were authorized. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 was approved and sent to the president for his signature (or potential veto) on Dec. 21, 2020.Using these endpoints, the period of time "during" which this debate occurred would be 269 days. This represents 74% of the year. The most straightforward solution to the question would be to take 74% of the annual $174,000 salary. By this math, each lawmaker made at least $128,760 "during" the time it took the bill to pass.More restricted definitions might argue for a shorter time period of debate or argue that only days in which Congress was in session should count. The fact that politicians were talking about a second check even before CARES act was signed, however, makes that argument a hard sell. Because debates surrounding COVID-19 stimulus are not limited to session days, the latter argument does not make much sense either. As such, a simple approach that looks only at the amount of time it took members of Congress to pass a second bill suggests earnings of over $100,000 each, leading us to rank the claim

Was 'How To Hit a Woman So No One Knows' Googled 163M Times in 2020?

['A researcher looking into the trend said the purported findings shocked her.']

In late April 2021, social media posts, like the one displayed below, Google users allegedly asked the search engine "how to a hit a woman so now one knows" more often during the first phase of lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 than during the same time frame the previous year. COVID-19 The claim originated from media sources including Blavity (a Los Angeles-based platform serving Black millennials), UNILAD (a British media outlet), and MSNBC (an American cable network owned by NBC Universal). Blavity UNILAD We obtained an archived version of an April 26 opinion column by the latter outlet, a piece of commentary that cited peer-reviewed research analyzing Google searches from the beginning of the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 to the end of August that year. The MSNBC article said: archived version [Millions] of men appear to be doing some very specific research about how to assault the women around them. Published in The Journal of General Psychology, the study was led by Katerina Standish, the deputy director and senior lecturer at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. 'How to hit a woman so no one knows' was typed into Google 163 million times, a 31 percent increase compared to 2019. In other words, Google users purportedly searched "how to hit a woman so no one knows" 163 million times between March and August 2020, and that number was 31 percent higher than the amount of same searches during those months the previous year. However, that was not true. One day after the MSNBC column published, onlookers identified flaws in the research's methodology, and its author confirmed the findings were inaccurate. As a result, the news outlet removed the above-transcribed section from its article citing the research. (That updated version of the story remained live online as of this writing.) updated version We looked at Google search data ourselves. By searching the phrase "how to hit a woman so no one knows," the platform produces billions of returns or websites or posts that contain those keywords. That is not the same as the number of times users searched the question (we explain how to find that quantity below), and it appeared to grow significantly after the MSNBC article and other media coverage. appeared By using the separate Google Trends search engine -- a tool that compiles data for Google search queries worldwide -- we learned that relatively no one used the website to look for information on "how to hit a woman so no one knows," including during the time window referenced in the study (March to August 2020). Next, to fully explore the issue, we reached out to Standish (the author of the study called, "COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase") to learn about her research process and its shortcomings. COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase She responded to us via email, saying she indeed mistook the amount of search returns for the number of times Google users entered the phrase looking for answers. After the revelation, she said she alerted The Journal of General Psychology of the error and requested an assessment of the entire study. "The results are meaningless ... all I have done is demonstrate a rise in web pages over the year. Not at all what I thought I was doing," Standish said. "[The] goal of the study was to look for people who were hurting to elevate what they are going through and to help." Additionally, Standish apologized for the research's flaws on Twitter: "The first time I googled these terms my heart skipped...I was shocked," she continued in a tweet thread. "I sincerely apologise and will make amends." In sum, we rate this claim "false" millions of people, presumably men, did not turn to Google for help to seemingly conceal physical abuse against their female partners during the early months of the pandemic. If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse from an intimate partner, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or text LOVEIS to 22522 for anonymous, confidential help. Natio nal Domestic Violence Hotline This report was updated with comments from the researcher to Snopes.

['returns']

False

In late April 2021, social media posts, like the one displayed below, Google users allegedly asked the search engine "how to a hit a woman so now one knows" more often during the first phase of lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 than during the same time frame the previous year.The claim originated from media sources including Blavity (a Los Angeles-based platform serving Black millennials), UNILAD (a British media outlet), and MSNBC (an American cable network owned by NBC Universal).We obtained an archived version of an April 26 opinion column by the latter outlet, a piece of commentary that cited peer-reviewed research analyzing Google searches from the beginning of the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 to the end of August that year. The MSNBC article said:However, that was not true. One day after the MSNBC column published, onlookers identified flaws in the research's methodology, and its author confirmed the findings were inaccurate. As a result, the news outlet removed the above-transcribed section from its article citing the research. (That updated version of the story remained live online as of this writing.)We looked at Google search data ourselves. By searching the phrase "how to hit a woman so no one knows," the platform produces billions of returns or websites or posts that contain those keywords. That is not the same as the number of times users searched the question (we explain how to find that quantity below), and it appeared to grow significantly after the MSNBC article and other media coverage.Next, to fully explore the issue, we reached out to Standish (the author of the study called, "COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase") to learn about her research process and its shortcomings. If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse from an intimate partner, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or text LOVEIS to 22522 for anonymous, confidential help.

Is This Really Donald Trump's Inauguration Poem?

["A poem inspired by Donald Trump's inauguration was widely shared as if it were the official poem for the event. It is not."]

On 17 January 2017, the web site The Independent published an article about a poem written by Joseph Charles McKenzie which praised President-elect Donald Trump, described the future First Lady as "Melania the Fair," and described Trump's predecessor (Barack Obama) as a tyrant: published Come out for the Domhnall, ye brave men and proud,The scion of Torquil and best of MacLeod!With purpose and strength he came down from his towerTo snatch from a tyrant his ill-gotten power.Now the cry has gone up with a cheer from the crowd:Come out for the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! When freedom is threatened by slaverys chainsAnd voices are silenced as misery reigns,Well come out for a leader whose courage is trueWhose virtues are solid and long overdue.For, hell never forget us, we men of the crowdWho elected the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! When crippling corruption polluted our nationAnd plunged our economy into stagnation,As self-righteous rogues took the opulent officeAnd plump politicians reneged on their promise,The forgotten continued to form a great crowdThat defended the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! The Domhnalls a giver whilst others just take,Neer gaining from that which his hands did not make.A builder of buildings, employing good men,Hes enriched many cities by factors of ten.The honest and true gladly march with the crowdStanding up for the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! True friend of the migrant from both far and near,He welcomes the worthy, but guards our frontier,Lest a murderous horde, for whom hell is the norm,Should threaten our lives and our nation deform.We immigrants hasten to swell the great crowdComing out for the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! Academe now lies dead, the old order rots,No longer policing our words and our thoughts;Its ignorant hirelings pretending to teachAre backward in vision, sophomoric in speech.Now we learnd of mind add ourselves to the crowdThat cheers on the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! The black man, forgotten, in poverty dying,The poor man, the sick man, with young children crying,The soldier abroad and the mother who waits,The young without work or behind prison gates,The veterans, wounded, all welcome the crowdThat fights for the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! Whilst hapless old harridans flapping their trapsTeach women to look and behave like us chaps,The Domhnall defends the defenseless forlorn;For, a womans first right is the right to be born.Now the bonnie young lassies that fly to the crowdHave a champion in Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! But for all his great wisdom, the braw gallant manIs matched by his children, the handsome Trump clan,And the flower of Europe, Melania the fair,Adds a luster and grace with her long flowing hair.May they flourish and prosper to form a great crowdAround the good Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! Is there man left in Scotland, without base alloy,Who remembers the Wallace, the Bruce, or Rob Roy?Or have five hundred years of a blasphemous lieRobbed your manhood of might that you lay down and die?Get up and walk free, all ye brave men and proud!Long life to the Domhnall, the best of MacLeod! Although this article was published under the headline "Poem celebrating Donald Trump inauguration describes Barack Obama as a 'tyrant,'" The Independent used a more sensational (and less factual) title when they shared this item on social media "Donald Trump to pay tribute to British heritage at inauguration with poem about Scotland": L Several other publications also shared this poem in articles claiming that it was "Donald Trump's inauguration poem," misleading readers into believing that this poem would actually be read at the inaugural event. Paper Magazine, for instance, reported that this was the "official poem for President-elect Trump's inauguration:" articles claiming reported The official poem for President-elect Trump's inauguration celebrates the Trump clan's Scottish roots (his mother, Mary Anne Macleod was born and raised in Scotland till she was 18) while taking time to exalt Trump to Christ status, and call President Obama a "tyrant." However, this poem is not an "official" selection for Trump's inauguration, nor was it commissioned by the president-elect. The text of the The Independent's article explained that this poem was merely inspired by Trump's election: The poem, which was not commissioned by Mr Trump or his transition team, refers to snatching power from a tyrant who has ill-gotten power. It was written by celebrated American poet Joseph Charles McKenzie of the Society of Classical Poets. The group said the inspiration behind the poem is to touch on the classical poetry existing throughout American history, and the inauguration poem marks important moments in US political history". This "inauguration" poem was first published by the web site ClassicPoets.org on 15 January 2017. The group did not claim that the poem would be read at the inauguration, but their version of the poem was accompanied by instructions for how the it would theoretically be presented if it were used at the inauguration: published The refrains at the end of each stanza are to be recited by the Inaugural crowd. A Pibroch is a rallying bagpipe tune and is pronounced like PEA-brohgh. Domhnall, the Scottish form of the name Donald, is pronounced like TONE-all Torquil was the royal progenitor of the MacLeods of Lewis, the outer hebridean island and birthplace of President Trumps immigrant mother, Mary Anne MacLeod. When the group shared the poem on Facebook, the lyric was accompanied by a message imploring Trump to include the poem, making it clear that this poem had not been selected for this purpose in the first place: shared No Republican has had an inaugural poem. Trump should be the first... This poem is not listed in the schedule of events planned for the inauguration. listed When reached for comment, the Society of Classical Poets confirmed that this poem had not been chosen as the official poem of Donald Trump's inauguration: Right. Not official. We are just recommending it for the event. MacKenzie, Joseph. "Inaugural Poem for Donald J. Trump." Classical Poets. 15 January 2017.

