Datasets:

1-800-SHARED-TASKS

/

COLING-2025-FINNLP-FMD

like 2

Follow

1-800-Shared-Tasks 32

Did the Same Person 'Die Twice' from COVID-19?

['Many people do more than one thing, in different places, during their lifetimes.']

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 Scientists are still uncertain whether a person who has contracted the COVID-19 coronavirus disease can catch it again. However, according to an item circulated via social media ("Corona is so bad, this guy died twice!"), one person has apparently not only caught, but actually died of COVID-19 twice: uncertain According to the two separate news accounts pictured above, a retired Milwaukee police lieutenant and a University of Memphis professor, identified with identical photographs, seemingly both died in March 2020 from the COVID-19 coronavirus. However, the news reports of the COVID-19 victim seen above employed different headlines to refer to the same person, Lenard Wells, who was both a former police officer and an instructor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis: same person Lenard Wells instructor [Wells] spent 27 years on the Milwaukee Police Department, where he worked tirelessly to bring racial equity to the ranks as president of the League of Martin, an association for African American officers. During his tenure, the League of Martin sued to make sure promotions and assignments were fair. "He wanted African American law enforcement officers to have the same rights and opportunities that were afforded to other officers," Assistant Milwaukee Police Chief Regina Howard said. After his police retirement, then-Gov. Jim Doyle appointed Wells chairman of the Wisconsin Parole Commission. In recent years, Wells taught criminal justice at the University of Memphis. Lenard retired from the Milwaukee Police Department after 27 years of service as a Lieutenant of Police. After retiring from the Milwaukee Police Department, he was appointed by Governor Jim Doye of Wisconsin to Chair the Wisconsin Parole Board. Forster, Victoria. "Can You Get Sick with Coronavirus Twice? The Jury Is Still Out." Forbes. 8 April 2020. Luthern, Ashley. "'A Law Enforcement Pioneer': Lenard Wells, Who Died of Coronavirus Complications, Leaves Lasting Legacy." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 23 March 2020.

['equity']

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. Scientists are still uncertain whether a person who has contracted the COVID-19 coronavirus disease can catch it again. However, according to an item circulated via social media ("Corona is so bad, this guy died twice!"), one person has apparently not only caught, but actually died of COVID-19 twice:However, the news reports of the COVID-19 victim seen above employed different headlines to refer to the same person, Lenard Wells, who was both a former police officer and an instructor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis:

Does Facebook 'Write Off' Your Birthday Donations?

['"Donating your birthday" on Facebook is a simple way to raise money for charities. ']

In November 2019, some people encountered a meme on Facebook that claimed the social media company was using the contributions its users made to birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off for the company. While this meme contains four separate assertions, we will focus mainly on the second one for this article: that "Facebook is allowed to declare your donation for a tax write-off." Facebook launched its birthday-donation program in 2017, a feature that allows users to "donate their birthdays" to raise money for various charities. A few weeks before a Facebook user's birthday, the user receives a message asking about a possible fundraiser centered on that day. If the user decides to raise funds, they may choose from 750,000 non-profits, set a fundraising goal, and then share the fundraiser with Facebook friends. Here's how Facebook explained the feature in its announcement: "Two weeks before your birthday, you'll see a message from Facebook in your News Feed giving you the option to create a fundraiser for your birthday. You can create a fundraiser for any of the 750,000 US nonprofits available for fundraising on Facebook. Your friends will receive a notification inviting them to support your cause in honor of your special day." When birthday fundraisers were initially rolled out, Facebook retained 5% of the donations to cover processing fees and fraud protection. The company eliminated those fees at the end of 2017, so as of now, 100% of such donations go to the designated charities. In August 2018, Facebook announced that it had helped facilitate $300 million in charitable donations. The claim that Facebook was able to use the $300 million raised by its users via birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, it seems that Facebook users, and not the company itself, are actually the ones who get to write off these donations, as Facebook states: "A donation to a nonprofit through its Facebook Page or a fundraiser on Facebook may be tax-deductible. Since tax laws vary by country and region, you should consult a tax professional or review the laws for your area to determine whether a donation is tax-deductible." After you make a donation, a confirmation will be sent to the primary email listed on your Facebook account. This confirmation shows that you've made this donation as a charitable contribution and that you're not receiving any goods or services in return. We reached out to Facebook for comment on this meme, and a spokesperson told us that these claims were "completely false": "These claims about Facebook Fundraising tools are completely false. We are a donation platform, and payments to charities are processed by our licensed, regulated subsidiaries. 100% of what’s raised using donate buttons and fundraisers created on Facebook goes to the benefiting nonprofit. Nonprofits either receive funds directly from Facebook or via Network for Good, a Donor Advised Fund we partner with." While Facebook does not write off donations made by users, the company's birthday fundraisers have nonetheless spurred some criticism. In October 2018, some users reported that their one-time donations turned into recurring donations. (In fact, some billing irregularities occurred, but no users were actually charged more than they agreed to donate.) Tech Crunch also noted that this program has raised concerns about privacy, and one fundraising consultant was leery of the program for further distancing donors from charitable organizations: "As with almost every other Facebook feature, its fundraising tools have prompted concerns about privacy, particularly donor privacy, which is considered sacrosanct by many organizations (Facebook lets users decide if they want to share their donation with friends). Some charities also have qualms about benefiting from Facebook fundraisers until the company does a better job of policing hate speech, especially if the purpose of their work is aiding marginalized or persecuted minority groups." In an insightful blog post from last November, fundraising consultant Jeremy Hatch argued that fundraising on Facebook also eliminates the relationship between donors and organizations, where there are established norms and ethical practices. He added that non-profits should reconsider before they grow increasingly reliant on a company whose ultimate goal is to gather and monetize user data. We've yet to come across any credible reporting, however, documenting that Facebook was using individual donations from users as a tax write-off.

['funds']

False

Here's how Facebook explained the feature in its announcement:When birthday fundraisers were initially rolled out, Facebook was retaining 5% of the donations to cover processing fees and fraud protection. The company did away with those fees at the end of 2017, so as of now 100% of such donations go to the designated charities. In August 2018, Facebook announced that it has helped facilitate $300 million in charitable donations. (The above-displayed meme claims in item 3 that Facebook can "brag" about its charitable donations, but we should note the company's announcement says "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year," not "Facebook Raises $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year.")The claim that Facebook was able to use the $300 million raised by its users via birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, it seems that Facebook users and not the company itself are actually the ones who get to write off these donations, as Facebook states:While Facebook does not write off donations made by users, the company's birthday fundraisers have nonetheless spurred some criticism. In October 2018, some users reported that their one-time donations turned into recurring donations. (In fact, some billing irregularities occurred, but no users were actually charged more than they agreed to donate.) Tech Crunch also noted that this program has raised concerns about privacy, and one fundraising consultant was leery of the program for further distancing donors from charitable organizations:As with almost every other Facebook feature, its fundraising tools have prompted concerns about privacy, particularly donor privacy, which is considered sacrosanct by many organizations (Facebook lets users decide if they want to share their donation with friends). Some charities also have qualms about benefiting from Facebook fundraisers until the company does a better job of policing hate speech, especially if the purpose of their work is aiding marginalized or persecuted minority groups.In an insightful blog post from last November, fundraising consultant Jeremy Hatch argued that fundraising on Facebook also eliminates the relationship between donors and organizations, where there are established norms and ethical practices. He added that non-profits should reconsider before they grow increasingly reliant on a company whose ultimate goal is to gather and monetize user data.

I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors.

[]

Steven M. Costantino, a former House Finance Committee chairman, was more than a hundred miles away, working in Vermonts state government, when newly disclosed public records and emails fueled a wave of recent headlines on the $75 million 38 Studios boondoggle. From the other side of the Green Mountains, he could feel the spotlight. The states financing of the upstart video-game company, to the tune of $75 million in loan guarantees, lured 38 Studios from Massachusetts to Providence in 2010, but left Rhode Island taxpayers vulnerable in the companys 2012 bankruptcy. Amid the torrent of new headlines about 38 Studios, Costantino, who is now commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access, issued the following statement on Sept. 27: My only involvement in the matter in RI was because of my former position in the RI legislature. I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors. Costantino acknowledges he was involved with the legislation, but denies any role, compared with what others in government did, to bring Curt Schillings 38 Studios to Rhode Island. How can he have been both involved and not involved? Unfortunately, the former lawmaker did not respond to our request for an interview, leaving us to sort out this contradiction on our own. The freshly released emails and deposition transcripts hark back to early 2010 when Rhode Islands courtship of 38 Studios began to get serious. The documents give the public a window into which state officials were driving the 38 Studios deal. Costantino comes across as a behind-the-scenes facilitator, helping to lay the groundwork for the public financing. The comments recorded in the depositions and other records show that Costantino: Developed the idea for guaranteeing 38 Studios loans. He was the first to advocate for 38 Studios receipt of a $75-million state guaranteed loan, according to Keith Stokes,chairman of the R.I Economic Development Corporation at the time. And J. Michael Saul, then the EDCs finance director, recalls that Costantino proposed the expansion of an existing loan guarantee program during a visit to 38 Studios headquarters in Maynard, Mass. And at the conclusion of the meeting, Saul testified, he turned to me and asked me the question: If we were to increase the $50-million (loan program) to $125 million would this -- Im paraphrasing here -- would this be helpful to get this done? In another email, an EDC lawyer, Robert I. Stolzmanadvised Carcieris chief of staff Andrew Hodgkin that he had sent him several documents including a draft authorizing the RIEDC to guarantee 38 Studios debt (at the suggestion of House Finance Chairman Costantino, the draft reflects a larger authorization for this as a Jobs Creation Guaranty Program). Costantino, in his deposition in 2014, did not to dispute anything in the Stolzman note. Was among just a few lawmakers in the loop. Only House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, Sen. Daniel DaPonte, and Costantino knew about the 38 Studios transaction when the General Assembly approved the bill for the guarantees in 2010, according Marcel A. Valois,the EDCs former director. Another email from Stolzman, the EDCs lawyer, suggests that Sharon Reynolds, the House fiscal adviser, and Costantino were privy to certain background and summary information on the 38 Studios transaction before Governor Carcieri. Shielded the 38 Studios transaction from public scrutiny. During a videotaped discussion of the bill on the House floor on April 13, one lawmaker asked about the origins of the loan guarantee legislation and who was behind it. There's always conversations with lobbyists and small businesses, Costantino said. He didnt name 38 Studios. Later on in June of 2010, Costantino told Stolzman he hadnt told a Providence Journal reporter about his visit to 38 Studios. And Costantino said he wanted to know what EDC staffers were saying about the deal. Steered the legislation for 38 Studios guaranteed loan. In two separate April 2 emails with the numerals 38 noted in the subject line, Stokes mentions Costantinos role in scheduling the legislation, advising others that Steven Costantino wants to move on it next week and that Costantino has advised him that House Speaker Fox wants to post the item for hearing. Our ruling In his defense, Costantino issued a statement in which he said: I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors. In other words: Dont blame me, I was just doing my job. But the records and comments of people involved illustrate that Costantino played a key part in Rhode Island's courtship of 38 Studios. The legislation he helped pass, offering valuable loan guarantees, was his idea, according to one former EDC official. During the process, Costantino shielded his idea from the type of full political scrutiny that might have killed it. He did this by not naming 38 Studios on the House floor when he was asked who was pushing for the loan-guarantee program. When the deal was done, the CEO of Schilling's company thanked all members of the General Assembly and singled out five elected officials by name, including the former House Finance Committee chairman. Costantino played a pivotal role in creating the 38 Studios mess. In some ways, the record shows he bears as much responsibility as the other elected government officials who tasked him. We rate his statementFalse. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

['Bankruptcy', 'Rhode Island', 'Debt']

False

(If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

Is the CDC considered a 'Private Nonprofit Corporation'?