['economy']

False

On 17 January 2017, the web site The Independent published an article about a poem written by Joseph Charles McKenzie which praised President-elect Donald Trump, described the future First Lady as "Melania the Fair," and described Trump's predecessor (Barack Obama) as a tyrant:Several other publications also shared this poem in articles claiming that it was "Donald Trump's inauguration poem," misleading readers into believing that this poem would actually be read at the inaugural event. Paper Magazine, for instance, reported that this was the "official poem for President-elect Trump's inauguration:"This "inauguration" poem was first published by the web site ClassicPoets.org on 15 January 2017. The group did not claim that the poem would be read at the inauguration, but their version of the poem was accompanied by instructions for how the it would theoretically be presented if it were used at the inauguration:When the group shared the poem on Facebook, the lyric was accompanied by a message imploring Trump to include the poem, making it clear that this poem had not been selected for this purpose in the first place:This poem is not listed in the schedule of events planned for the inauguration.

Nicotine in Tim Hortons Coffee

["Tim Hortons doesn't secretly add nicotine to their coffee to make it addictive to customers, and neither does any other coffee chain in Canada or the United States."]

Although Canada has its share of Starbucks outlets, the local Tim Hortons is the destination of choice for the average Canadian in search of a quick pick-me-up. The coffee vended there is exceptional, but just as important, most of these shops are open 24 hours a day, making a stop at these donut emporiums a personal ritual that can fit into anyone's daily routine no matter what shift he might work. Tim Hortons is Canada's best-known coffee and fresh baked goods chain, established in 1964 and now boasting more than 3,400 stores across Canada and over 800 additional locations within the United States. The chain's reputation rests just as much upon its coffee as its baked goods, so coffee not sold within twenty minutes of its first being offered for sale is thrown out to ensure that patrons always get a fresh cup of java for their money. According to the President and C.O.O. of Tim Hortons, Paul House, the coffee's special appeal to consumers is the result of a superior blend and careful quality control: The Tim Hortons special blend of coffee has been closely guarded from the beginnings of the chain, and is subject to stringent quality assurance measures by a team of coffee experts located at the Tim Hortons head office in Oakville, Ontario. "We do extensive testing and cupping of our coffee to ensure the highest quality standards are met, and now our people can extend that quality right into the roasting process here in Rochester," said [Paul] House. "We start with the best possible arabica beans from various countries of the world to create our special blend, and can follow those beans right through the roasting and packaging processes." Because folks are willing to line up to purchase Tim Hortons coffee rather than secure their daily cup from another source, some people have begun looking for a more sinister explanation beyond the obvious one of "The coffee is really good, the donuts are fresh, and they're always open." The combination of reasonable prices, tasty product, and numerous convenient locations appears to have spawned a particular rumor that attempts to explain the popularity of Tim Hortons' coffee: according to the whispers, the beverage has been made so alluring through the addition of nicotine, MSG, or "the maximum amount of caffeine allowed by law." In one elaborate version of the rumor, a Tim Hortons patron suffers a puzzling and severe allergic reaction after drinking some of the chain's coffee; only under duress (and an insistence on absolute secrecy) does a Tim Hortons executive disclose to the treating doctor a list of the ingredients in their "special blend" a list that reveals the presence of nicotine. Variants of the basic rumor assert it's not the coffee itself that's loaded with nicotine, but the chain's coffee filters or that nicotine has been sprayed on the inside of its disposable cups. MSG But Tim Hortons coffee does not include nicotine, MSG, an usually high level of caffeine, or any similar additives. Just as the USA has its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee the safety of commercially-sold ingestibles, so Canada has its Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Neither agency would permit the knowing inclusion of dangerous substances in a foodstuff vended to an unwary public. CFIA Nicotine is one of the most powerful poisons known. Though we normally think in terms of arsenic and strychnine when the term 'poison' comes up, the truth is that nicotine is far more deadly. The lethal dose of arsenic for a 150 pound adult is 200 mg., for strychnine 75 mg., but for nicotine only 60 mg. Nicotine can and does kill even in relatively small amounts. Those who wear nicotine patches must exercise great care about the disposal of their used patches lest children or pets come in contact with the seemingly "spent" aids and become deeply sickened or even possibly die. Not surprisingly, nicotine is not permitted as a food additive in either Canada or the U.S. As for MSG, although the FDA has designated the additive "generally recognized as safe," many people claim to experience adverse effects (such as headaches) after ingesting it, so all consumables containing the substance have to be clearly labelled to indicate its presence. The "nicotine additive" rumor does not adhere solely to Tim Hortons; it has been kited about other business concerns whose products have proved to be highly (and some would say inexplicably) popular: A friend mentioned that since 1987, McDonalds was putting nicotine into hamburgers to make them addictive. I heard that McDonald's experimented with putting nicotine in their fries to create an addictive property. I just received an email from a friend which claims that Pokemon cards are coated with nicotine, so children will become addicted. The letter claims that Philip Morris company is behind this. In another form the rumor has been known to take, evil-intentioned companies or heartless universities are said to be slipping laxatives into their food to lessen the effects of food poisoning: While at lunch with some friends yesterday, i heard what to me, sounds like a classic urban legend. Apparently there is a tale making the rounds that claims all fast food restaurants inject laxatives into their food so that people will pass the food on quickly, thereby reducing the risk of patrons getting food poisoning. Some of my students have told me something that sounds like an urban legend. They say that the dining service here (Lafayette College) is "required" to put a certain amount of laxatives in the food so that in case people get food poisoning the food will get out of people's systems. In yet another form of the basic rumor, conscienceless fast food companies have been incorporating anti-emetics into their offerings to help patrons keep their food down: In a recent debate with some friends of mine, we started talking about McDonald's and my friends kept telling me that McDonald's add an ingredient that prevents people from throwing up after eating there. A blow to the heart of the rumor in all its manifestations is that extraneous chemicals could not be surreptitiously slipped into any company's ingestible products without leaving that concern open to a stream of customer lawsuits. In the case of nicotine, the number of wrongful death suits filed would be unimaginable, given that it wouldn't take much of that particular poison to kill someone. As for MSG, caffeine, laxatives, or anti-emetics, there is no substance so innocuous that it won't provoke allergic or violent physical reactions in some people. Whatever small advantage a company might gain by adding a little extra something that would addict clients to its offerings would be quickly offset by multi-million dollar losses in civil court and a loss of consumer confidence in the even higher court of public opinion. Folks ain't going to patronize a place known for killing or sickening its customers, no matter how good the coffee. The Tim Hortons rumors reached such prominence that in February 2004 the CBC news program Disclosure conducted its own investigation, one which included having samples of coffee from Tim Hortons (and a couple of competing chains) sent to a laboratory for analysis. The results: Tim Hortons coffee contained no measurable amount of nicotine and had, on average, less caffeine than coffee from either Starbucks or Second Cup. nicotine caffeine Tim Hortons' loyal customer base was built the old-fashioned way: good product served fresh in easily-accessible locations. Additional information: Tim Hortons web site CBC Disclosure investigation Tim Hortons statement

['loss']

False

Because folks are willing to line up to purchase Tim Hortons coffee rather than secure their daily cup from another source, some people have begun looking for a more sinister explanation beyond the obvious one of "The coffee is really good, the donuts are fresh, and they're always open." The combination of reasonable prices, tasty product, and numerous convenient locations appears to have spawned a particular rumor that attempts to explain the popularity of Tim Hortons' coffee: according to the whispers, the beverage has been made so alluring through the addition of nicotine, MSG, or "the maximum amount of caffeine allowed by law." In one elaborate version of the rumor, a Tim Hortons patron suffers a puzzling and severe allergic reaction after drinking some of the chain's coffee; only under duress (and an insistence on absolute secrecy) does a Tim Hortons executive disclose to the treating doctor a list of the ingredients in their "special blend" a list that reveals the presence of nicotine. Variants of the basic rumor assert it's not the coffee itself that's loaded with nicotine, but the chain's coffee filters or that nicotine has been sprayed on the inside of its disposable cups.But Tim Hortons coffee does not include nicotine, MSG, an usually high level of caffeine, or any similar additives. Just as the USA has its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee the safety of commercially-sold ingestibles, so Canada has its Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Neither agency would permit the knowing inclusion of dangerous substances in a foodstuff vended to an unwary public.The Tim Hortons rumors reached such prominence that in February 2004 the CBC news program Disclosure conducted its own investigation, one which included having samples of coffee from Tim Hortons (and a couple of competing chains) sent to a laboratory for analysis. The results: Tim Hortons coffee contained no measurable amount of nicotine and had, on average, less caffeine than coffee from either Starbucks or Second Cup. Tim Hortons web site CBC Disclosure investigation Tim Hortons statement

Keith Richards Blood Transfusion

['Did Keith Richards have his blood changed to beat a drug addiction?']