['The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC Foundation are two separate entities. ']

Since November 2020, an identically worded piece of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim originated on the website Armstrong Economics, which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong, and has become a widely shared piece of "copypasta," reproduced in part below: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services, which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation." The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs, and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively government-funded, which is very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still appear on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters on that post were evidently confused. The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation—the CDC Foundation—that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for the promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives. "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups, and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC Foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC Foundation are an indirect route, as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed as long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents. The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes—both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself—has caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26 million to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for the CDC's efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector, we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. The CDC's gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress. Even from a rhetorical standpoint, it would be a stretch to argue that the CDC is proportionally awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity).

['budget']

False

Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below:Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused:The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation the CDC Foundation that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives. "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC.The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions."For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents:The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples:The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014.While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress:

Did the IRS Send Thousands of Tax Refunds to the Same Addresses?

['A few addresses in Atlanta, Georgia, had a particularly busy tax season one year.']

This story started making the rounds in June 2013: The Internal Revenue Service sent 23,994 tax refunds worth a combined $46,378,040 to "unauthorized" alien workers who all used the same address in Atlanta, Ga., in 2011, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). That was not the only Atlanta address theoretically occupied by thousands of "unauthorized" alien workers receiving millions in federal tax refunds in 2011. In fact, according to a TIGTA audit report published last year, four of the top ten addresses to which the IRS sent thousands of tax refunds to "unauthorized" aliens were in Atlanta. The IRS sent 11,284 refunds worth a combined $2,164,976 to unauthorized alien workers at a second Atlanta address; 3,608 worth $2,691,448 to a third; and 2,386 worth $1,232,943 to a fourth. Once the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began using Social Security Numbers (SSN) as the primary form of taxpayer identification, it ran into a problem: how to identify people who had federal tax reporting or filing requirements but were not eligible to obtain Social Security Numbers (such as non-resident foreign nationals who earned income which was taxable in the U.S.). The IRS' initial solution was to create temporary numbers known as Internal Revenue Service Numbers (IRSN) to process the tax returns of such persons, but that system created a problem because IRSNs were assigned to tax returns rather than to the individuals filing those tax returns, a situation which made it difficult to track all the returns filed by any particular person. To remedy that problem, in 1996 the IRS introduced the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), nine-digit numbers similar in structure to SSNs issued to individuals (regardless of their immigration status) who are required to have U.S. taxpayer identification numbers but are not eligible to obtain SSNs: ITIN An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is a tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service. It is a nine-digit number that always begins with the number 9. IRS issues ITINs to individuals who are required to have a U.S. taxpayer identification number but who do not have, and are not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) from the Social Security Administration (SSA). ITINs are issued regardless of immigration status because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code. Individuals must have a filing requirement and file a valid federal income tax return to receive an ITIN, unless they meet an exception. In July 2012, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a final report titled "Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications" which stated the TIGTA had initiated an audit of the ITIN assignment process due to two congressional complaints alleging IRS management personnel were encouraging the approval of fraudulent ITIN applications, and that it found the complaints to be largely accurate: report This audit was initiated because TIGTA received IRS employee complaints referred from members of Congress alleging that IRS management responsible for overseeing the ITIN operation was encouraging employees to assign ITINs to applicants when the ITIN application was fraudulent. The objective of our review was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the IRS's process to identify questionable ITIN applications. TIGTA substantiated many of the allegations set forth in the IRS employees' complaints. The complaints alleged that IRS management is not concerned with addressing questionable applications and is interested only in the volume of applications that can be processed, regardless of whether they are fraudulent. The audit found that the ITIN application review and verification process is so deficient that there is no assurance that ITINs are not being assigned to individuals submitting questionable applications. Because of lax documentation requirements to obtain an ITIN, tax fraud can go undetected. Management also eliminated successful processes used to identify questionable ITIN application fraud patterns and schemes. In its report, the TIGTA noted its analysis of ITIN application data had identified indications of possible fraud, such as ten addresses that were each issued thousands of tax refunds from returns using ITINs in 2011: As stated in the example quoted in the head of this article, four of those ten addresses were located in Atlanta, Georgia, with one address accounting for a total of nearly 24,000 different tax returns and over $46,000,000 in refunds. However, whether such information is indicative of widespread tax fraud involving the use of ITINs by non-citizens cannot be determined from the information provided. TIGTA's report did not claim to have uncovered specific cases of tax fraud; it offered charts such the one displayed as examples of how various analyses of IRS data could "identify indications of possible fraud." It's possible some of the addresses referenced above correspond to the offices of lawyers or accountants or some other service providers who assist immigrants and other non-citizens in preparing and filing tax returns. It's also possible that if some of those addresses are indeed connected to fraudulent tax return filings, the perpetrators of that activity are domestic criminals rather than "aliens." The July 2012 TIGTA report noted some of the deficiencies observed "had been brought to management's attention long ago" via a September 2002 report, but "management has failed to take sufficient action to address those deficiencies." In the 2012 report, TIGTA made nine different recommendations for modifying the ITIN review process to ensure the integrity of the program; in response, Peggy Bogadi, commissioner of the IRS's Wage and Investment Division, issued a memorandum stating the IRS was taking steps to implement seven of those recommendations by the end of 2012 and would consider the other two after conducting a broader review of the program and evaluating the feasibility and impact of those changes. Pickel, Mary Lou. "Tea Party at the Capitol." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 28 February 2009.

['income']

True

Once the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began using Social Security Numbers (SSN) as the primary form of taxpayer identification, it ran into a problem: how to identify people who had federal tax reporting or filing requirements but were not eligible to obtain Social Security Numbers (such as non-resident foreign nationals who earned income which was taxable in the U.S.). The IRS' initial solution was to create temporary numbers known as Internal Revenue Service Numbers (IRSN) to process the tax returns of such persons, but that system created a problem because IRSNs were assigned to tax returns rather than to the individuals filing those tax returns, a situation which made it difficult to track all the returns filed by any particular person. To remedy that problem, in 1996 the IRS introduced the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), nine-digit numbers similar in structure to SSNs issued to individuals (regardless of their immigration status) who are required to have U.S. taxpayer identification numbers but are not eligible to obtain SSNs:In July 2012, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a final report titled "Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications" which stated the TIGTA had initiated an audit of the ITIN assignment process due to two congressional complaints alleging IRS management personnel were encouraging the approval of fraudulent ITIN applications, and that it found the complaints to be largely accurate:

Does Pic Show an Early 1900s Charging Station for Electric Buses?

['The gas-powered bus "will shortly be an obsolete vehicle," an electric bus company claimed in 1906. ']

A photo often shared on social media purportedly shows an electric bus driving into a "charging and power station" in the early 1900s. The picture depicts an authentic bus charging station operated by the London Electrobus Company during that company's brief existence between 1906 and 1909. A version of this photo appears in the Getty Images archives. As reported by The Economist in 2007, these charging stations were not plug-in stations as we know them today; instead, they were facilities where old batteries were swapped for fresh ones. The electrobus required 1.5 tonnes of lead-acid batteries to carry its 34 passengers and could travel 60 km (38 miles) on one charge. At lunchtime, the buses would go to a garage in Victoria and drive up a ramp. The batteries, slung under the electrobus, were lowered onto a trolley and replaced with fresh ones, a process that took just three minutes. An advertisement for the company indicated that they had two charging and power stations for electric buses located at 1 Earl Street and 45 Horseferry Road in London. Here is another close-up photo of one such "electrobus" from 1907. According to several reports, the buses were a hit, thanks to their reduced noise and smoother ride. When debuting their first bus in 1906, the directors of the company stated that they "confidently anticipate that the petrol omnibus, young as it is, will shortly be an obsolete vehicle, so far as urban traffic is concerned." However, it was not to be. The company was beset by allegations of fraud during its effort to go public on the London Stock Exchange in 1908. As described in The Economist, the company had been duped by a team of con artists. The firm was purchasing rights to a patent for £20,000 (approximately £7.5 million or $15 million in today's money) from the Baron de Martigny. However, the patent was old and had nothing to do with battery buses; it was a scam. Investors demanded their money back, and the firm had to return £80,000. The investors would have been even less impressed had they known the true identity of the "Baron," who was a Canadian music-hall artist. Martigny was merely the front man. The mastermind behind this and a series of subsequent scams was Edward Lehwess, a German lawyer and serial con artist with a taste for fast cars and expensive champagne. After this initial fiasco, the London Electrobus Company struggled to raise funds. However, Lehwess had established a network of front companies to siphon off its resources. Chief among these was the Electric Vehicle Company of West Norwood, which built the buses. The company collapsed entirely in 1909. Nevertheless, the photo is in several archives, and the buses and their charging stations are documented in newspaper accounts from that time.

['funds']

True

A photo often shared on social media purportedly shows an electric bus driving into a "charging and power station" in the early 1900s.The picture shows an authentic bus charging station operated by the London Electrobus Company during that company's short existence between 1906 and 1909. A version of this photo appears in the Getty Images archives.As reported by The Economist in 2007, these charging stations were not plug-in stations as we know them today, but instead were facilities in which old batteries were swapped for fresh ones:An ad for the company indicated that they had two charging and power stations for electric buses located at 1 Earl Street and 45 Horseferry Road in London. Here is another close-up photo of one such "electrobus" from 1907:By several reports, the buses were a hit, thanks to their reduced noise and smoother ride. In debuting their first bus in 1906, the directors of the company said that they "confidently anticipate that the petrol omnibus, young as it is, will shortly be an obsolete vehicle, so far as urban traffic is concerned."It was not to be. The company was beset by allegations of fraud during its effort to go public on the London Stock Exchange in 1908. As described in The Economist, the company had been duped by a team of con artists:

No, Seattle Doesn't Refuse to Hose Poop from Sidewalks Because It's 'Racially Insensitive'

['A minor Seattle street-cleaning issue from mid-2017 was played up by partisan websites as if it were a major racial controversy.']

In July 2017, the Seattle Times reported that two judges in King County (Washington) Superior Court had expressed concerns to county officials about the preponderance of crime around the courthouse located at Third Avenue and James Street in Seattle: reported Two King County Superior Court judges are asking for help cleaning up the courthouse at Third Avenue and James Street after they say two jurors and half a dozen employees have been assaulted. The nearby blocks host most of the citys homeless-shelter beds and many of its social-service outlets, which draw those who need help and the people who prey on them. Thats nothing new, [Judge Jim] Rogers said. But, for whatever reasons, things have gotten worse over the past few years and jurors and potential jurors report being afraid to go to the courthouse, the judges said. The judges said they have started hearing from jurors who want to do their civic jury duty at the countys superior courthouse in Kent because they dont want to come to the downtown courthouse. [Judge Laura] Inveen told the [Metropolitan King County Councils committee on government accountability and oversight] about two incidents, one in late May and one in June, in which jurors were attacked in separate incidents outside the courthouses Third Avenue entrance. On other occasions, Inveen said, employees have been spat upon, slammed against a wall or punched. Although cleaning and patrolling the area immediately surrounding the courthouse would not address some of the deep-seated issues faced by denizens of the space, it would send a signal that somebody was paying attention, she said. She and Rogers asked the county to take immediate steps to clean up the courthouse with a daily power-wash of the surrounding sidewalks, which reek of urine and excrement. They also asked that the county empty trash cans more frequently, remove bus-stop benches, remove tents from the adjoining park and increase the presence of law enforcement not just to arrest people but to deter crime. Another suggestion was closing the Third Avenue entrance and reopening the one on Fourth. Although the Times article emphasized the need for reducing crime (and the fear of crime) around the courthouse as the primary problem, of which cleaning up human waste was just one element, many right-leaning websites focused on the sanitation aspect and one county councilmember's comments in particular. In the middle of the story, the Times quoted Councilmember Larry Gossett as saying that "he didnt like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists." That single line was plucked from its context and used as fodder for articles bearing headlines such as "Seattle Councilman: Cleaning Poop Off Sidewalks Is Racist" (The Daily Caller) and "Seattle Councilman Criticizes Plan to Hose Excrement Off Sidewalks Because It's Racially Insensitive" (The Blaze). And Turning Point USA reduced the whole issue to a single meme asserting that "the city of Seattle leaves poop on their sidewalks because hosing it off is 'racially insensitive': Larry Gossett The Daily Caller Of course, none of those right-leaning sources made clear that Gossett didn't actually use either the term "racist" or "racially insensitive," nor did any of them report as more moderate news outlets did the full context of Gossett's remarks, which was that he felt merely cleaning up waste would essentially be treating a symptom rather than addressing the larger underlying problem. Tacoma radio station KNKX, for example, observed that: observed There is, however, some push back to some of the clean up proposals. King County Councilman Larry Gossett says hes worried that power washing and increased security will affect the vulnerable population on the street. Most of the emphasis seems to be on safety for the jurors and courthouse staff and not enough attention being put to underlying problems that give rise to some of the disruptive activities of the lumpen proletariat out on the street, Gossett said. Likewise, the Seattle Times also included that missing context: Some committee members expressed concern about addressing the symptoms of the areas problems without getting to the cause. Councilmember Larry Gossett said he didnt like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists. The Turning Point USA meme was particularly factually egregious in that it fostered the mistaken impression that the issue of sidewalk-cleaning applied to the entirety of Seattle, when in fact the discussion was about the area around a single courthouse. And the meme also wrongly asserted that "Seattle leaves poop on its sidewalks," even though contemporaneous reporting made it clear that wasn't true, with the Seattle Times noting that "the countys administrative officer, Caroline Whalen, and the facilities manager assured committee members that a stepped-up schedule of power washing and garbage cleanup [around the courthouse] would begin immediately." The coup de grce was that the photograph used to illustrate The Blaze's article and Turning Point USA's meme did not picture a scene in Seattle, or Washington state, or anywhere else in the U.S., but rather ... Moscow: photograph Wissel, Paula. "King County Looks to Improve Safety for Jurors, Other Courthouse Visitors." KNKX. 11 July 2017. Randall, Amber. "Seattle Councilman: Cleaning Poop Off Sidewalks Is Racist." The Daily Caller. 12 July 2017. Clarridge, Christine. "Judges Complain Its Unsafe, Unsanitary Outside King County Courthouse in Seattle." The Seattle Times. 11 July 2017. Gonzales, Sara. "Seattle Councilman Criticizes Plan to Hose Excrement Off Sidewalks Because It's Racially Insensitive." The Blaze. 13 July 2017.

['accountability']

False

In July 2017, the Seattle Times reported that two judges in King County (Washington) Superior Court had expressed concerns to county officials about the preponderance of crime around the courthouse located at Third Avenue and James Street in Seattle:In the middle of the story, the Times quoted Councilmember Larry Gossett as saying that "he didnt like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists." That single line was plucked from its context and used as fodder for articles bearing headlines such as "Seattle Councilman: Cleaning Poop Off Sidewalks Is Racist" (The Daily Caller) and "Seattle Councilman Criticizes Plan to Hose Excrement Off Sidewalks Because It's Racially Insensitive" (The Blaze). And Turning Point USA reduced the whole issue to a single meme asserting that "the city of Seattle leaves poop on their sidewalks because hosing it off is 'racially insensitive':Of course, none of those right-leaning sources made clear that Gossett didn't actually use either the term "racist" or "racially insensitive," nor did any of them report as more moderate news outlets did the full context of Gossett's remarks, which was that he felt merely cleaning up waste would essentially be treating a symptom rather than addressing the larger underlying problem. Tacoma radio station KNKX, for example, observed that:The coup de grce was that the photograph used to illustrate The Blaze's article and Turning Point USA's meme did not picture a scene in Seattle, or Washington state, or anywhere else in the U.S., but rather ... Moscow:

Did Thomas Paine Write, 'The Duty of a True Patriot Is to Protect His Country from Its Government'?

['We recommend taking a few seconds to search Google for reliable sources before blindly sharing quote memes on social media.']

On September 14, 2022, a user on the Telegram social media platform shared a quote meme that claimed writer Thomas Paine once wrote, "The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government." This quote was also widely shared on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Truth Social. However, there is no evidence that Paine, who is perhaps most famous for his pamphlet titled "Common Sense," ever penned these words. The Thomas Paine National Historical Association published that the "true patriot" quote appears to have been derived from a sentence in Edward Abbey's book, "A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Vox Clamantis in Deserto): Notes from a Secret Journal." The quote appears in bold below: Chapter 3: Government and Politics. The distrust of wit is the beginning of tyranny. In history-as-politics, the "future" is that vacuum in time waiting to be filled with the antics of statesmen. No man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man is as good as the next, if not a damn sight better. A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. All forms of government are pernicious, including good government. Some of my ancestors fought in the American Revolution. A few wore red coats, a few wore blue coats, and the rest wore no coats at all. We never did figure out who won that war. Grown men do not need leaders. Democracy—rule by the people—sounds like a fine thing; we should try it sometime in America. The "true patriot" quote was wrongly attributed to Paine by at least two far-right Telegram accounts named Patriot Force and We the People Declare Freedom. The latter showed its purpose as centering around baseless conspiracy theories: "Go to this website and sign the petitions to take back our country and world from the DEEP STATE ACTORS." In addition to debunking the origins of the "true patriot" quote, the Paine association's website also shed light on four other quotes that they say did not originate with the author. When it comes to fake or misattributed quotes, we recommend doing a bit of research online to find out if the words and attribution are correct before deciding to click the share button. However, readers may have a difficult time researching quotes, as many websites that collect famous quotes do not ensure their words and authors are accurate. Unfortunately, such websites often appear at the top of Google search results. We recommend instead looking to online libraries, official institutions dedicated to preserving the legacies of famous people, books written prior to the birth of the modern internet, and other historical records. These sources are often more reliable than websites that do nothing other than collect quotes from famous people. 1776: Paine, Common Sense (Pamphlet) | Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pamphlet. Abbey, Edward. A Voice Crying in the Wilderness: Vox Clamantis in Deserto: Notes from a Secret Journal. Rosetta Books, 2015. Did Paine Write These Quotes? The Thomas Paine National Historical Association, https://thomaspaine.org/pages/resources/did-paine-write-these-quotes.html.

['share']

False

On Sept. 14, 2022, a user on the Telegram social media platform shared a quote meme that claimed writer Thomas Paine once wrote, "The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government." We also found that the quote had been widely shared on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Truth Social. However, there's no evidence that Paine, who was perhaps most famous for his pamphlet titled "Common Sense," ever penned these words.The Thomas Paine National Historical Association published that the "true patriot" quote appeared to have been spun out of a sentence in Edward Abbey's book, "A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Vox Clamantis in Deserto): Notes from a Secret Journal."The "true patriot" quote was wrongly attributed to Paine by at least two far-right Telegram accounts named Patriot Force and We the People Declare Freedom.In addition to debunking the origins of the "true patriot" quote, the Paine association's website also shed light on four other quotes that they say also did not originate with the author.

Does the IRS Send Unsolicited E-Mails About Tax Refunds?

['Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service make good phishing bait, for a number of reasons.']

Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make effective phishing bait for several reasons. A March 2006 mass phishing email took advantage of these points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that included the IRS logo, advised recipients that they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of $63.80 or $163.80), and invited them to click on a link that led to an IRS website form through which they could claim those refunds. The message read: "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." Of course, the links included in the messages did not actually direct users to the genuine IRS website; they redirected claimants to impostor IRS sites (hosted on servers in various countries) and instructed them to enter 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 unsolicited emails to taxpayers. When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, it sends 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. 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.

['credit']

False

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here

Minimum Rage

['']

FACT CHECK: Are minimum wage workers in Seattle asking for fewer hours in order to retain welfare benefits? Claim: Minimum wage workers in Seattle are asking for their hours to be cut so they can retain welfare benefits. WHAT'S KNOWN: Five full-time Seattle caregivers may have asked to adjust their hours in order to remain in subsidized housing. WHAT'S UNPROVEN: More than five to seven workers have deliberately reduced their working hours to retain subsidized housing; workers are spending fewer hours on the job to retain benefits other than subsidized housing; the Seattle minimum wage law has caused a reduction in overall hours worked by low-wage workers. Examples: [Collected via Twitter, June 2015] Workers Now Requesting To Work Fewer Hours In Order To Still Qualify For Welfare https://t.co/IzHMno6bJD #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/KiC53fO12c The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) July 25, 2015 In Seattle, which now has a $15 minimum wage, workers are now demanding fewer hours to remain eligible for welfare. Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) July 25, 2015 Hey #Fightfor15 if workers just want to get out of poverty, why are they asking for fewer hours to stay on WELFARE? https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015 This is just pathetic: Workers making $15 minimum wage in Seattle are asking for fewer hours just to stay on WELFARE: https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper (@SooperMexican) July 26, 2015 Origins: On July 22, 2015, Fox News published an article titled "Seattle Sees Fallout from $15 Minimum Wage, as Other Cities Follow Suit." Credited to correspondent Dan Springer, the article lamented what it claimed were "unintended consequences" resulting from a Seattle law raising the minimum wage there to $15 per hour. The Fox News article and video reported that "evidence is surfacing" to suggest Seattle workers have begun to work less in order to claim a higher hourly wage while still qualifying for government assistance: Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise in a bid to keep overall income down so they don't lose public subsidies for things like food, child care, and rent. Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less. "If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn't actually help get them out of poverty, all you've done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people," said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM. However, if Springer found "evidence" of such a trend, he did not include it in his July 22, 2015 article. While Springer pointed to a Seattle home nursing nonprofit (Full Life Care), he only vaguely referenced a statement an unidentified individual there made to a third party, then quoted an opinion provided by a local radio host who speculated upon what might happen if workers opted to cut their hours based on a higher minimum wage in order to retain government assistance. Lacking from this narrative was any actual evidence that such claims were rooted in any measurable labor trend in Seattle. It appears Springer's entire premise was lifted from an June 8, 2015 report by television station KIRO, which provided additional context that painted the claim in a slightly different light: Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority. Gibson told KIRO she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle's phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents. For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organization's 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer's patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. In that same article, Full Life Care's executive director explicitly stated that the issue was not one of worker laziness or an intent by employees to "game the system" for additional "welfare benefits," but rather one of necessity due to Seattle's exceptionally high market rate for private housing: "This has nothing to do with people's willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to create a stable, successful life," Gibson said. Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours. "The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge," she said. While two other Seattle residents spoke to KIRO about the specter of being shut out of subsidized housing by earning a slightly higher wage, a Seattle city council member told the outlet that the accounts did not reflect any measurable trend of which he was aware: Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn't heard of purposeful reduction of hours before. "We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal," Licata said. Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing. "We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then a decrease in living conditions on another," Licata said. "We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem." What has been reported is that several full-time workers at a single Seattle nonprofit may have expressed a desire to adjust their hours to retain subsidized housing, but more evidence of workers requesting fewer hours on the job after the minimum wage increase hasn't turned up yet. Moreover, the source originally quoted about the issue stated that workers earning the higher hourly rate would likely be unable to afford private housing in Seattle due to market conditions, but they were not seeking other welfare benefits nor unwilling to work. Last updated: July 28, 2015 Originally published: July 28, 2015