Claim: Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards beat a heroin addiction by having his blood replaced at a Swiss medical clinic. Origins: As the clich goes, look up 'debauchery' in the dictionary, and you'll find a picture of Keith Richards. Although many tales about the depravity of the Rolling Stones were deliberately concocted for publicity purposes (especially in the group's early days), the extent of Keith Richards' drug abuse over the last several decades would be hard to exaggerate: long periods of drug use and addiction, punctuated with occasional efforts at beating the drug habit. These efforts ranged from going cold turkey to submitting to conventional medical means of ending addiction to undergoing controversial "experimental" cures. Whatever the method, the results were generally the same: Richards would quit before the end of the program or lapse back into his familiar habits soon afterwards. Although drugs have long been considered an indispensable part of the "rock 'n' roll lifestyle," too much of a good thing can be detrimental, even to rock musicians. The Rolling Stones have been a top concert draw for thirty-five years and owe much of their popularity (not to mention their income) to their live shows. But the Rolling Stones are not the Rolling Stones without a functioning Keith Richards, and at times his overindulgences have put concert tours in jeopardy due to his inability to weather rigorous and demanding tour schedules. Such was the situation during the Stones' 1973 European tour, when Richards needed to kick a heroin addiction quickly and underwent a treatment in Switzerland that lead to rumors he had undergone the human equivalent of an automotive oil change and beat his drug habit by having all his blood replaced. As Stones intimate Spanish Tony Sanchez later described the process in his tell-all book about the band: In the midst of this chaos it was time for the Stones to finalize plans for their seven-week tour of Britain and Europe. Keith knew that he was in no condition to go on the road, but there was no time for a cure. Withdrawing would have meant being laid up for weeks and that was out of the question. Marshall Chess, however, had a solution. "There's a doctor from Florida who can get you off dope in a few days by changing your blood," he told Keith. "He did it for me in Mexico a while back, and it worked perfectly." The Florida doctor would carry out the blood change for Keith in a villa called Le Pec Varp, in Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland. Keith would fly directly to Switzerland after the Stones' concert in Birmingham on September 19. He would then be cured in time to play with the Stones again in Berne, Switzerland, on September 26. Marshall was going to Switzerland with Keith to have his blood changed at the same time. Sanchez went on to describe exactly how much Richards paid the Florida doctor, where he stayed during the treatment process, and what his hotel room cost. Sanchez's accuracy leaves something to be desired, however although Richards admitted the bare facts of Sanchez's book were true, of the details he said, "I couldn't plow through it all because my eyes were watering from laughter." And the truth in this case follows that pattern: the basic facts are true, but the details have been embellished just a bit. Richards biographer Victor Bockris described the actual treatment process: The treatment involved a hemodialysis process in which the patient's blood was passed through a pump, where it was separated from sterile dialysis fluid by a semipermeable membrane. This allowed any toxic substances that had built up in the bloodstream, which would normally have been secreted by the kidneys, to diffuse out of the blood into the dialysis fluid. (According to Bockris, this treatment took place between the Rolling Stones' 23 September 1973 concert in Innsbruck, Austria, and their show in Berne, Switzerland three days later. This coincides with his statement that "Richards was frightened by the process because it required being put to sleep for three days," but according to a Rolling Stones tour chronology, the group also performed in Berne on 25 September, which wouldn't have allowed for alleged "three days" of sleep the cure required. Another passage in Sanchez's book, probably inaccurate, quotes Richards as saying the process took only forty-eight hours, but also mentions that he "spent the rest of the week just resting and building up" his strength. Obviously Richards couldn't have taken off "the rest of the week" to recuperate and still have performed in a show that took place two days after the treatment began.) Bockris also claims that when Richards was having trouble obtaining a visa for the Rolling Stones' 1975 tour of the United States, Walter Annenberg, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, "helped arrange for Keith to get a visa so long as the U.S. embassy doctor in London could certify that there were no drugs in his bloodstream." So, once again Richards supposedly made the trip to Switzerland to have his blood purified in order to pass the requisite medical certification. Keith Richards himself later explained how the rumor about his "blood change" treatment began: Someone asked me how I cleaned up, so I told them I went to Switzerland and had my blood completely changed. I was just fooling around. I opened my jacket and said, 'How do you like my blood change?' That's all it was, a joke. I was fucking sick of answering that question. So I gave them a story. Of course, Richards doesn't exactly declare in the above statement that he really went to Switzerland; he merely claims that he told people he went to Switzerland. So, did Richards have his blood changed, did he have it filtered, or is the whole thing a bit of lurid fiction? The "blood change" claim is almost certainly untrue, because Richards himself says he made up the story, no real evidence supports it, and such a procedure is medically questionable in terms of both safety and effectiveness. He probably did undergo some type of treatment involving blood filtering, however. True or not, the story's ubiquity is no mystery. What's more extravagant and outrageous than a jaded rock star who has achieved international fame and has earned all money he could possibly need, yet chooses to spend his days in a drugged stupor? A rock star who kicks the habit not by sweating it out cold turkey or by spending several weeks in a substance abuse program to kick both the physical habit and his psychological dependency on drugs, but by jetting off to Europe to swap his "dirty" blood for some fresh, clean stuff and be on his (temporarily drug-free) way in a couple of days. Although Tony Sanchez may have made up or embellished many of his tales about his days with the Rolling Stones, he hit the nail on the head with an expression of outrage that neatly summarizes the essence of public's fascination with this legend: I couldn't help wondering where all this blood was coming from or resenting the decadence of debauched millionaires regaining their health, vampirelike, from the fresh, clean blood of innocents. Last updated: 16 May 2007 Sources: Bockris, Victor. Keith Richards. New York: Poseidon Press, 1992. ISBN 0-8160-3547-4 (pp. 211-212, 234). Keith Richards Karnbach, James and Carol Bernson. It's Only Rock 'n' Roll. New York: Facts on File, 1997. ISBN 0-8160-3547-4 (pp. 144-147). It's Only Rock 'n' Roll Sanchez, Tony. Up and Down with the Rolling Stones. New York: William Morrow, 1979. ISBN 0-306-80711-4 (pp. 281-284). Up and Down with the Rolling Stones

['income']

False

Sources: Bockris, Victor. Keith Richards. New York: Poseidon Press, 1992. ISBN 0-8160-3547-4 (pp. 211-212, 234). Karnbach, James and Carol Bernson. It's Only Rock 'n' Roll. New York: Facts on File, 1997. ISBN 0-8160-3547-4 (pp. 144-147). Sanchez, Tony. Up and Down with the Rolling Stones. New York: William Morrow, 1979. ISBN 0-306-80711-4 (pp. 281-284).

Political donations from the DeVos family

['A chart purportedly shows how much money Betsy DeVos and her family contributed to Republican senators.']

On 7 February 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Secretary of Education in the new Trump administration by a narrow 51-50 margin, with the tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Mike Pence. All the votes approving DeVos were cast by Republican senators, leading some of her detractors to theorize that she had essentially paid for her position through campaign contributions. This theory was illustrated by several charts circulated online that allegedly documented the amount of money DeVos had contributed to various senators. The chart displayed above first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions. A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs, and super PACs" since 1989. In the 2016 cycle alone, the family had given at least $10 million as of late October to a host of GOP candidates and committees. Much of that $4.4 million went to super PACs supporting the White House bids of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, along with the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund and the super PAC started by Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads; the latter two groups helped support numerous Republicans in tight House and Senate races. However, these charts do not show how much Betsy DeVos personally contributed to Republican campaigns. A second chart from the Center for Responsive Politics documented that Betsy DeVos herself was only responsible for about 7% of these contributions. It should also be noted that these charts tally cumulative donations made over the span of two and a half decades, although the 2016 campaign cycle comprised the bulk of those donations. None of this information establishes that the contributions were made with the intent of gaining office for Betsy DeVos or that they had that effect. Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, received $43,200 from the DeVos family but voted "No" during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing. Although nearly all the Republican senators who had received contributions from the DeVos family voted "Yes," so did all the Republican senators who had not received any contributions from the DeVos family. The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown: partisanship. If Democrats controlled the Senate, DeVos would have lost her confirmation. There is every reason to believe that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell let [Susan] Collins and Murkowski vote no on DeVos for political reasons, holding enough votes in reserve to assure she would win. The motivation was partisan support for a Republican nominee, not that a small fraction of his past campaign financing depended on DeVos's generosity. The Washington Post also noted that while the DeVos family contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, their contributions constituted only a sliver of the total money raised by those campaigns. It's no secret that DeVos and her family have been major donors to the Republican Party over the last few decades. In 1997, DeVos wrote that her family was the "largest single contributor of soft money" to the Republicans. Occasionally, a wayward reporter will try to make the charge that we are giving this money to get something in return or that we must be purchasing influence in some way. [...] They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican Party to use the money to promote these policies and, yes, to win elections. During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate. Sanders: Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years? DeVos: Senator, first of all, thank you for that question. I was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I don’t know. Sanders: I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark? DeVos: Collectively? Between my entire family? Sanders: Yeah, over the years. DeVos: That’s possible. Sanders: Okay. My question is, and I don’t mean to be rude. Do you

['income']

True

The above-displayed chart first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions:A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs" since 1989:The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown partisanship:During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate:Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told Politico that the DeVos family's contributions were made legally and were properly disclosed:A spokesperson for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was singled out for having received nearly $100,000 from the DeVos family, defended his acceptance of those contributions:

Is the proposition by Biden for a 3% federal property tax being suggested?

['The Democratic presidential candidate has not proposed a 3% property tax.']

During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to impose a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, in addition to any property taxes homeowners were already paying. However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was unfounded. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately owned homes. The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): it imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a gap in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. It reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. It taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates the step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. It caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, meaning that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. It restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. It phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. It expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65 and older and provides renewable energy-related tax credits to individuals. It expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, it increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. It reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Biden's homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. It expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analyses of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax.

['taxes']

False

However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes.The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses):Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax.

WikiLeaks Exposes Clinton Assassination of Antonin Scalia?

['An e-mail published by WikiLeaks referenced not the literal assassination of Antonin Scalia, but what appeared to be a coordinated smear of Bernie Sanders.']

On 13 October 2016, the website RedStateWatcher reported that an email published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives. The report stated, "For Trump's sake, please share this to get the word out. The corruption is immense! We need Trump elected to save our country!" According to new WikiLeaks emails, three days before Justice Scalia died, this email was sent, using the term "wetworks," which is exclusively used in a military context to mean "assassination." The item referenced a leaked email sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. The emails in that chain were presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first). The sender, John Podesta, initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM. The email from Steve Elmendorf read: From: John Podesta [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:36 PM To: Steve Elmendorf <[email protected]> Subject: Thanks "Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard." From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-02-09 20:56 Subject: RE: Thanks "I am all in. Sounds like it will be a bad night; we all need to buckle up and double down." Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague email was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination. Claims that Scalia was assassinated were not novel, as conspiracy theories about the manner of his death swept social media within a day of his passing. The newly leaked document was contemporaneous with Scalia's sudden death, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork"). However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applications. In fact, the term had recently been used euphemistically to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea as the attack dog. Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she, of all people, would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work. As strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill, "This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I were Chelsea, that's not where I'd want to be." A media bored to tears with the Democratic primary leapt on the episode like ducks on a June bug. Commentators mused endlessly about why the Clinton camp had taken this route and what it meant. The consensus was that it meant nothing good. Bernie Sanders was repeatedly invited to respond. Bloomberg's Mark Halperin might have sounded a smidge melodramatic when he asserted, "I have covered the Clintons since 1991. It takes a lot to surprise me, and I am stunned watching Chelsea Clinton go on the attack. Stunned. Never seen anything like it." In media coverage, "wet work" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. On the same day that the emails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton. The Sanders campaign is all about smashing the alleged stranglehold corporate power has on politics, and the candidate himself frequently touts that his insurgent run is funded by small donations, not wealthy people or outside groups. It's been an effective message, one pro-Clinton forces have tried to muddy by calling attention to Sanders' ties to the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), which is financed in large part by industry PACs. The DSCC used its financial and political power to bolster Sanders and urged Democrats not to challenge him in his 2006 Senate bid, spending close to $200,000 through various means to aid his election. Bill Clinton said this week that he "practically fell out of my chair" when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCC's summer donor retreats on Martha's Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge disturbing, dishonest, and beyond preposterous, noting that the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street. Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the subject of emails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates appeared to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the email appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG). Rearranged in chronological order, the chain demonstrated Hillary Clinton's staffers planning how best to attack her opponent with retreat images and information about the lavish fundraisers: On Feb 6, 2016, 9:47 PM, "Tina Flournoy" <[email protected]> wrote: "Bernie at the DSCC retreat." On Saturday, February 6, 2016, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote: "Omg." On Feb 6, 2016, 9:58 PM, "John Podesta" <[email protected]> wrote: "Can we tweet?" On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote: "I think we should give to NY Post." From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-02-07 01:09 Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPG "DSCC event in Edgartown last July. Getting exact date." On Sat, Feb 6, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Tina Flournoy <[email protected]> wrote: "Will send briefing for the event with attendees." From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-02-07 16:18 Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPG "Thank you. We are on this." Tina Flournoy stated Sanders attended a DSCC event in July 2015, and on the date of the "wet work" email (to which Podesta was also a party), Seitz-Wald wrote: "During his 10 years in the Senate, Bernie Sanders has been a regular presence at luxurious Democratic fundraising retreats, according to more than a half-dozen lobbyists, donors, and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff members with whom he attended the events. Sanders most recently appeared at one last July, shortly after he announced his presidential run." Sanders' connection to the DSCC has become an issue in his heated primary contest with front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to explain her close ties to Wall Street and the large speaking fees she's been paid by Goldman Sachs and other banks. Sanders has made Clinton's relationships with the financial industry a key point of contrast on the campaign trail. On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives emailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear: "We have gamed out this hit and don't think it works on the debate stage (see Milwaukee debate as an example). But hit him all the time on being at DSCC retreats on Martha's Vineyard with lobbyists every year. Finding that it harder for him." Rearranged into the context of Antonin Scalia's death, the use of the term "wet work" was presumed by many to mean literal assassination. But emails between staffers just prior to the 9 February 2016 document revealed planning for a coordinated effort to plant a negative story about Sanders in the press in the days leading up to the 9 February 2016 email and article. On the date Podesta discussed "wet work" with Elmendorf, MSNBC published the coverage sought by Clinton's staffers on 6 and 7 February 2016. As such, the most likely victim of the "wet work" was not Scalia, but Sanders.

['finance']

False

On 13 October 2016, the web site RedStateWatcher reported that e-mail published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives:The item referenced a leaked e-mail sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. E-mail in that chain was presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first) sender John Podesta initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM:Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague e-mail was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination:Claims that Scalia was assassinated were not novel, as within a day of his death conspiracy theories about the manner in which he died swept social media. And the newly-leaked document was contemporaneous to Scalia's sudden passing, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork").However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applied uses:In fact, the term had then-recently been used euphemistically, to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders:In media coverage, "wet work[s]" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. And on the same day that the e-mails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton:Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the subject of e-mails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates looked to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways in which to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the e-mail appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG).On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives e-mailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear:

The Bennett Bridge Murder Case

['The story of a woman who killed her husband over a misplayed bridge hand.']

It is wisely said there are three activities a married couple should never attempt to undertake together: play bridge, hang wallpaper, or learn how to drive. The disagreements so provoked can all too often prove to be murder. Literally, as in the case of the infamous Bennett Bridge Murder. play bridge On the evening of 29 September 1929, John and Myrtle Bennett of Kansas City were hosts to their friends Charles and Myrna Hofman for a friendly game of rubber bridge. (A mere 1/10th of a cent a point was at stake.) The Bennetts were well-to-do and lived in a large apartment with Mrs. Bennett's mother. The Hofmans lived in the same apartment building. rubber bridge Like so many married couples who are fool enough to play as bridge partners, the Bennetts formed a far from ideal partnership. They were a far from ideal married couple as well, John Bennett being in the habit of slapping his wife during moments of frustration. That night, these factors would combine to bring about Bennett's undoing. For the first hour or two, the Bennetts were trouncing the Hofmans. As the evening wore on, however, the Hofmans managed to catch up, and at the time of the fatal hand were leading by a small margin. The tables had been turned; the commanding lead of earlier in the evening had evaporated like dew before the morning sun, leaving the two couples locked in a sprint for the wire. Although the precise composition of the fatal hand was not remembered, the bidding was recalled in a consistent manner by all the surviving parties: John Bennett opened one spade, Charles Hofman overcalled two diamonds, and Myrtle Bennett ended the auction with a jump to game in spades. After Mr. Hofman made the opening lead, Mrs. Bennett spread as dummy a collection of cards Myrna Hofman later would term "a rather good hand." Though Myrtle Bennett clearly believed the dummy she'd laid out, added to the values her husband had to have had for his opening bid, should easily have produced game, Mr. Bennett managed to fail in his contract by two tricks. During the finger-pointing that followed, Mr. Bennett was revealed to have opened on less than full values. Non-bridge players may fail to appreciate this point, but in the pasteboard jungle it is well understood that if one is in the habit of opening light, one had better be able to play the spots off the cards. To both open light and fail to make the resulting contract adds up to a bridge crime just a cut below trumping partner's ace or raising one's own pre-empt. After Bennett played the hand to its inglorious conclusion, his wife gave voice to her opinion of his play by calling him "a bum bridge player." Then, according to the testimony of Myra Hofman: He came right back at her. I don't remember the exact words. This kept up for several minutes. We tried to stop the argument by demanding the cards, but by this time the row had become so pronounced that Bennett, reaching across the table, grabbed Myrtle's arm and slapped her several times. We tried to intervene, but it was futile. While Mrs. Bennett repeated over and over in a strained sing-song tone "Nobody but a bum would hit a woman," her husband jumped up and shouted, "I'm going to spend the night at a hotel. And tomorrow I'm leaving town." His wife said to us: "I think you folks had better go." Of course, we started to go. John Bennett went off to the bedroom and began to pack his suitcase. Myrtle dashed to her mother's room to fetch her mother's loaded gun. Charles Hofman had turned back to have a word with John Bennett before departing and thus was standing near him when an armed Mrs. Bennett came upon them. Upon seeing the gun, Bennett immediately hurried into the bathroom, bolting the door behind him. Mrs. Bennett was not to be deterred by a closed door: she shot through it twice, each time missing her husband. Bennett hastily exited the bathroom through another door which opened onto a small hallway. He fled down the hallway, out into the living room, and was trying to open the front door of the apartment when his wife felled him with two more shots. The police were summoned, and Myrtle Bennett was charged with first degree murder for the shooting death of her husband in what became known as the Bennett Bridge Murder. The trial of Myrtle Bennett did not go down in the annals of jurisprudence as one of the more fair and even-handed examples of justice in action. Mrs. Bennett wept copiously throughout the proceedings, at one point avowing that she'd "rather have been dead" than to have caused the death of her husband. (This line of defense was much facilitated when the judge declined to admit into evidence Mrs. Bennett's original statement to the police, in which she had told a rather different story.) At the trial, a new spin was placed on the events of that night. Bennett's "... and tomorrow I'm leaving town" was transformed from an "I'm leaving you forever" statement into an announcement that he had business the next day in St. Joseph, Missouri. According to Mrs. Bennett's testimony (supported by her mother's testimony about what Mrs. Bennett had said when she came to fetch the gun), Mr. Bennett had instructed his wife to bring him the pistol. Mrs. Bennett claimed that he routinely carried it with him on out-of-town business trips. Mrs. Bennett further claimed that while bringing the gun to her husband, she stumbled into a chair, causing the pistol to go off accidentally, wounding Mr. Bennett. Bennett then grabbed her arm, either to help her regain her balance or to take the gun away from her, at which time the gun went off again, mortally wounding him. Mrs. Bennett was acquitted. The jury chose to ignore the physical evidence of two bullet holes found in the bathroom door, and of Bennett's body lying by the front door without a suitcase in sight. Despite having chased her husband through the apartment, having shot at him four times, and having hit him twice, Mrs. Bennett was acquitted on the grounds that her shooting of her husband was accidental. Myrtle Bennett then collected on her husband's $30,000 life insurance policy, a far from insignificant sum in those Depression years. Although some now recall the case being ruled one of justifiable homicide based on John Bennett's bidding and play, in truth his death was deemed to have been brought about by accidental discharge of a firearm. Though Myrtle Bennett had succeeded in getting off scot-free for the murder of her husband, she failed to set the precedent that would have made the shooting of a bridge partner justifiable in the eyes of the law provided it could be proved the victim's play had provoked a murderous response. In his 1934 collection While Rome Burns, drama critic and essayist Alexander Woollcott had this to say of the fair murderess in her post-acquittal years: Myrtle Bennett has not allowed her bridge to grow rusty, even though she occasionally encounters an explicable difficulty in finding a partner. Recently she took on one unacquainted with her history. Having made an impulsive bid, he put his hand down with some diffidence. "Partner," he said, "I'm afraid you'll want to shoot me for this." Mrs. Bennett, says my informant, had the good taste to faint. The famed Bennett Bridge Murder Hand will forever remain a mystery. None of the three survivors remembered its exact composition, and the cards themselves were sent flying during the altercation between the Bennetts, making it impossible that any of the police called to the scene would have had a chance to view it. As such, the hand widely believed to have been Mr. Bennett's Waterloo is likely as much a fiction as the tale told by his wife on the stand. Nevertheless, a "reconstruction" of the infamous hand began to circulate in periodicals shortly after the crime: The bidding, as you will recall, had gone one spade by Bennett, two diamonds by Hofman, and four spades by Mrs. Bennett. Four spades was a makeable contract on the layout shown above. (Only bridge players are likely to care about this part, but the opening lead against this fictional hand was the ace of diamonds, followed by a shift to the jack of clubs at trick two. According to lore, after winning the king of clubs, Bennett was supposed to have misguessed the location of the trump queen and from there have gone on to establish but cut himself off from dummy's good clubs, ending up down two. It was a badly played hand, but I've seen many a layout butchered much worse by declarers who lived to tell about it.) At the time of the Bennett murder, America was a country gone crazy over bridge. That someone sooner or later was going to get shot over it was a given; it was just a question of when. That the first bridge murder happened in the heartland of America with a wife shooting her husband seemed only right countless spouses had by that time dreamed of doing the same thing to their loved-one-turned-bridge-partner-monster. Just as Lorena Bobbitt would decades later be seen as having struck a blow for the wives of cheating husbands everywhere, so was Myrtle Bennett placed on a similar pedestal by beleaguered bridge players across the land. Notice had been served that mishandling the dummy might lead to more than one stiff being dropped at the bridge table. Speculation over what the layout of the cards had actually been (and thus how deserving Bennett had been of his fate) quickly gave way to dueling analyses of the hand as touted in the newspapers. Several bridge authorities (most notably Sidney Lenz and Ely Culbertson) were called upon to analyze the bidding and the play. In the final analysis, though Bennett was deemed to have not played the cards as well as he could have, nothing in his line of play was so seriously flawed that his locating the errant queen of trumps wouldn't have overcome it. "My kingdom for a horse," said Richard III. "My life for a queen," was what Bennett should have said. Daniels, David. The Golden Age of Contract Bridge. New York: Stein and Day, 1980. ISBN 0-8128-2576-4 (pp. 179-184). Chicago Tribune. "Slaps Wife in Bridge Game; She Kills Him." 1 October 1929 (p. 1). The New York Times. "Wife Kills Husband in Bridge Game Spat." 29 September 1929 (p. 5). The New York Times. "Says Bennett Murder Followed Bridge Row." 27 February 1931 (p. 3). The New York Times. "Wife Is Acquitted in Bridge Slaying." 7 March 1931 (p. 5).