['income']

False

Workers Now Requesting To Work Less Hours In Order To Still Qualify For Welfare https://t.co/IzHMno6bJD #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/KiC53fO12c The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) July 25, 2015 Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) July 25, 2015<!--Hey #Fightfor15 if workers just want to get out of poverty, why are they asking for fewer hours to stay on WELFARE? https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015This is just pathetic: Workers making $15 min wage in Seattle are asking for fewer hours just to stay on WELFARE: https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper (@SooperMexican) July 26, 2015--> Hey #Fightfor15 if workers just want to get out of poverty, why are they asking for fewer hours to stay on WELFARE? https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015This is just pathetic: Workers making $15 min wage in Seattle are asking for fewer hours just to stay on WELFARE: https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper (@SooperMexican) July 26, 2015Origins: On 22 July 2015, Fox News published an article titled "Seattle Sees Fallout from $15 Minimum Wage, as Other Cities Follow Suit." Credited to correspondent Dan Springer (who also recently reported that Oregon was providing 15-year-olds with sex change surgeries), the article lamented what it claimed were "unintended consequences" resulting from a Seattle law raising the minimum wage there to $15 per hour.Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com However, if Springer found "evidence" of such a trend, he did not include it in his 22 July 2015 article (claims from which have since been aggregated to multiple web sites). While Springer pointed to a Seattle home nursing nonprofit (Full Life Care), he only vaguely referenced a statement an unidentified individual there made to a third party, then quoted an opinion provided by a local radio host who speculated upon what might happen if workers opted to cut their hours based on a higher minimum wage in order to retain government assistance. Lacking from this narrative was any actual evidence that such claims were rooted in any measurable labor trend in Seattle.It appears Springer's entire premise was lifted from an 8 June 2015 report by television station KIRO which provided additional context that painted the claim in a slightly different light:

Congress Removes Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction, and EITC from Tax Code

['Has Congress eliminated the child tax credit, earned income tax credit (EITC) and mortgage deductions due to the influence of Koch Industries?']

Claim: Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers. Example: [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C Origins: On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans. article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve. The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal. If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site. Last updated: 13 November 2014 <

['credit']

False

Origins: On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6."

Every Republican nominee since Richard Nixon, who at one time was under an audit, has released their tax returns.

[]

It seems every political reporter is asking: Where are Donald Trump's tax returns? The presumptive Republican nominee for president has refused to release his tax returns thus far, citing an IRS audit. Presidential candidates are not required to release tax returns, but the information helps the public vet candidates' finances, revealing details such as charitable giving, investments, and the tax rate they pay. The IRS has recently stated that an audit does not prevent a person from releasing their own tax information. On the Democratic side of the race, Sen. Bernie Sanders has released his 2014 returns, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released annual returns going back to 2000. In a May 15 interview with Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace noted that it has become customary over the past several decades for presidential candidates to release their tax returns. "He says that he's not going to release them until an IRS audit is complete," Wallace said, speaking of Trump. When asked this week what his effective tax rate is, Trump replied, "It's none of your business." Wallace pointed out that every Republican nominee since Richard Nixon, who at one time was under an audit, has released their tax returns. Noting that it was not good that Mitt Romney stalled on releasing his tax returns in the 2012 race, Priebus said, "I'm not sure whether Americans actually care or not whether Donald Trump releases his taxes or not." We have looked into the history of candidate tax returns before, but we haven't dug into the story of former President Richard Nixon's audit, so we thought we should put Wallace's claim on the Truth-O-Meter. The Tax History Project has compiled the tax returns of many current and former candidates and presidents, all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt's 1913 returns. Each Republican nominee in the past nine presidential elections has released his tax returns: Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), George H. W. Bush (1988, 1992), Bob Dole (1996), George W. Bush (2000, 2004), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012). That leaves one nominee since Nixon, Nixon's vice president, Gerald Ford. Ford assumed the role of president after Nixon resigned in 1974 amid the Watergate scandal. Ford ran for re-election as the Republican nominee in 1976, ultimately losing to Democrat Jimmy Carter. Ford never released his full tax returns; he released summary data about his returns from 1966 through 1974. The summary data includes his total income and the total tax he paid but not an itemized breakdown. Back to Nixon. Nixon did not release his tax returns in 1968 or 1972. The IRS audited Nixon in 1973 when questions arose about a questionable charitable donation and speculation that Nixon had tried to manipulate the tax system, according to a paper prepared for the United States Capitol Historical Society. (This happened around the same time as the Watergate investigation but was a separate issue.) Nixon famously stated amid this scandal: "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook." Nixon eventually released a slew of financial information to the public in December 1973, including the previous four years of tax returns, to try to quell the criticism. He also asked a congressional committee to examine them. However, the congressional investigation ultimately found that Nixon owed $476,431 (approximately $2.3 million in today's dollars) in unpaid taxes and accrued interest. We asked Joe Thorndike, director of the Tax History Project, if the IRS has audited any presidents or presidential candidates since Nixon. He said he doesn't know, and it would be impossible to know unless the auditee volunteered that information because the IRS can't confirm or deny anything about a particular taxpayer. Thorndike added, though, that he thinks it's likely the IRS has audited candidates and presidents in recent years. Our lack of knowledge about presidential and candidate audits is one reason why it's important for public officials to release their tax returns publicly, he said. "Disclosure is the only way voters can be sure that these returns are getting adequate scrutiny." Our ruling: Wallace said, "Every Republican nominee since Richard Nixon, who at one time was under an audit, has released their tax returns." The IRS did audit Nixon, and he did release his tax returns, but he released them after he won re-election. His successor, Ford, released a tax summary spanning several years but never his full returns. That being said, every Republican nominee since then—six nominees over nine elections—has disclosed their tax returns. Wallace's recounting of history is a little off, though the essence of his point is correct: The Republican nominees have released their tax returns in the last nine presidential cycles. We rate this claim Mostly True.

['History', 'Taxes', 'PunditFact']

True

The presumptive Republican nominee for president has refused to release his tax returns thus far,citing an IRS audit. Presidential candidates are not required to release tax returns, but the informationhelps the public veta candidates finances, revealing information such as charitable giving, investments and the tax rate he pays.The IRS has saidrecently that an audit does not bar a person from releasing their own tax information.In aMay 15 interviewwith Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus,Fox News Sundayhost Chris Wallace noted that its become customary over the past several decades for presidential candidates to release their tax returns.Weve looked into thehistoryofcandidatetax returnsbefore. But we havent dug into the story of former President Richard Nixons audit, so we thought we should put Wallaces claim on the Truth-O-Meter.TheTax History Projecthas compiled the tax returns of many current and former candidates and presidents, all the way back to Franklin Roosevelts 1913 returns.Each Republican nominee in the past nine presidential elections has released his tax returns: Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), George H. W. Bush (1988, 1992),Bob Dole(1996), George W. Bush (2000, 2004), John McCain (2008) and Mitt Romney (2012).Ford never released his full tax returns. He released summary data about his returns from1966 through 1974. The summary data includes his total income and the total tax he paid but not an itemized breakdown.The IRSaudited Nixonin 1973, when questions bubbled up about a fishy charitable donation and speculation that Nixon had tried to game the tax system, according to a paper prepared for theUnited States Capitol Historical Society. (This happened around the same time as the Watergate investigation but was a separate issue.)Nixon said one of hismost well-known linesamid this scandal: People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.We askedJoe Thorndike, director of the Tax History Project, if the IRS has audited any presidents or presidential candidates since Nixon. He said he doesnt know and it would be impossible to know unless the auditee volunteered that information because the IRS cant confirm or deny anything about a particular taxpayer.

Whataburger Closing Its Doors?

['A "prank" Facebook post fooled many into thinking the restaurant chain was closing down.']

A prank Facebook post that appeared to link to an article reporting that the restaurant chain Whataburger was closing its doors surfaced in June 2017. However, clicking on the link takes you to a fake news story about the restaurant chain's faux announcement on the prank website Channel22news.com. The Texas-based food chain is shutting its doors effective April 26 due to numerous reports of food poisoning, with high concentrations of salmonella found in meat served in the DFW area during the month of April. Anyone who has eaten at Whataburger should be tested for salmonella poisoning, as symptoms can appear as many as three weeks later. Doctors urge all individuals who have eaten at these restaurants, especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, to seek medical attention immediately if they have dined there more than once in the past few weeks. The more frequently you have eaten there, the higher the likelihood of an infection occurring. Lawsuits have already been filed, and Whataburger has decided to shut its doors due to the litigation and payouts it expects to incur. Filing for bankruptcy in a downtown Austin courthouse, Whataburger spokesman Jeff Smith stated, "We have taken the advice of our counsel and filed Chapter 7; we have shut our doors." It is unclear what the future holds for the Texas-based chain. One thing is for certain: Allyson Heffernan is sure to be disappointed! Channel22News is clearly labeled with various disclaimers and carries a "you got owned" meme in its header: "We do NOT support FAKE NEWS!!! This is a prank website that is intended for fun. Bullying, violent threats, or posts that violate public order are NOT permitted on this website." Channel22News, as well as other sites of its ilk, allows users to generate their own fake news stories. These stories are then packaged into social media posts that resemble genuine news items. Because many people share links on social media without actually reading the stories, these "pranks" frequently reach large audiences. In response to the prank, Whataburger created a Facebook post of their own: "An article is being circulated stating that Whataburger will be closing all stores. This article is a hoax, and we aren't going anywhere." Dewey, Caitlin. "6 in 10 of You Will Share This Link Without Reading it, a New, Depressing Study Says." Washington Post. 16 June 2016.

['share']

False

However, clicking on the link takes you to a fake news story about the restaurant chain's faux announcement on the prank web site Channel22news.com:Channel22News, as well as other sites of its ilk, allow users to generate their own fake news stories. These stories are then packaged into social media posts that resemble genuine news items. Because many people share links on social media without actually reading the stories, these "pranks" frequently reach large audiences. In response to the prank, Whataburger created a Facebook post of their own:

The Armani jacket owned by Hillary Clinton that cost $12,000.

['Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton during her New York primary acceptance speech included some inaccurate details.']

In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles reporting that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The underlying implication was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clinton's designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades. Clinton's New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation, and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not; she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton had made in the past. As First Lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As a New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors—so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, who has become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: It's a marked shift from Clinton's 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clinton's fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say it's an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that she's in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman—and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline: It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on June 8, 2016, the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the website Fashionista, in turn, said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower-priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress and shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit just the right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clinton's New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation, and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact, neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: Now, we all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans haven't yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, there's nothing wrong with America that can't be cured by what's right with America. That is, after all, what we've always done. It's who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle-class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Let's revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And let's put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Let's combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Let's take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, let's guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158. Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190.

['interest']

NEI

It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price.It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices:A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances:The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested:After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158. Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190

The disparity in income between males and females in Texas remains at 18%, as women earn only 82% of what men make.

[]

Texas women are paid less than men, Wendy Davis stresses. In a March 10, 2014, tweet, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee pointed out that her Republican opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, passed up a chance to say whether he would have vetoed a Davis-sponsored measure related to ensuring equal pay for Texas women that did not make it into law. Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, wrote: "While @GregAbbott_TX dodges questions on the Texas Equal Pay Act, women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in Texas." We'll leave it to Abbott and Davis to debate the 2013 measure vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry. But we wondered: Are Texas women still paid 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man? We found that pay gaps persist, though comparisons can be tricky. In August 2013, we rated as Mostly False a related Davis claim: Texas women make an average of $8,355 less per year than men doing the very same job. That's not necessarily correct for individuals doing the same job. In 2010, $8,355 was the general gap between median salaries of full-time working Texas men and women, according to federal estimates, and the 2012 gap was nearly $500 less than that. Significantly, the research cited by Davis did not drill down to salaries for men and women doing the same jobs. In contrast, 2013 survey results indicated a $2,000 gap between the median pay for Texas men and women with comparable professional experiences holding the same or similar jobs. But Davis's recent 82 cents claim wasn't specific to people doing the same jobs. Responding to our request for backup information, Davis spokeswoman Rebecca Acuña pointed us to an April 2013 fact sheet from the National Partnership for Women & Families, an advocacy group for workplace fairness and other issues. The sheet states: "In Texas, on average, a woman who holds a full-time job is paid $35,301 per year while a man who holds a full-time job is paid $43,160 per year. This means that women in Texas are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, amounting to a yearly gap of $7,859 between men and women who work full time in the state." That statement is footnoted to the one-year American Community Survey undertaken in 2011 by the U.S. Census Bureau and a bureau chart indicating median earnings in the past 12 months by sex and work experience for residents 16 and older. These aligned with the partnership's fact sheet. Kliner pointed out, too, that comparable results based on the 2012 ACS were posted online by the bureau in September 2013. The 2012 estimates indicate that median earnings for Texas men who worked full time year-round in the past 12 months were $44,802; for Texas women meeting these criteria, median earnings were $35,453—or 79 cents for every dollar earned by men who worked full time. Because Davis said women still earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, we calculated the comparable figure for previous years, according to the bureau's surveys. We found the comparable figure to be 80 cents in 2006, 2009, and 2010; 79 cents in 2007; and 78 cents in 2008. Separately, we downloaded a bureau chart showing slightly different estimated median earnings for full-time male and female civilian workers in Texas based on the bureau's 2012 survey. The resulting chart indicated a median wage for full-time working men of $45,166 and $35,518 for women. By this metric, we calculated that civilian full-time female workers in Texas earned an estimated 79 cents for each dollar earned by full-time male workers. In 2011, a bureau chart suggests that the comparable figure was 81 cents. Kliner told us the partnership relies on bureau estimates not limited to civilian workers because it believes that delivers a more complete view of the workforce. It is also the chart that has been used historically, so it allows for comparisons over time, she wrote. The latest available estimate is that Texas women working full time earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by such men in 2012. That was a penny better than in one of the previous six years, the same or a penny less than the result in four of the years, and three cents less than the 82 cents estimated for 2011 and relied upon by Davis. Experts we queried agreed with our math while offering caveats. By email, Lloyd Potter, the state demographer, pointed out that any focus on earnings for full-time workers leaves out part-time workers. Women, he wrote, are more likely to be employed part-time. Still, Potter said, if we just looked at part-time workers, again, you'd probably find women earn less. In our 2013 fact check, we noted there's a range of how many hours full-time workers log, and men are more likely than women to be on the job for 41 hours or more per week, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Because more men work overtime, that should translate into higher earnings for them—either because they are paid more or because their longer hours lead to more job success—and contribute to the wage gap. Though more nuanced analysis shows that job differences explain much of the pay gap, experts agree that much of it still cannot be accounted for. That's where sexism comes in, some say. Finally, Potter said, the differential quoted probably is not adjusted for educational attainment or work experience. If it were, we'd probably find the differential would shrink (toward equality) as women tend to have less work experience than men, though educational attainment is fairly comparable among adults across sex. Austin economist Stuart Greenfield similarly said by email: "In the aggregate, Sen. Davis's statement is absolutely, positively correct," though he noted that when one controls for work experience, education, and other factors, the earnings differential is reduced. Greenfield also pointed out a Dec. 2, 2013, Bureau of Labor Statistics press release summarizing median-pay changes among full-time workers over the years: In Texas, the ratio of women's to men's earnings trended upward from 1997 to 2004. It then fluctuated from 2005 to 2009 before climbing to a series high of 85.6 percent in 2010. However, in the last two years, the Texas women's to men's earnings ratio has declined by 6.0 percentage points to its lowest level since 2001. According to the 2012 survey results, Texas women fared better compared to men in their state than women in 24 states. Arizona placed first; women working full time earned 87 cents for every dollar earned by men. For more than a decade, the graph indicates, Texas women fared better than their male counterparts in the state compared to women versus men in the nation as a whole, though conditions dipped in Texas compared to the nation in 2011 and 2012. Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, which focuses on programs serving low-income Texans, said of the 79-cent pay difference estimate suggested by the 2012 survey: "This is how the wage gap is usually calculated. If you expand who you're looking at to include all employed individuals (whether or not they work full-time or year-round), women earn 71 cents for every dollar that a man earns," Lee said by email. Lee reminded us of a February 2007 paper by Cornell University labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, "The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone Far Enough?" The paper states that 53 percent of the gender wage gap stems from variation in job, industry, and union status between the genders. According to the paper, major reasons for such wage gaps include: Occupational and industry category (49% of the reason). Lee said that many women are concentrated in particular occupations. Occupations that are heavily female, such as health care support or personal care and service occupations, tend to pay low wages, she said. For example, home health aides in Texas, who are largely female, earn on average $17,430 per year, Lee said, while women also represent 63% of workers earning minimum wage or less in Texas. When you break down earnings data by occupation, she said, this gap persists in almost all occupations. Labor Force Experience (10.5%). A portion of the gap is explained by factors related to work experience, such as interruptions in work for child care, Lee said. Unexplained (41%). Lee said a large portion of the gap is unexplained by women's choices. This could be because of conscious or unconscious biases (research shows this is particularly acute against mothers), Lee wrote, while other research shows that different attitudes around wage negotiations may contribute to the gender wage gap. Lee added: "A lot of people see occupational choices and time off from work as women's choices. And while this is true, I think it's important to realize that the choices we make are heavily influenced by the environment in which we make choices, the choices that are available, and how those choices are presented. So while it's true that more women work in low-wage jobs, there may be reasons why women don't choose to work in some higher-wage occupations. Similarly, mothers may choose to take time off work to care for young children, but perhaps they wouldn't if child care were more available or affordable." Davis said that Texas women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in the state. Her figure, based on a 2011 federal survey, reflects median earnings for adults who worked full time in the past 12 months, leaving out part-time workers. It's also outdated in that, according to the latest available survey taken in 2012, Texas women earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by men (again working full time in the past 12 months), less than what Davis said. We rate this claim as Mostly True.

['Economy', 'Women', 'Workers', 'Texas']

True

In a March 10, 2014,tweet, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee pointed out that her Republican opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, passed up a chance to say whether he would have vetoed a Davis-sponsored measure related to ensuring equal pay for Texas women that didnt make it into law.Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, wrote: While@GregAbbott_TXdodges questions on the Texas Equal Pay Act, women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in Texas.In August 2013, werated as Mostly Falsea related Davis claim: Texas women make an average of $8,355 less per year than men doing the very same job.Responding to our request for back-up information, Davis spokeswoman Rebecca Acua pointed us to an April 2013fact sheetfrom the National Partnership for Women & Families, an advocacy group for workplace fairness and other issues.That statement is footnoted to the one-year American Community Survey undertaken in 2011 by the U.S Census Bureau and abureau chartindicating median earnings in the past 12 months by sex by work experience for residents 16 and older. These aligned with the partnerships fact sheet.Kliner pointed out, too, that comparable results based on the2012 ACSwere posted online by the bureau in September 2013. The 2012 estimates indicate that median earnings for Texas men who worked full time year-round in the past 12 months were $44,802; for Texas women meeting these criteria, median earnings were $35,453 or 79 cents for every dollar earned by men who worked full time.Because Davis said women still earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, we calculated the comparable figure for previous years, according to the bureaus surveys. We found the comparable figure to be 80 cents in2006,2009and2010, 79 cents in2007and 78 cents in2008.Separately, we downloaded a bureau chart showing slightly different estimated median earnings for full-time male and female civilian workers in Texas based on the bureaus 2012 survey. Theresulting chartindicated a median wage for full-time working men of--$45,166 for men, $35,518 for women. By this metric, we calculated, civilian full-time female workers in Texas earned an estimated 79 cents for each dollar earned by full-time male workers. In 2011, a bureauchartsuggests, the comparable figure was 81 cents.In our 2013 fact check, we noted theres a range of how many hours full-time workers log, and men are more likely than women to be on the job for 41 hours or more per week, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. Because more men work overtime,that should translate into higher earnings for them -- because they are paid more, or because their longer hours lead to more job success -- and contribute to the wage gap. Though more nuanced analysis shows that job differences explain much of the pay gap, experts agree that much of it still cannot be accounted for. Thats where sexism comes in, some say.Greenfield also pointed out a Dec. 2, 2013, Bureau of Labor Statisticspress releasesummarizing median-pay changes among full-time workers over the years: In Texas, the ratio of womens to mens earnings trended upward from 1997 to 2004. It then fluctuated from 2005 to 2009 before climbing to a series high of 85.6 percent in 2010. However, in the last two years the Texas womens to mens earnings ratio has declined 6.0 percentage points to its lowest level since 2001.According to the 2012 survey results, Texas women fared better compared to men in their state than women in 24 states. Arizona placed first; women working full time earned 87 cents for every dollar earned by men.(For more than a decade, the graph indicates, Texas women fared better than their male counterparts in the state compared to women versus men in the nation as a whole, though conditions dipped in Texas compared to the nation in 2011 and 2012. We asked Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to speak to why this was so. See herreply here.)Lee reminded us of a February 2007 paper by Cornell University labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn,The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone Far Enough?The paper states that 53 percent of the gender wage gap stems from variation in job, industry and union status between the genders.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Did Disney Release This 'Hocus Pocus 2' Movie Poster?