['insurance']

True

It is wisely said there are three activities a married couple should never attempt to undertake together: play bridge, hang wallpaper, or learn how to drive. The disagreements so provoked can all too often prove to be murder. Literally, as in the case of the infamous Bennett Bridge Murder.On the evening of 29 September 1929, John and Myrtle Bennett of Kansas City were hosts to their friends Charles and Myrna Hofman for a friendly game of rubber bridge. (A mere 1/10th of a cent a point was at stake.) The Bennetts were well-to-do and lived in a large apartment with Mrs. Bennett's mother. The Hofmans lived in the same apartment building.

Young Protester Stares Down Police

['A photograph purportedly showing a young woman protesting pipeline construction in North Dakota was actually taken in Chile.']

As thousands of protesters continued to gather in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, in September 2016 to protest the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, social media users widely circulated a photograph purportedly showing a young protester staring down a police officer garbed in full riot gear: North Dakota. The United States of America. 2016. You need to know what is happening. The tribes are not speaking up for only themselves, but for all people who rely on clean water to live. You do drink water, don't you? This little girl is standing up for you. Although this photograph is real, it was not taken in North Dakota nor does it have anything to do with protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline. This image originated with the Reuters news service and captured a moment from a September 2016 political demonstration in Chile: Reuters A demonstrator looks at a riot policeman during a protest marking the country's 1973 military coup in Santiago, Chile September 12, 2016 01:00pm EDT Facebook user "Bc EchoHawk," who originally shared the above-displayed photograph along with the claim that it was taken in North Dakota, later updated his Facebook post with correct information about the photograph's origins: CORRECTION: This photo does not come from the Sacred Stone Camp, as I believed, knowing the ND Governor had sent National Guard troops to the area. It was taken from a protest earlier this week in Chile. So, while this young girl is not in ND, there ARE children there who clearly understand what is happening, and continue to fight for clean water and treaty rights with their families. I stand firmly behind my original words, and if inadvertently using an inaccurate photo allowed those words to be seen and shared by over 50K people, then more power to FB. Why doesn't anybody share my cat memes like this? While "Bc EchoHawk" admitted the mistake, this photograph is still being widely shared with along with the incorrect claim that it was taken in North Dakota and not Chile. North Dakota

['share']

False

Although this photograph is real, it was not taken in North Dakota nor does it have anything to do with protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline. This image originated with the Reuters news service and captured a moment from a September 2016 political demonstration in Chile:While "Bc EchoHawk" admitted the mistake, this photograph is still being widely shared with along with the incorrect claim that it was taken in North Dakota and not Chile.

We just had the best year for the auto industry in America in history.

[]

On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has pitched herself as someone who will continue many of President Barack Obamas policies. At a campaign rally inKentucky May 16, Clinton praised the 2009 auto industry bailout, whichpeople view as an Obama success. We saved the auto industry, she said. Thats important in Louisville. Its important in Bowling Green. Its important in Northern Kentucky. Its important across this commonwealth. Thats a big difference between me and my opponent in the primary. I voted to save the auto industry, he voted not to. Its important to know that it was the right vote because we just had the best year for the auto industry in America in history. Weve alreadylooked into howClintons primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, voted on the auto bailout, which totaled an estimated$85 billion. But we were also curious about Clintons claim that 2015 was the best year for the auto industry in America in history. This is true by one big measure: Americans bought more cars and trucks in 2015 than ever before. But that success might mask long-term issues with American manufacturers, especially given foreign manufacturers growing market share. In 2015, Americans bought more than 17.5 million cars. The last peak was 17.3 million in 2000, followed by a collapse to 10.4 million at the height of the recession in 2009. Additionally, the past six years have been the longest period of sustained year-over-year growth in auto sales since the 1920s, according toAuto Alliance, a vehicle manufacturer association. Vehicle sales wax and wane with the economy.Wards Auto, an analytics organization, has tracked vehicle sales since 1963. When times are tough, vehicles become a discretionary purchase that consumers are willing to put off.Analysts believecar sales have done so well in the past couple of years because of a combination of the improving economy, cheap gas prices, available credit and low interest rates for loans. Experts we asked agreed with Clintons claim, saying the sales figures are a reasonable way to measure the auto industrys health. She's right, said Bruce Belzowski, managing director of the automotive futures group at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. By any objective measure, the auto industry bailout is an Obama success story. The Detroit Three big automakers Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler reported strong salesin 2015 and projections for 2016. But its worth remembering that the record-breaking total vehicle sales figure isnt just for American-made cars.It includes foreign models sold in the United States, too. Of the 2.4 million cars sold so far in 2016, 71 percent were imports, according to theWall Street Journal. David Lewis, a professor emeritus of business history at the University of Michigan, compared 2015 to the golden age of the American car industry. Think of 1955, a record sales year, and a time in which well over 90 percent of the vehicles sold in the U.S. were manufactured by American companies, Lewis said. Even taking into account the number of foreign versus American car purchases, Clintons claim is reasonable because foreign car sales count as part of the auto industry, said Clifford Winston, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Foreign cars have been a growing part of the U.S. auto market since the 1980s. But it might not be fair to take her claim as proof of the long-term health of American manufacturers, Winston said. While the bailout resurrected struggling American auto manufacturers, its possible that it just stalled the companies eventual decline as consumers choose foreign cars instead. He also noted potential future threats from ride-sharing services and self-driving cars. Let us not get too excited about one or even a few years of successes with this industry that has been extremely turbulent and repeatedly rescued by the government, Winston said. All the while, the Detroit share has gone down. So that tells you something that any given year still may mask long-term issues. This is partially reflected in employment data. Employment among car dealers has in fact returned to its pre-recession high of about 1.2 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But employment in the motor vehicle and parts manufacturing sector hasnt completely recovered. About 1.3 million people worked in this sector in the early 2000s; that figure dropped to about 620,000 at the height of the recession in 2009, and it has risen to about 920,000 in early 2016. But for the factories that made it out of the recession, all is well, Belzowski said. U.S. vehicle production in 2015 was the eighth-largest in history, at 11.9 million. Thats high and almost double production in 2009 but still not quite as high as it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Some industry analystsexpect the good times to keep coming for the next few years, with 2016 breaking more records, according to theDetroit Free Press. Its a great time to be in the automobile business, and its particularly sweet for those who lived through the dark days of 2009 and 2010, said IHS Automotive analyst Tom Libby. Our ruling Clinton said, We just had the best year for the auto industry in America in history. With sales figures that exceed the pre-recession high, 2015 was a great year for the auto industry, including American manufacturers. This high point should be taken with a grain of salt because it might mask long-term issues with American manufacturers, especially given foreign manufacturers growing market share. Clintons statement is nearly accurate but requires that extra bit of context, so we rate it Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy']

True

At a campaign rally inKentucky May 16, Clinton praised the 2009 auto industry bailout, whichpeople view as an Obama success.Weve alreadylooked into howClintons primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, voted on the auto bailout, which totaled an estimated$85 billion. But we were also curious about Clintons claim that 2015 was the best year for the auto industry in America in history.Additionally, the past six years have been the longest period of sustained year-over-year growth in auto sales since the 1920s, according toAuto Alliance, a vehicle manufacturer association.Vehicle sales wax and wane with the economy.Wards Auto, an analytics organization, has tracked vehicle sales since 1963.When times are tough, vehicles become a discretionary purchase that consumers are willing to put off.Analysts believecar sales have done so well in the past couple of years because of a combination of the improving economy, cheap gas prices, available credit and low interest rates for loans.The Detroit Three big automakers Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler reported strong salesin 2015 and projections for 2016. But its worth remembering that the record-breaking total vehicle sales figure isnt just for American-made cars.It includes foreign models sold in the United States, too. Of the 2.4 million cars sold so far in 2016, 71 percent were imports, according to theWall Street Journal.Some industry analystsexpect the good times to keep coming for the next few years, with 2016 breaking more records, according to theDetroit Free Press.