['Interest in a Disney sequel to the 1993 comedy horror film "Hocus Pocus" remained strong in 2015.']

officially announced announcement On Aug. 2, 2015, the Facebook page "Tough cookie parenting" shared a seeming movie poster image in a post reporting that a sequel to the popular 1993 Disney comedy horror film "Hocus Pocus" was in the works: shared movie poster image Social media response to the "Hocus Pocus 2" rumor was unusually strong, and the image was shared several hundred thousands of times in just 24 hours. While not initially considered a massive success, "Hocus Pocus" eventually reached the status of cult classic, and Facebook users were clearly excited about the prospect of developments in the production of "Hocus Pocus 2" (a project that has inspired years of rumors). cult classic years However, the Facebook page responsible for the spread of revived "Hocus Pocus 2" rumors published a subsequent Facebook comment admitting that the claim was not based on any new, credible, or substantiated developments: "I'm not for sure, but there's talk. They have a Facebook page... but ya know... man, I hope it's real ..." admitting Moreover, the user didn't provide a link for the Facebook page she referenced (nor any other information to indicate the rumor was based on any new information). Some users linked to a July 2, 2014, IMDb post (that appeared to be user-submitted) titled "Updated: Hocus Pocus 2: Rise of the Elderwitch Official," which claimed: post Well then. We cannot say that we saw this one coming. The Tracking Board is reporting that a sequel to the Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy comedic witch flick from 1993, Hocus Pocus, is officially on its way. Read on for the first details. The original cast is not likely to be coming back. Allison Shearmur Productions has signed to produce Hocus Pocus 2: Rise of the Elderwitch. Tendo Nagenda and Jessica Virtue are executive producing at Disney. That rumor (which maintained that none of the original cast members would return for the purported sequel) was swiftly debunked in a July 2, 2014, Deadline article titled "Disney Developing Witch Pic with Tina Fey But It's Not Hocus Pocus 2'": article Hocus shmocus: Disney is in early development with Tina Fey on a supernatural-themed feature, but a knowledgeable source tells me its not the Hocus Pocus sequel thats being wrongly buzzed about all over town. The film, currently known as Untitled Witch Project, will be produced by Fey and Cinderella producer Allison Shearmur in whats described as falling in the vein of Ghostbusters, with 30 Rock Golden Globe winner Fey also attached to star. Sorry to break it to fans of the 1993 Bette Midler horror-comedy: No Hocus Pocus 2 project is currently in the works at the Mouse House yet. Stay tuned to see if the nostalgic wave of online buzz conjures a return for the Sanderson Sisters. In November 2014, "Hocus Pocus" star Bette Midler fielded multiple questions about the possibility of "Hocus Pocus 2" during a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything). Midler herself expressed both willingness and a strong interest on her part (as well as that of co-stars Kathy Najimy and Sarah Jessica Parker), but definitively stated that Disney had thus far not reciprocated it. Reddit AMA Questions about "Hocus Pocus 2" were so numerous that Midler edited her original post to disseminate the following message to eager fans: Update: Inundate the Disney company, because I have canvassed the girls and they are wiling [sic] to do it, but we have no say in it, so if you want a HOCUS POCUS 2, ask the Walt Disney company. You have been SO adorable. This has been most enlightening. SISTAHS! So while interest in a "Hocus Pocus" sequel remains strong, as of 2015 "Hocus Pocus 2" was not in production. Update: On Dec. 12, 2020, Snopes staff updated this story after Disney officially announced a sequel to "Hocus Pocus." The claim for this story was altered to more specifically focus on the fake movie poster.

['interest']

False

On Aug. 2, 2015, the Facebook page "Tough cookie parenting" shared a seeming movie poster image in a post reporting that a sequel to the popular 1993 Disney comedy horror film "Hocus Pocus" was in the works:While not initially considered a massive success, "Hocus Pocus" eventually reached the status of cult classic, and Facebook users were clearly excited about the prospect of developments in the production of "Hocus Pocus 2" (a project that has inspired years of rumors).However, the Facebook page responsible for the spread of revived "Hocus Pocus 2" rumors published a subsequent Facebook comment admitting that the claim was not based on any new, credible, or substantiated developments: "I'm not for sure, but there's talk. They have a Facebook page... but ya know... man, I hope it's real ..."Moreover, the user didn't provide a link for the Facebook page she referenced (nor any other information to indicate the rumor was based on any new information). Some users linked to a July 2, 2014, IMDb post (that appeared to be user-submitted) titled "Updated: Hocus Pocus 2: Rise of the Elderwitch Official," which claimed:That rumor (which maintained that none of the original cast members would return for the purported sequel) was swiftly debunked in a July 2, 2014, Deadline article titled "Disney Developing Witch Pic with Tina Fey But It's Not Hocus Pocus 2'":In November 2014, "Hocus Pocus" star Bette Midler fielded multiple questions about the possibility of "Hocus Pocus 2" during a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything). Midler herself expressed both willingness and a strong interest on her part (as well as that of co-stars Kathy Najimy and Sarah Jessica Parker), but definitively stated that Disney had thus far not reciprocated it.

Did you know Wisconsin's AFSCME union has lost 50%+ of its members since no longer requiring membership?

[]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall vote this month, prompting pundits to weigh in on what that means for public sector unions that had campaigned aggressively for his ouster. Remember, Walker is the Republican governor who pushed through a number of changes unfriendly to organized labor in the Badger State, including an end to automatic union dues deductions from public paychecks.Here in the Beaver State,Steve Bucksteinof theCascade Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes limited government,tweeted: Did you know Wisconsin's AFSCME union has lost 50%+ of its members since no longer requiring membership? The tweet links to a June 14 online post by Buckstein called End Forced Unionism Now, where he quotes from an opinion column by syndicated writerCharles Krauthammer, also published in The Oregonian:Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.The question is a simple one: Did membership in Wisconsins American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees drop by 50 percent since dues became optional?Heres a quick reminder of what happened in Wisconsin: In March 2011, Walker signed a bill that drastically changed bargaining rights for some but not all state, local and school employees. As pointed out by Krauthammer, dues are no longer taken out of paychecks automatically, curtailing the unions money base.According to PolitiFact Wisconsin, the law limits the ability of public unions to bargain collectively for anything except raises controlled for inflation. It ended bargaining over benefits, overtime and work conditions. Unions have to recertify every year with fresh votes. And he increased employee contributions for pensions and health care.We asked Buckstein for his sourcing; he said he relied on the Krauthammer column. Krauthammer cites no source for the information, but a quick check online shows a May 30 news article in the Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Unions See Ranks Drop Ahead of Recall Vote.The reporters write that membership in the states second-largest public-sector union fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME's figures. That is indeed more than half its membership. Another story in the Wall Street Journal a few days later puts the drop at 45 percent.The union disputed the figures then, and disputes them now to PolitiFact Oregon. However, Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, declined to give updated figures, saying that even people on the inside dont have an accurate count. Certainly numbers are down, they say. (A spokesman for Walker said the state does not have figures. )But what the union really objects to is the underlying premise in the syndicated column, and by association, Bucksteins post: That premise is that union membership numbers dropped dramatically because people were given a choice between joining a union or not joining a union.According to the original Wall Street Journal news article, some members didnt re-up because of the financial pinch of health care and pension costs. Bargaining was so curtailed that anotherfact check by PolitiFact Wisconsinfound four experts who agreed the law could mean the end of some public unions in Wisconsin.Buckstein acknowledges that numbers probably went down more in Wisconsin because of the changes as a whole. But he stands by the idea that more members may opt out when deductions become optional.Oregon is a great example, he says. A check with the Department of Administrative Services finds that 24 percent of the more than 24,000 people eligible to be represented by the states two biggest state government unions pay a share in lieu of member dues. In other words, they pay in, but are not members. The fair-share option may not be available to all employees, and depends on the terms of the bargaining contract. In either case, the money is deducted automatically from workers paychecks.People on various sides of the political spectrum have their own theories about why there was a decrease in Wisconsin: higher premiums, limited bargaining subjects, complicated recertification votes, optional dues, all or some, or none of the above. We cant rule on reason.What we can rule on is that membership has gone down about 50 percent, according to news reports, since Walker implemented his changes. That decrease may or may not hold when numbers finally shake out. The tweet is accurate, but needs additional information.We rule the statement Mostly True.

['Oregon', 'Elections', 'State Budget', 'Unions']

True

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall vote this month, prompting pundits to weigh in on what that means for public sector unions that had campaigned aggressively for his ouster. Remember, Walker is the Republican governor who pushed through a number of changes unfriendly to organized labor in the Badger State, including an end to automatic union dues deductions from public paychecks.Here in the Beaver State,Steve Bucksteinof theCascade Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes limited government,tweeted: Did you know Wisconsin's AFSCME union has lost 50%+ of its members since no longer requiring membership? The tweet links to a June 14 online post by Buckstein called End Forced Unionism Now, where he quotes from an opinion column by syndicated writerCharles Krauthammer, also published in The Oregonian:Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.The question is a simple one: Did membership in Wisconsins American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees drop by 50 percent since dues became optional?Heres a quick reminder of what happened in Wisconsin: In March 2011, Walker signed a bill that drastically changed bargaining rights for some but not all state, local and school employees. As pointed out by Krauthammer, dues are no longer taken out of paychecks automatically, curtailing the unions money base.According to PolitiFact Wisconsin, the law limits the ability of public unions to bargain collectively for anything except raises controlled for inflation. It ended bargaining over benefits, overtime and work conditions. Unions have to recertify every year with fresh votes. And he increased employee contributions for pensions and health care.We asked Buckstein for his sourcing; he said he relied on the Krauthammer column. Krauthammer cites no source for the information, but a quick check online shows a May 30 news article in the Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Unions See Ranks Drop Ahead of Recall Vote.The reporters write that membership in the states second-largest public-sector union fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME's figures. That is indeed more than half its membership. Another story in the Wall Street Journal a few days later puts the drop at 45 percent.The union disputed the figures then, and disputes them now to PolitiFact Oregon. However, Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, declined to give updated figures, saying that even people on the inside dont have an accurate count. Certainly numbers are down, they say. (A spokesman for Walker said the state does not have figures.)But what the union really objects to is the underlying premise in the syndicated column, and by association, Bucksteins post: That premise is that union membership numbers dropped dramatically because people were given a choice between joining a union or not joining a union.According to the original Wall Street Journal news article, some members didnt re-up because of the financial pinch of health care and pension costs. Bargaining was so curtailed that anotherfact check by PolitiFact Wisconsinfound four experts who agreed the law could mean the end of some public unions in Wisconsin.Buckstein acknowledges that numbers probably went down more in Wisconsin because of the changes as a whole. But he stands by the idea that more members may opt out when deductions become optional.Oregon is a great example, he says. A check with the Department of Administrative Services finds that 24 percent of the more than 24,000 people eligible to be represented by the states two biggest state government unions pay a share in lieu of member dues. In other words, they pay in, but are not members. The fair-share option may not be available to all employees, and depends on the terms of the bargaining contract. In either case, the money is deducted automatically from workers paychecks.People on various sides of the political spectrum have their own theories about why there was a decrease in Wisconsin: higher premiums, limited bargaining subjects, complicated recertification votes, optional dues, all or some, or none of the above. We cant rule on reason.What we can rule on is that membership has gone down about 50 percent, according to news reports, since Walker implemented his changes. That decrease may or may not hold when numbers finally shake out. The tweet is accurate, but needs additional information.We rule the statement Mostly True.

Did Paul Ryan Say Women Who Use Birth Control Are Committing Murder?

['A statement supposedly made by House speaker Paul Ryan on CNN in which he asserted that women who use birth control are committing murder originated with a "hybrid" satire site.']

On 3 March 2017, the website USPOLN published an article that contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books." This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016. During this exchange, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) refused to say if some women would lose access to birth control benefits after Republicans repealed

['economy']

False

On 3 March 2017, the web site USPOLN published an article which contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books": This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016:USPOLN bills itself as a "hybrid" site that publishes a mixture of "satire" and real news, but unlike other hybrid sites such as Newslo, which allow users to click a button revealing which portions of articles are true and which are not, USPOLN provides readers with no mechanism for distinguishing between fact and fabrication. If they did, the introductory paragraph would have been highlighted as "true" while the remainder of the article would have been marked as "satire."

Did Kurt Cobain Write That Pennyroyal Herb Was an Abortive That 'Doesn't Work'?

["Pennyroyal tea was a song on Nirvana's 1993 album In Utero."]