Which political party is better at decreasing the number of abortions?

['It is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement.']

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.

['insurance']

NEI

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.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: 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: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:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates:

Was a Half-Human, Half-Lion Hybrid Creature Found in Indonesia?

['Images purportedly depicting a creepy chimera-like creature actually show a silicone doll.']

A series of creepy images purportedly showing a half-human, half-lion hybrid appeared in mid-October 2017, and quickly made the usual rounds on social media: These images were originally posted along with a piece of Indonesian text claiming that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness: text claiming Telah ditemukan bayi hasil hubungan manusia dan singa betina.... Dunia sudah mao kiamat....Ketik amin dan bagikan... The baby has been found to be the result of a human relationship with the lioness...The world is doomed...Type in Amen and share it... This is not the first time that we have come across images purportedly showing a half-human, half-animal hybrid. In every case, we found that either the images or the attached claims were faked in one way or another. For instance, a "human-dog hybrid" was actually asculpture, a "gorilla-human" was a doctored image, and a "goat-person" was actually just a deformed goat. In the case of this particular image, the human-lion is a silicone doll. sculpture image deformed Social media user Octavia Mulia told Kumparan.com that the photographs had been posted by her sister and that they were originally shared in jest. When the images went viral, Mulia found it necessary to explain that these photographs actually showed a silicone doll and not a real human-lion hybrid (text translated via Google and edited for clarity): Octavia Mulia Kumparan.com Hasilnya, foto tersebut bukanlah bayi sungguhan, tetapi hanya sebuah boneka. "Itu namanya silicon doll. Jadi kakak aku bikin ginian (unggahan di Facebook) buat bercandaan doang sama teman-teman toys lovernya," kata Octavia saat dikonfirmasi kumparan, Jumat (13/10/2017). Octavia dan kakaknya tidak menyangka unggahan ini akan viral di Facebook dan banyak orang yang percaya. Padahal awalnya hanya untuk bercanda. Kakak saya hanya bikin postnya saja buat joke satir sama teman-teman komunitasnya. Tapi ternyata terus tembus 5,5 ribu share karena orang pada percaya," kata Octavia. Menurut Octavia, kakaknya mendapatkan foto boneka itu dari rekannya sesama penggemar mainan. Keduanya bertemu dalam forum Toyslover Planet 12. The photograph is not a real baby, but just a doll. "It's a silicon doll my sister uploaded to Facebook to share with her friends who love toys," confirmed Octavia, Friday (13/10/2017). Octavia and her sister did not expect this upload to go viral on Facebook and that so many people would believe it. Initially, it was intended as a joke. "My sister made a post just to joke with her friends, but it kept going with 5.5 thousand shares because people believed it," said Octavia. According to Octavia, her sister got the doll photo from her fellow toy fans. They met in the Toyslover Planet 12 forum. These images show a silicon doll that was created by Italian artist Laira Maganuco. These images were featured on her Etsy page in a listing for a "baby Licantropo," or baby werewolf, doll. Maganuco also posted images showing the creation of this "baby Licantropo" to her Facebook page: featured Facebook The images were originally shared with the claim that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness. Although scientists are experimenting with various chimeras, it is generally thought that creating human-animal hybrids is virtually impossible: impossible In general, two types of changes prevent animals from interbreeding. The first includes all those factorscalled pre-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanismsthat would make fertilization impossible. After so many generations apart, a pair of animals might look so different from one another that theyre not inclined to have sex. If the animals do try to get it on despite changed appearances, incompatible genitalia or sperm motility could pose another problem: A human spermatozoon may not be equipped to navigate the reproductive tract of a chimpanzee, for example. The second type of barrier includes post-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms, or those factors that would make it impossible for a hybrid animal fetus to grow into a reproductive adult. If a human were indeed inclined and able to impregnate a monkey, post-zygotic mechanisms might result in a miscarriage or sterile offspring. The further apart two animals are in genetic terms, the less likely they are to produce viable offspring. At this point, humans seem to have been separate from other animals for far too long to interbreed. We diverged from our closest extant relative, the chimpanzee, as many as 7 million years ago. (For comparison, our apparent tryst with the Neanderthals occurred less than 700,000 years after we split off from them.) Bosch, Torie. "We Mated with Neanderthals. Can We Breed With Other Animals, Too?" Slate. 14 November 2006. Kumparan. "Fakta Di Balik Foto Bayi Hasil Perkawinan Manusia Dengan Singa." 13 October 2017.

['share']

False

These images were originally posted along with a piece of Indonesian text claiming that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness:This is not the first time that we have come across images purportedly showing a half-human, half-animal hybrid. In every case, we found that either the images or the attached claims were faked in one way or another. For instance, a "human-dog hybrid" was actually asculpture, a "gorilla-human" was a doctored image, and a "goat-person" was actually just a deformed goat. In the case of this particular image, the human-lion is a silicone doll. Social media user Octavia Mulia told Kumparan.com that the photographs had been posted by her sister and that they were originally shared in jest. When the images went viral, Mulia found it necessary to explain that these photographs actually showed a silicone doll and not a real human-lion hybrid (text translated via Google and edited for clarity):These images show a silicon doll that was created by Italian artist Laira Maganuco. These images were featured on her Etsy page in a listing for a "baby Licantropo," or baby werewolf, doll. Maganuco also posted images showing the creation of this "baby Licantropo" to her Facebook page:The images were originally shared with the claim that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness. Although scientists are experimenting with various chimeras, it is generally thought that creating human-animal hybrids is virtually impossible:

The propagation of malware is associated with the 'Be Like Bill' phenomena.

['The "Be Like Bill" Facebook trend has annoyed some social media users, but there are no credible reports of its behaving maliciously.']

In January 2016, a Facebook trend most commonly referenced as "Be Like Bill" swept the social network. During that time, users initially posted comics in which a character named "Bill" served as a reinforcer of social media etiquette, before "Be Like Bill" generators enabled users to create personalized versions of the meme. As is often the case with items like "Be Like Bill" that appear seemingly from nowhere and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before people became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soon after Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against it began: one that first simply decried the "scolding" nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes. Scolding Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a "Be Like Bill" meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV, and Washington, D.C., station WTTG generated concern with coverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of "clickbait" and associating it with the risks of all unvetted apps. KFVS, KCTV, and WTTG noted that it's known as "clickbait," and if users haven't read the terms and conditions on the creator's website, the details may shock them. The company originally stated in its privacy terms, "You will allow us to use and edit your content with our service permanently, with no limit and no recovery." KFVS-TV also mentioned that, in some cases, content can contain viruses that can damage computers, misuse Facebook profiles in ways users might not know, or even attempt to steal credit card or bank account numbers. As the above-quoted material stated, Facebook has indeed presented a handy way for bad actors to engage in all sorts of unpleasant activities using compelling content. However, the "in some cases" outcomes described apply to malicious apps in general and not specifically to any known vulnerabilities linked to the "Be Like Bill" meme. Many articles cited existing Better Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that predated "Be Like Bill" and referenced "clickbait," but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists solely to drive traffic to various websites. Of additional interest was a widely reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla (which offered a mechanism for customizing "Be Like Bob" memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to "allow [Blobla] to use and edit your content with our service permanently, with no limit and no recovery." We were unable to verify that such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in their agreement as of January 27, 2016. On that date, Chicago station WMAQ published an article reporting that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest "Be Like Bill" posed any specific threat to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois, Steve Bernas, had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps. However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitively ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to users or their computers. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand, says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others seen on Facebook. "First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app," a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. "Of course, if users want to share the results on Facebook, they must be logged in. However, we use the Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's very common... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from users' Facebook accounts." Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely cited verbiage ("permanently, no limit and no recovery") was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions that might have ended up on their website. "Second, we do not store any information about users on our servers, as stated in our Terms of Service," Bloba continued. "Third, the terms about our right to users' content pertain to posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, or a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages, we have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding." On January 29, 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on "Be Like Bill," due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier "clickbait" warnings with that particular meme and generator: "We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first." Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about "Be Like Bill" or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of "Be Like Bill"-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not on any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat beyond annoyance-free browsing.

['credit']

False

As is often the case with items like "Be Like Bill" that appear seemingly from the ether and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before folks became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soonafter Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against the meme was started: one that first simply decried the "scolding" nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes:Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a "Be Like Bill" meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV (clip below), and Washington, D.C., station WTTGran some concern-generatingcoverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of "clickbait" and associating it with the risk of all unvetted apps:KCTV5Many articles cited extantBetter Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that antedated "Be Like Bill" and referenced "clickbait," but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites.Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing "Be Like Bob" memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to "allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover." We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016.On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest "Be Like Bill" posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors).Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about "Be Like Bill" or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of "Be Like Bill"-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

Grand Canyon Skywalk

['Illustrations show a proposed Grand Canyon skywalk.']

Claim: Illustrations show a proposed Grand Canyon skywalk. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Grand Canyon SkywalkScheduled to open January 1, 2006Hualapai Indian Reservation * Juts out about 70 feet into the canyon, 4000 ft above the Colorado River *Will accommodate 120 people comfortably (How comfortable would YOU be?) * Built with more than a million pounds of steel beams and includes dampeners that minimize the structure's vibration * Designed to hold 72 million pounds, withstand an 8.0 magnitude earthquake 50 miles away, and withstand winds in excess of 100 mph * Has a glass bottom and sides...four inches thick Origins: Strange as it may seem, theabove-displayed illustrations are indeed renderings of a proposed skywalk extending over the south rim of the Grand Canyon, to be built on the Hualapai Indian Reservationadjacent to Arizona's Grand Canyon National Park. Hualapai Indian Reservation The $30 million all-glass Skywalk will hover 3,800 feet above the Colorado River over a rim of the Grand Canyon, allowing tourists to stroll on an 80-yard walk around a semicircular platform jutting beyond the canyon rim, surrounded by Plexiglas that will provide a spectacular view of the canyon floor directly below. (The statement that the structure is designed to hold "72 million pounds" appears to be a copywriter's misparsing of a 72-ton figure.) The Skywalk (initially projected to open in early 2006, before construction delays pushed back the completion date) will be part of a new Grand Canyon West resort on the Hualapai reservation at the western edge of the park, about 120 miles from Las Vegas. As the Arizona Republic noted, the Skywalk is part of an effort by the Hualapai tribe to create a multi-faceted tourist resort and revenue stream not dependent upon casino gaming: Levi Esquerra, program director for Northern Arizona University's Center for American Indian Economic Development, said the Hualapais are one of the few tribes to have a bustling economy without casino gaming as a linchpin. "They've been able to exploit their natural beauty and become a tourist destination," Esquerra said. "What we've normally seen in the past between the tribes and national Park Service is like the Blackfeet in Montana appealing to get free access to Glacier National Park. But the Hualapais have a new and aggressive attitude to develop markets on their own land." The Hualapai's Grand Canyon Resort Corp. already has completed the first phase of an adjoining Indian village, where Navajo, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai craftsmen constructed traditional dwellings surrounding an amphitheater that hosts daily Native American dances. The first phase of a nearby Old West village also has been completed, and plans are on the drawing board to construct a tram from the canyon rim to the floor. Ditto for an anticipated high-end resort and a campground, which will house about 50 cabins and be able to accommodate 200 campsites and 200 recreation vehicles. The parts for the Skywalk project were fabricated in other locations and brought to the Grand Canyon site as it was readied for their installation, a process depicted in the photographs shown below: The transparent pathway was installed in place in March 2007, and Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin offically inaugurated the Skywalk on 20 March 2007 by taking a stroll on it in front of a crowd of about 1,000 tourists, dignitaries and tribal members: Grand Canyon West has announced 28 March 2007 as the official public opening date: Grand Canyon West, a destination owned and operated by the Hualapai Tribe at the Grand Canyon's western rim, announces March 28, 2007 as the official public opening date of The Skywalk. The Skywalk will be the first-ever cantilever shaped glass walkway to suspend more than 4,000 feet above the canyons floor and extend 70 feet from the canyon's rim. Access to The Skywalk will run from dawn to dusk and will cost $25 per person in addition to the cost of a Grand Canyon West entrance package. One hundred and twenty people will be allowed on the bridge at a time. Admittance is first come, first serve for walk up visitors; however, reservations can be made. Guests will enter and exit the walkway via temporary buildings while the adjacent visitors center is being completed. Grand Canyon West plans to issue numbered shoe covers in in order to avoid scratches and slipping - to each visitor that enters the open-air walkway. Prior to the public opening in March, Grand Canyon West will host a "First Walk" event for media and VIPs. The name of the first public figure to step on The Skywalk will be announced closer to the opening. The historical rollout of The Skywalk structure, with the glass in place, is scheduled for February 27 to March 2. The initial part of the rollout process involves jacking the structure up off of the supports and then subjecting the structure to several days of thorough tests that replicate the conditions of final placement. After the final testing is complete, the multi-million pound steel enforced structure will be rolled out across the canyon's edge, which takes multiple days. Immediately after the structure is in position, it will be seated and attached to the foundation. Details for a media event during the rollout will be revealed closer to the event. Additional information: Destination Grand Canyon West Last updated: 20 March 2007 Sources: Braun, David. "Photo in the News: Grand Canyon to Get Glass Bridge." National Geographic News. 26 August 2005. Clarke, Jay. "Tribe Plans Walkway Over Grand Canyon." The [San Jose] Mercury News. 4 December 2005. Gaynor, Tim. "Astronaut's Small Step Opens Grand Canyon Skywalk." Reuters. 20 March 2007. Mannweiler, David. "Don't Look Down and You'll Be Fine." The Indianapolis Star. 20 November 2005. Shaffer, Mark. "Hualapai Tribe Finds Economy Flows Better with River Plan Than Casino." The Arizona Republic. 13 October 2005.

['economy']

True

Hualapai Indian Reservationadjacent to Arizona's Grand Canyon National Park. Grand Canyon West has announced 28 March 2007 as the official public opening date: Destination Grand Canyon West

Was March 2020 the First March Since 2002 Without a US School Shooting?

['The definition of a "school shooting" varies depending on whom you ask.']

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. To prevent the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, state leaders across the U.S. ordered widespread school closures in March 2020. In the weeks that followed, millions of students spent their days at home instead of in classrooms. Some teachers and staff moved lessons online, and administrators locked the doors to school buildings so the general public could not enter. The closures were among the most dramatic steps taken by state leaders to combat the novel coronavirus, which has killed more than 58,300 people globally as of this writing in mid-April 2020. About 56.6 million students registered for elementary or secondary school classes in the U.S. at the start of the 2019-20 academic year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. While a disruption to students' learning, the shutdowns in America may have provided an unintended benefit beyond limiting people's exposure to the virus. On April 13, 2020, a journalist tweeted to his approximately 49,600 followers: "Last month was the first March without a school shooting in the United States since 2002." The reporter, Robert Klemko, quickly gained popularity on Twitter among Americans who believe federal and state leaders should enact stricter gun laws, including former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "It shouldn't have taken a pandemic to make this possible," her Twitter account wrote in a retweet of Klemko's post. Meanwhile, Facebook users shared screenshots of Klemko's tweet, and one Instagram account for a website that brands itself as a fact-checking service on that platform posted a photograph of a law enforcement officer monitoring students boarding a school bus with Klemko's claim as overlay text. Among media sites, CBS News published a story stating the assertion as fact. "My teens said this is the first time they have relaxed. No need to be hyper-vigilant of every unusual sound; they can just focus on schoolwork," one person tweeted. "Both grew up with regular Active Shooter Drills since kindergarten." The claim about school shootings since 2002 is twofold: It asserts that no school shootings occurred in the U.S. in March 2020 and that every March between 2003 and 2019 documented at least one such incident. However, because agencies across government and the news media do not share a consistent way of tracking and defining school shootings, the truth of both assertions depends on whom you ask. The U.S. Secret Service and FBI, for example, provide an explanation of factors that contribute to school shootings but do not keep a running list of all on-campus gun crimes. Academics and school officials often rely on news media reports for their research, though journalists may not cover every shooting. The nation's biggest gun rights group, the National Rifle Association, does not publish a running tally of shootings in schools, yet it has convened researchers to compile recommendations on how to avoid such incidents, like other organizations. Meanwhile, a leading opponent of the NRA, the lobbyist group Everytown for Gun Safety, has tracked all "incidents of gunfire" in K-12 schools and colleges, including suicides, shootings in which no one suffered injuries, and cases where the victims or gunmen may not have any connection to the school since 2013. Those prominent advocacy groups aside, the least partisan and most comprehensive source of school shooting data appears to be the "K-12 School Shooting Database" sponsored by the U.S. Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Updated daily by emergency management researchers, the database records "each and every instance in which a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time of day, or day of the week," according to its stated methodology. Its website summarizes the tricky situation of analyzing school shooting data as follows: Without a common methodology for data collection, individual data sources are limited in both validity and utility. Furthermore, there is no consensus on what actually defines a school shooting. Based on the differences among all available reporting platforms, there is currently no single source for objective and accessible data from which school administrators, law enforcement, and public officials can draw to inform their decisions. With that as background, administrators of the CHDS-sponsored K-12 database documented eight incidents fitting its definition of a "school shooting" in March 2020. Local news media reports affirm those findings. The incidents include: Regarding the claim that March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting since 2002, the data is more murky. The CHDS-sponsored database lists at least one incident in U.S. K-12 schools in March of every year from 2003 through 2009 and every year from 2011 through 2020, but none in 2010. Supporting that finding, tallies of K-12 school shootings by the for-profit National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm and the advocacy group the National School Safety Center do not show a March 2010 incident. However, those sources only consider shootings on U.S. elementary, middle, and high school properties. If you expand the scope of research to also include shootings on college campuses, Ohio State University documented a deadly shooting on March 9, 2010. According to the New York Times' coverage of the incident, officials said a custodian of the school shot and killed a co-worker before killing himself in a maintenance building. Another person was wounded in the gunfire. We reached out to Washington Post reporter Klemko, the author of the viral claim, to understand where he got his numbers. He said he did include cases involving post-secondary institutions, rather than only focusing on K-12 schools. But unlike other datasets, he said he only considered shootings in which students, teachers, or staff were the targets of the gunfire or the perpetrators. In other words, he said he did not consider cases where people trespassed on school property and opened fire at others who aren't part of the school community. He also did not consider cases in which persons (no matter their affiliation with the school) accidentally discharged a gun or shootings on school properties outside of school hours or on weekends. "I used shootings on school property, K-12, vocational schools, colleges, and universities, where students or staff were intentionally shot at, or doing the shooting," he wrote in an email. "Where government and private data were inconclusive, news reports filled the gaps." Looking at the comprehensive standards by which the CHDS-sponsored database documents shootings, he said "it's a mistake" to consider the database's definition of a "school shooting" as the most fair. "Few Americans would agree, for example, that an incident where a safety officer accidentally fires a gun in an office, injuring no one, constitutes a school shooting," he said. "Likewise, few would agree that adults trespassing on school grounds and exchanging gunfire when school is not in session and no children are present is a school shooting." In sum, given the absence of a universal definition of "school shooting" in the U.S., and given that a government database and news media reports show at least eight shootings did occur on school properties in March 2020, we rate this claim as "false."