When Nirvana released its song Pennyroyal Tea'' in 1993, lead singer Kurt Cobain said it was about depression, though his notes mentioned how pennyroyal was considered to be an abortifacent. said His notes gained prominence online in June 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court voted to strike down Roe v. Wade via its decision on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reversing federal abortion protections that had been in place for nearly 50 years. U.S. Supreme Court The internet immediately began speculating on what this meant for people seeking abortions in the country, and whether this would result in many seeking more dangerous methods in order to carry them out. Some referenced the purported uses of the pennyroyal herb: dangerous Pages and pages of Cobains original writings and scribbles were collected in the book Journals, which included diary entries, lyrics, and his musings on various songs he was working on. Under the underlined heading Pennyroyal tea he wrote, [A] herbal abortive it doesnt work you hippie. Journals Journals Cobain is not entirely wrong. Pennyroyal was considered to be an abortifacent, in that it was used to induce abortions, but it was highly dangerous and far removed from our modern scientific methods for carrying out abortions. Pennyroyal Even Benjamin Franklins publishing company included an abortion recipe that featured pennyroyal in its adaptation of a British manual for the colonies in 1748. In an entry about Suppression of the Courses, the manual advises women to drink a Quarter of a Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction. Benjamin Franklins According to the article, Persephones Seeds: Abortifacients and Contraceptives in Ancient Greek Medicine and Their Recent Scientific Appraisal, published in the Pharmacy in History journal by the University of Wisconsin Press: There is evidence that pennyroyal [] and other medicinal plants were used in Ancient Greece as anti-fertility agents [] These anti-fertility agents, which were administered orally or as vaginal suppositories, may have functioned as early term abortifacents and contraceptives in women. article But modern medical professionals say that using pennyroyal to induce an abortion is dangerous and there is insufficient evidence to show that it actually works. insufficient evidence According to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Pennyroyal is a flowering plant that was used in folk medicine to induce abortion, alleviate menstrual symptoms, and to treat inflammatory conditions and minor ailments [...] There have been a number of case reports and also several deaths attributed to the use of this botanical. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center According to the United States National Library of Medicine, There is some evidence that pennyroyal oil can cause abortions by causing the uterus to contract. But the dose needed in order to cause an abortion could kill the mother or cause life-long kidney and liver damage. United States National Library of Medicine Given that mentions of the herb have grown since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many are concerned that recent events will result in more people turning to this as a form of abortion. We also know that banning abortions does not necessarily end their occurrence; it only results in more unsafe conditions for carrying out the procedure. know Ultimately, whatever his intention in writing this down in his notes, Cobain seemed to have the correct idea about the abortifacent, and people are strongly warned to not try it at all. We rate this claim as a Correct Attribution. Did Ben Franklin Publish a Recipe in a Math Textbook on How to Induce Abortion? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/16/ben-franklin-abortion-math-textbook/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Do Laws Banning Abortion Actually Decrease the Rate of Abortions? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/20/banning-abortion-decrease-rate/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Journals - Kurt Cobain, Nirvana (Band). Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/262983068/Journals-Kurt-Cobain. Accessed 27 June 2022. Live Fact-Checking Updates: US Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/24/dobbs-supreme-court-roe-wade/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Martoccio, Angie. Nirvanas In Utero: 20 Things You Didnt Know. Rolling Stone, 21 Sept. 2018, https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/nirvana-in-utero-trivia-kurt-cobain-722109/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Nelson, Sarah E. Persephones Seeds: Abortifacients and Contraceptives in Ancient Greek Medicine and Their Recent Scientific Appraisal. Pharmacy in History, vol. 51, no. 2, 2009, pp. 5769, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41112420. Accessed on 27 June 2022. "Pennyroyal." Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/integrative-medicine/herbs/pennyroyal. Accessed 27 June 2022. "Pennyroyal." MedlinePlus Supplements. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/480.html. Accessed 27 June 2022.

['loan']

True

When Nirvana released its song Pennyroyal Tea'' in 1993, lead singer Kurt Cobain said it was about depression, though his notes mentioned how pennyroyal was considered to be an abortifacent. His notes gained prominence online in June 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court voted to strike down Roe v. Wade via its decision on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reversing federal abortion protections that had been in place for nearly 50 years.The internet immediately began speculating on what this meant for people seeking abortions in the country, and whether this would result in many seeking more dangerous methods in order to carry them out. Some referenced the purported uses of the pennyroyal herb:Pages and pages of Cobains original writings and scribbles were collected in the book Journals, which included diary entries, lyrics, and his musings on various songs he was working on. Under the underlined heading Pennyroyal tea he wrote, [A] herbal abortive it doesnt work you hippie. Cobain is not entirely wrong. Pennyroyal was considered to be an abortifacent, in that it was used to induce abortions, but it was highly dangerous and far removed from our modern scientific methods for carrying out abortions. Even Benjamin Franklins publishing company included an abortion recipe that featured pennyroyal in its adaptation of a British manual for the colonies in 1748. In an entry about Suppression of the Courses, the manual advises women to drink a Quarter of a Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction.According to the article, Persephones Seeds: Abortifacients and Contraceptives in Ancient Greek Medicine and Their Recent Scientific Appraisal, published in the Pharmacy in History journal by the University of Wisconsin Press: There is evidence that pennyroyal [] and other medicinal plants were used in Ancient Greece as anti-fertility agents [] These anti-fertility agents, which were administered orally or as vaginal suppositories, may have functioned as early term abortifacents and contraceptives in women. But modern medical professionals say that using pennyroyal to induce an abortion is dangerous and there is insufficient evidence to show that it actually works. According to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Pennyroyal is a flowering plant that was used in folk medicine to induce abortion, alleviate menstrual symptoms, and to treat inflammatory conditions and minor ailments [...] There have been a number of case reports and also several deaths attributed to the use of this botanical. According to the United States National Library of Medicine, There is some evidence that pennyroyal oil can cause abortions by causing the uterus to contract. But the dose needed in order to cause an abortion could kill the mother or cause life-long kidney and liver damage.Given that mentions of the herb have grown since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many are concerned that recent events will result in more people turning to this as a form of abortion. We also know that banning abortions does not necessarily end their occurrence; it only results in more unsafe conditions for carrying out the procedure.

The majority of Austinites rent the places they live.

[]

After an Austin mayoral candidate proposed to permanently cut homeowner taxes, City Council Member Mike Martinez said the idea wouldnt benefit most residents. Martinez, also a candidate for mayor, reacted after attorney Steve Adler said the council could have created a city homestead exemption, or tax break for homeowners, years before. We need to act, Adler said Aug. 4, 2014, according to anAustin American-Statesmannews storythat day. Adler called for a 20 percent exemption--as in a 20 percent cut to each homes taxable value--at a city-estimated cost of $36 million a year. Martinez and a third mayoral aspirant, City Council Member Sheryl Cole, said Adlers idea revealed his lack of governing experience. Martinez said: This would be $36 million that would benefit the wealthiest Austinites the most. The majority of Austinites rent and would see no financial benefit at all. We wondered about Martinezs statement that most Austin residents rent, rather than own, the places they live. We did not delve into his contention that renters wouldnt benefit from Adlers proposal. To our inquiry, a Martinez campaign spokesman, Nick Hudson, pointed out a July 31, 2014,city reportincluding an illustration stating that 183,000 of the citys 331,000 households in 2012 (55 percent) were renters--a proportion in keeping with trends in 2000 and 2008, the report says. By contrast, 148,000 households, 45 percent, were owners. Hudson also forwarded a web link toa city-generated chartdrawing on the 2010 U.S. Census indicating 51 percent of Austins residents were renters that year. To get our own fix on this, we queried Lloyd Potter, the Texas state demographer, who said by email Martinezs claim is supported by the best available resource, American Community Survey data annually gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the surveys taken from 2010 through 2012, Potter said, 418,138, or 52 percent, of an estimated 799,183 Austin residents lived in rental units compared with 381,045 residents, or 48 percent, who were owners. He said the 2012 survey alone suggests 432,400, 53 percent, of the citys 823,340 residents were renters compared with 390,940, nearly 48 percent, who were owners, Potter said. Separately, a bureau spokesman, Robert Bernstein, responded to our inquiry by emailing a chart based on the bureaus 2012 survey suggesting there were more housing units rented in Austin than units that were occupied by owners. According to the survey, 183,080 of 330,838 housing units (55 percent) were renter-occupied with 147,758 (45 percent) being owner-occupied. (We suspect these figures were the basis of the information in the report noted by Martinezs camp.) Occupied housing units 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey (chart received by email from Robert Bernstein of the bureau). Our ruling Martinez said the majority of Austinites rent where they live. Government surveys show slightly more than half the citys residents rent. We rate this statement 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.

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

True

Martinez, also a candidate for mayor, reacted after attorney Steve Adler said the council could have created a city homestead exemption, or tax break for homeowners, years before. We need to act, Adler said Aug. 4, 2014, according to anAustin American-Statesmannews storythat day.To our inquiry, a Martinez campaign spokesman, Nick Hudson, pointed out a July 31, 2014,city reportincluding an illustration stating that 183,000 of the citys 331,000 households in 2012 (55 percent) were renters--a proportion in keeping with trends in 2000 and 2008, the report says. By contrast, 148,000 households, 45 percent, were owners.Hudson also forwarded a web link toa city-generated chartdrawing on the 2010 U.S. Census indicating 51 percent of Austins residents were renters that year.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

The 'Merrylin Cryptid Museum'

["A 'Cryptid Museum' supposedly showcasing specimens discovered by a mysterious cryptozoologist named Thomas Merrylin is actually the work of artist Alex CF."]

Photographs purportedly showing the skeletons of fairies, dragons, werewolves and other mythical creatures at the "Merrylin Cryptid Museum" were appeared in May 2016, featured on web sites such as Ufunk.net and Metro: Merrylin Cryptid Museum Ufunk.net Metro Creepy skeletons of winged humans, bodies of mythical creatures and even aliens have been unearthed in a London home. The ghastly relics were the collection of Thomas Merrylin, an 18th century aristocrat with a taste for the unusual. They were apparently found sealed in the basement of a London house in 2006, and the macabre findings might just change science as we know it. Now theyre being kept at the Merrylin Cryptid Museum, a bizarre collection of the artefacts that is almost guaranteed to creep you out. The "Merrylin Cryptid Museum" claims that its specimens were collected by famed "Crypto-naturalist" Thomas Merrylin in the 1800s. "Curator" Alex CF writes on the museum's web site that not only did Merrylin have a knack for uncovering imaginary creatures, but that he also resisted aging: web site A bizarre quality of Merrylin was his apparent permanent youthfulness. Even in his 80s, he still resembled a 40 year old, albeit of odd complexion, and his few bizarre forays into the eyes of the media only furthered his infamy. He was accused of practicing dark arts to prolong his life. Yet, eminent scholars secretly allied themselves with him, encouraging him to share his collection with the world. In 1899, he took a small portion of his specimens on tour across America. Conservative attitudes of the time condemned these creatures, calling them blasphemous. His reaction was severe and the tour was canceled before it reached California. A video that appeared to show the museum was published on Vimeo in 2014, deepening the mystery: Despite the claims made in this video, we found no record of an ageless cryptologist named "Professor Thomas Theodore Merrylin" that wasn't associated with this museum. Furthermore, in addition to his duties as "curator" at the "Merrylin Cryptid Museum," Alex CF is also an illustrator, artist, and sculptor who specializes in dark folklore and animal mythology: Alex CF Alex is a London based illustrator, writer and sculptor. His work is visceral and whimsical, creating elaborate detailed depictions of earthen ritual, dark folklore and forgotten horrors. His frenetic lines and beautiful depictions can be seen on band artwork, record labels and book covers alongside his own personal projects. His personal artwork is inspired by animal mythology, the concepts of imbuing non humans with cultural, religious and ritualistic practices, creating fantastical naturalist scenes, with much of his personal illustrations connected by stories within a single narrative. He writes and draws to create little worlds so that the drawings have a substance beyond the aesthetic, by incorporating ideology and symbology to encourage the viewer to consider the connections between humans and non humans. He has just finished writing his first novel, 'Seek the throat from which we sing.' The ageless cryptologist Thomas Merrylin is an intriguing, but fictional, character. The specimens he supposedly found do not showcase the skeletal structures of fairies, dragons, and other mythical creatures; the entire creation from the museum, to the backstory, to the video, to the skeletons themselves is the work of a particularly imaginative artist.