['profit']

False

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. To prevent the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, state leaders across the U.S. ordered widespread school closures in March 2020. In the weeks that followed, millions of students spent their days at home instead of in classrooms. Some teachers and staff moved lessons online, and administrators locked the doors to school buildings so the general public could not enter.The closures were among the most dramatic steps by state leaders to combat the novel coronavirus that has killed more than 58,300 people globally as of this writing in mid-April 2020. About 56.6 million students registered for elementary or secondary school classes in the U.S. at the start of the 2019-20 academic year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. While a disruption to students' learning, the shutdowns in America may have provided an unintended benefit, beyond limiting people's exposure to the virus. On April 13, 2020, a journalist tweeted to his some 49,600 followers: "Last month was the first March without a school shooting in the United States since 2002."The reporter, Robert Klemko, quickly gained Twitter popularity among Americans who believe federal and state leaders should enact stricter gun laws, including former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "It shouldn't have taken a pandemic to make this possible," her Twitter account wrote in a retweet of Klemko's post.Meanwhile, Facebook users shared screenshots of Klemko's tweet, and one Instagram account for a website that brands itself as a fact-checking service on that platform posted a photograph of a law-enforcement officer monitoring students boarding a school bus with Klemko's claim as overlay text. Among media sites, CBS News published a story stating the assertion as fact."My teens said this is the first time they have relaxed. No need to be hyper vigilant of every unusual sound, can just focus on school work," one person tweeted. "Both grew up with regular Active Shooter Drills since kindergarten."The U.S. Secret Service and FBI, for example, provide an explanation of factors that contribute to school shootings but do not keep a running list of all on-campus gun crimes. Academics and school officials often rely on news media reports for their research, though journalists may not cover every shooting.The nation's biggest guns-rights group, the National Rifle Association, does not publish a running tally of shootings in schools, yet it has convened researchers to compile recommendations on how to avoid such incidents, like other organizations. Meanwhile, a leading opponent of the NRA the lobbyist group Everytown for Gun Safety has tracked all "incidents of gunfire" in K-12 schools and colleges, including suicides; shootings in which no one suffered injuries; and cases where the victims or gunmen may not have any connection to the school, since 2013.Those prominent advocacy groups aside, the least partisan and most comprehensive source of school-shooting data appears to be the "K-12 School Shooting Database" sponsored by the U.S. Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Updated daily by emergency-management researchers, the database records "each and every instance in which a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time of day, or day of week," according to its stated methodology. Its website summarizes the tricky situation analyzing school-shooting data as follows:Regarding the claim that March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting since 2002, the data is more murky. The CHDS-sponsored database lists at least one incident in U.S. K-12 schools in March of every year from 2003 through 2009, and every year from 2011 through 2020, but none in 2010. Supporting that finding, tallies of K-12 school shootings by the for-profit National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm and the advocacy group the National School Safety Center do not show a March 2010 incident.However, those sources only consider shootings on U.S. elementary, middle and high school properties. If you expand the scope of research to also include shootings on college campuses, Ohio State University documented a deadly shooting on March 9, 2010. According to the New York Times' coverage of the incident, officials said a custodian of the school shot and killed a co-worker before killing himself in a maintenance building. Another person was wounded in the gunfire.

Did Norton Send Renewal Offers for Devices Infected With Viruses?

['Watch out for this fake email renewal scam that was created to look as if it was official correspondence from Norton Internet Security.']

In March 2021, fake email renewals for Norton Internet Security landed in inboxes and spam folders, and warned of devices infected with viruses. An example email had the subject line: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n020953." A variation said the same thing with a different ending number: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n915093." The email that appeared to be from "Norton-Support2021" notified users that their supposed subscription to Norton Internet Security had expired. The Norton renewal offer was a scam. The headline claimed that recipients' devices had become infected with viruses. However, that seemingly important item didn't appear in the body of the email: EXPIRATION NOTIFICATION Our records indicate that your subscription to Norton Internet Security Expired on: 20 Feb 2021 11:11:22 -0500 Therefore, you are no longer receiving automatic updates that protect you against the latest threats, including viruses, spyware, hackers, and identity thieves. If you are browsing, banking, shopping, checking email or doing anything online, we highly recommend you renew your subscription now and get the new Norton Internet Security. Renew Now You will receive a full year of protection for up to 3 household PCs and peace of mind when you're online. Sincerely,The Norton Team This was not a legitimate email from Norton AntiVirus or Norton Internet Security. In an example email we reviewed, all links in the message pointed to a website hosted on a Brazilian domain. The "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the message led to the scam as well. If readers receive a suspicious email that claims to be from Norton, desktop users can safely hover over links (but not click on them) in order to see where they lead. If they don't go to an official Norton website, such as "norton.com," do not click the link. Also, the email address the message came from appeared to begin with "Norton-Support2021@" and end with a long string of random letters. The email address did not end in "@norton.com" or anything similar. The company published a page to help keep Norton users safe from these kinds of renewal email virus scams. For example, it listed several email addresses they used to send official correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. published a page It's true that Norton may send renewal offers. However, such offers will never arrive with completely lowercase subject lines. Further, there was no indication that Norton notifies customers "your device has been infected with viruses" in renewal email offers. "The URLs in our emails point to the server at: https://secure.norton.com. Make sure that the URLs begin with https:// and has a norton.com or lifelock.com domain." Norton users who run the company's apps will potentially receive official emails from [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. Other email addresses are covered on the Norton Support page. Norton Support page We've covered concerns regarding computer viruses since the 1990s. For example, the purported virus in a Budweiser frogs screensaver first made the rounds in 1997. Thankfully, it was a hoax. made the rounds Twenty-four years later, the Norton emails being received by readers were not a hoax. We recommend proceeding with caution when reviewing potentially harmful messages. Hovering over links to see where they lead is safe, but clicking on them may not be. In sum, fake renewal email offers appeared to be from Norton Internet Security and claimed that devices were infected with viruses. This was not official correspondence from the company. The scams should be avoided.

['banking']

False

The Norton renewal offer was a scam.The company published a page to help keep Norton users safe from these kinds of renewal email virus scams. For example, it listed several email addresses they used to send official correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] email addresses are covered on the Norton Support page.We've covered concerns regarding computer viruses since the 1990s. For example, the purported virus in a Budweiser frogs screensaver first made the rounds in 1997. Thankfully, it was a hoax.

What occurs when you unlawfully cross the border of the United States?

['A viral Facebook post comparing U.S. immigration policy to that of North Korea and Afghanistan gets most of the facts wrong.']

A nine-year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration experienced a resurgence in early 2018, likely due to ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats regarding the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009 and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements and omits the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation. Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally). Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) that allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. An immigrant who does not have legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income, and property taxes. Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant). Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accommodation and domestic violence shelters. It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage. Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care. According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes. It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant taxpayers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit. Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education based on their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program. Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia, and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships. This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level that grants them any kind of "tax holiday."

['taxes']

False

The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this:Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.)Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014.This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations.An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.)It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage. Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them.However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care. According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes. It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit. Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women.In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children.While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program. Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships. This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday."

Clinton Disarmed Soldiers on Military Bases?

['Rumor: President Bill Clinton issued an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases.']

Claim: President Bill Clinton issued an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2010] Is it true that "one of the first things Bill Clinton did in office was to issue an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases"? Origins: The wake of the September 2013 fatal shooting of 12 people by a civilian military contractor who went on a rampage at Washington Navy Yard saw the recirculation of a rumor that gained currency after the November 2009 fatal shooting of 13 people by a U.S. Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, Texas: that one of the reasons these mass shooters had not been stopped earlier in their killing sprees was because President Bill Clinton had issued an executive order back in 1993 that prohibited personnel on military bases from carrying firearms while on duty. While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts. It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office. directive regulation Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried": a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed. c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners. Others noted that the change in policy likely had little actual effect on day-to-day base operations: Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame. "I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military," said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. "I think that's kind of a bogus story." "We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones," he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority. Last updated: 16 July 2015

['asset']

False

It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.

Sarah Palin Calls to Boycott Mall of America Because 'Santa Was Always White in the Bible'

['A story that the former Alaska governor called for the boycott after discovering that the mall had hired its first black Santa Claus is a hoax.']

On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor and 2008 vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, arguing that the character was always "white" in the "Bible." The announcement that the Mall of America was welcoming its first black Santa Claus was greeted in many quarters as a positive development. However, as might be expected in a country that has become increasingly comfortable expressing racist sentiments, many were highly offended. Among those who were upset by this decision was former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The sharp-tongued Republican wasted no time in condemning the company's actions, taking to social media to post comments calling for a boycott and urging people to run the Mall of America into the ground, based on the belief that Santa had always been white in the Bible. "No, I refuse to believe that they went this far in trying to cater to minorities. I thought the company had some backbone, but I guess I was wrong," Palin told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. She also argued that hiring a non-white Santa Claus was the last straw in corporate America's distortion of traditional conservative Christian values, claiming that they realized they couldn't make any more money off the usual scams and techniques they had been using. She added, "That's why they had to come up with something new and out of the box, or at least something that appeared that way in their minds. But this proves that they have no morals and that they won't shy away from even the most blatant twisting of traditional Christian values, just so they can make more money. I understand the need to make a profit to get by and have a good life, but I don't understand stomping on things that are holy and sacred to accomplish that." Palin concluded, "Americans, especially white ones, need to boycott the company and run it into the ground, so that they never come up with such an offensive and sacrilegious idea again." Like all items published by Politicops (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the fabricated addition is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details. Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article. However, all articles display by default in "hide facts" mode, so most readers view articles (or their headlines on social media) without the embellishments marked. Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape, women would try to "get raped" to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die but was kidnapped by demons.

['profit']

False

On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor (and 2008 vice presidential pick) Sarah Palin called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, because the character was always "white" in the "Bible":Like all items published by Politicops, (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the tacked on fabrication is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details.Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article.Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought that a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape women would try to "get raped" in order to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die, but was kidnapped by demons.