['share']

False

Photographs purportedly showing the skeletons of fairies, dragons, werewolves and other mythical creatures at the "Merrylin Cryptid Museum" were appeared in May 2016, featured on web sites such as Ufunk.net and Metro: The "Merrylin Cryptid Museum" claims that its specimens were collected by famed "Crypto-naturalist" Thomas Merrylin in the 1800s. "Curator" Alex CF writes on the museum's web site that not only did Merrylin have a knack for uncovering imaginary creatures, but that he also resisted aging:Despite the claims made in this video, we found no record of an ageless cryptologist named "Professor Thomas Theodore Merrylin" that wasn't associated with this museum. Furthermore, in addition to his duties as "curator" at the "Merrylin Cryptid Museum," Alex CF is also an illustrator, artist, and sculptor who specializes in dark folklore and animal mythology:

Are Traffickers Leaving Zip Ties on Targets' Windshield Wipers?

["Awareness of one's surroundings is always good, but scarelore can also lead to unwarranted fears."]

In November and December 2019, a meme circulated on Facebook warning that human traffickers were leaving zip ties on women's windshield wipers as they shopped to mark them as potential victims for abduction. This was a variation of a familiar meme that we identified as false in July 2019. At that time, we reported that human trafficking affects millions of people worldwide, but it is also the frequent subject of viral scare lore—fictional tales intended to frighten audiences, often prompting them to share without questioning the story. One such story went viral in October 2018 and again in late July 2019 when social media users shared a meme stating that human traffickers were leaving zip ties (in some posts, black in color) on homes, mailboxes, and cars of potential female victims to either mark them as targets or distract and abduct them for sex-trafficking purposes when the women tried to remove the ties. The hoax initially centered on San Angelo, Texas, in October 2018, but police there quickly debunked it. We rate the newer variation as "False" as well, because although police in College Station, Texas, addressed the meme and reminded citizens to always be aware of their surroundings, officers were unaware of zip ties being used by human traffickers to mark potential victims. Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know.

['share']

False

In November and December 2019, a meme circulated on Facebook warning that human traffickers were leaving zip ties on women's windshield wipers as they shopped to mark them as potential victims/targets for abduction:This was a variation of a familiar meme that we identified as false in July 2019. At that time we reported:Human trafficking affects millions of people worldwide, but its also the frequent subject of viral scarelore fictional tales intended to frighten audiences, often prompting them to share without questioning the story.One such story went viral in October 2018 and again in late July 2019 when social media users shared a meme stating that human traffickers were leaving zip ties (in some posts, black in color) on homes, mailboxes, and cars, of potential female victims to either mark them as targets or distract and abduct them for sex-trafficking purposes when the women try to remove the ties.We rate the newer variation as "False" as well, because although police in College Station, Texas, addressed the meme and reminded citizens to always be aware of their surroundings, officers were unaware of zip ties being used by human traffickers to mark potential victims.Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know.

Did Coca-Cola's Diversity Training Tell Workers 'Try To Be Less White'?

['Opponents of critical race theory and diversity training railed against Coca-Cola in February 2021, but with no real evidence.']

In February 2021, several readers asked Snopes to examine the authenticity and accuracy of online posts which claimed that Coca-Cola had given its employees diversity training that included slides encouraging them to "try to be less white." On Feb. 19, the Twitter account @LeftyMoment posted a widely shared tweet which contained the caption "This was in Coca-Cola's diversity training" along with an image that appeared to be composed of two screenshots: one showing a presentation slide with the words "Try to be less white"; and the other with a list of "white" traits, explaining that "to be less white" means being "less oppressive," "less arrogant," "less certain" and so on: Those and other similar images appeared to have been leaked by a Coca-Cola employee to Karlyn Borysenko, a prominent online opponent of critical race theory and many aspects of corporate diversity training, who describes herself on LinkedIn as an organizational pyschologist and "executive/performance coach." LinkedIn Borysenko shared the screenshots on Feb. 19, consistently characterizing them as having been part of required training for Coca-Cola employees. As proof of this, she cited the Coca-Cola logo visible in the top right-hand corner of the screen. shared The screenshots were also shared on the controversial 4Chan thread /pol/, a frequent online source of political disinformation in recent years. Nigel Farage, former leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, mentioned the story in a YouTube video, saying Coca-Cola had "lost their marbles" by "putting their staff through compulsory training on 'How to be less white.'" shared on controversial mentioned The presentation in question is real, and the "try to be less white" slides were authentic. However, the evidence presented by Borysenko and others does not prove that Coca-Cola included the presentation in its required diversity training for employees, and the company has explicitly denied that claim. The slides contained in the widely-shared online posts in February 2021 came from a presentation entitled "Confronting Racism," which featured Robin DiAngelo, a writer and consultant whose work on racism has proven controversial and who has been hired to conduct diversity and anti-racism training for many American companies. work controversial The course was created by Big Think, an educational video platform, using footage taken from an earlier interview they conducted with DiAngelo. "Confronting Racism" had been available on LinkedIn Learning, but was removed on Feb. 23, on foot of a request by the producers of the course Big Think, and representatives for DiAngelo. Before it was taken down, it carried the following description: available In this course, Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of White Fragility, gives you the vocabulary and practices you need to start confronting racism and unconscious bias at the individual level and throughout your organization. Theres no magic recipe for building an inclusive workplace. Its a process that needs to involve people of color, and that needs to go on for as long as your companys in business. But with these tools at your disposal, youll be well on your way. The slides in question appeared during the "What you can do" section of the course: Those slides appeared as part of a video, which the screenshots shared widely in February 2021 did not fully reflect. In that section of the video, DiAngelo provides the following narration: I try to be a little less white. I'm really clear that I'm not going to be free of my conditioning and racism is not going to end in my lifetime. The question I ask myself is "How do I do a little less harm?" and "How do I know?" right? Am I, in any given moment, behaving in anti-racist ways? Not "I'm already done, I'm never racist." Not "I'm a terrible person, I'm always racist." In any given moment, how am I doing? And how do I know? And that keeps me humble, and it keeps me accountable. So for me, to do less harm is no small thing. Because it could literally be one more hour on a person of color's life, who didn't have to take home my nonsense and agonize all night long whether it was worth it to talk to me, or they should just suck it up yet again, lest they risk my lashing out in defensiveness. So for me to be "less white" is to be less oppressive, racially. To be less arrogant, to be less certain, to be less defensive, to be less ignorant, quite frankly. To be more humble, to listen, to believe, to break with apathy, to break with white solidarity. It's not easy, it's a lifelong process. But nothing is more rewarding. LinkedIn Learning is a service provided to LinkedIn members with a paid "Premium" subscription. Users do not purchase individual videos, but rather their premium membership gives them access to all the additional content contained in the LinkedIn Learning platform: videos; courses; and "learning paths." This is an important feature of LinkedIn Learning, in the context of the controversy prompted by Borysenko's tweets and YouTube videos about Coca-Cola. In a news release published on Feb. 20, Coca-Cola stated that "Confronting Racism" "was not part of the company's curriculum," meaning it was not something Coca-Cola obliged its employees to view. Rather, the company said, its training involved use of LinkedIn Learning, and the course was accessible there. news release So a company employee could log into a Coca-Cola LinkedIn account in order to watch videos that are part of their mandatory diversity training, but then navigate, within LinkedIn Learning, to "Confronting Racism," which need not be required viewing in order for them to access it. This would allow them to create screenshots that feature slides from the course, alongside a Coca-Cola logo in the top right-hand corner. So, contrary to Borysenko's claim, the presence of the logo was not proof that "Confronting Racism" was required viewing for company employees, merely that someone at Coca-Cola had viewed it. We asked Coca-Cola to provide details of the company's "diversity, equity and inclusion training." A company spokesperson did not provide a comprehensive curriculum, but did provide Snopes several examples of topics included as required viewing. Each of the following items appears to match individual videos available through the LinkedIn Learning platform: Fundamentals Six steps unconscious bias impact brave allyship The spokesperson also provided further clarification about Coca-Cola's use of LinkedIn Learning in company trainings: "On learning channels not owned by The Coca-Cola Company, users had the ability to navigate outside of the intended curriculum which may have given the false impression that certain videos were part of the training." The controversy appears to have been caused by a fundamental misunderstanding, on the part of Borysenko and others, as to how LinkedIn Learning works, and the fact that Coca-Cola employees could, while taking part in their mandatory training, access hundreds of videos and courses that bore no relation to that training, and were not required. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that, despite Coca-Cola's clear denials, the existence of a coherent alternative explanation, and despite the complete absence of evidence so far, "Confronting Racism" was in fact listed on the curriculum. [Correction]: Feb. 23, 2021. This fact check previously inaccurately described Robin DiAngelo as the producer of the video course "Confronting Racism." In fact, the course was produced by Big Think, using video footage taken from an earlier interview with DiAngelo.

['equity']

NEI

Those and other similar images appeared to have been leaked by a Coca-Cola employee to Karlyn Borysenko, a prominent online opponent of critical race theory and many aspects of corporate diversity training, who describes herself on LinkedIn as an organizational pyschologist and "executive/performance coach."Borysenko shared the screenshots on Feb. 19, consistently characterizing them as having been part of required training for Coca-Cola employees. As proof of this, she cited the Coca-Cola logo visible in the top right-hand corner of the screen.The screenshots were also shared on the controversial 4Chan thread /pol/, a frequent online source of political disinformation in recent years. Nigel Farage, former leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, mentioned the story in a YouTube video, saying Coca-Cola had "lost their marbles" by "putting their staff through compulsory training on 'How to be less white.'"The slides contained in the widely-shared online posts in February 2021 came from a presentation entitled "Confronting Racism," which featured Robin DiAngelo, a writer and consultant whose work on racism has proven controversial and who has been hired to conduct diversity and anti-racism training for many American companies. "Confronting Racism" had been available on LinkedIn Learning, but was removed on Feb. 23, on foot of a request by the producers of the course Big Think, and representatives for DiAngelo. Before it was taken down, it carried the following description:In a news release published on Feb. 20, Coca-Cola stated that "Confronting Racism" "was not part of the company's curriculum," meaning it was not something Coca-Cola obliged its employees to view. Rather, the company said, its training involved use of LinkedIn Learning, and the course was accessible there.

Oliver North issued a warning about Osama bin Laden in 1987.

['Did Oliver North warn Congress about Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings?']

For most of us who watched the televised Joint Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (better known as the "Iran-Contra hearings," held by Congress to determine whether the Reagan administration had secretly and illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure the release of American hostages, then used the profits from those sales to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua) in 1987, the enduring image we came away with was a memory of an unapologetic and resolute Lt. Col. Oliver North delivering testimony in a Marine uniform. North, who was a central figure in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo, and who as a National Security Council aide directed efforts to raise private and foreign funds for the contras despite a Congressional prohibition on U.S. government agencies' providing military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, testified before Congress under a grant of limited immunity in July 1987. Although North had been granted limited immunity for his testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had been influenced by his immunized testimony). One of the charges against North was that he had received a $16,000 home security system paid for out of the proceeds of the Iran-Contra affair and had forged documents to cover his receipt of an illegal gratuity. North admitted that he knew the security system was a "gift" but maintained he never inquired about who had paid for it or how it was financed, and he was insistent that he needed the security system because the government had failed to provide adequate protection against international terrorists for him and his family. The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.) occupation Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal, telling a congressional committee: testify Abu Nidal Abu Nidal is, as I am sure you on the Intelligence Committee know, the principal, foremost assassin in the world today. He is a brutal murderer. And I would like to just, if I may, just read to you a little bit about Mr. Abu Nidal ... "Abu Nidal, the radical Palestinian guerrilla leader, linked to last Friday's attacks in Rome and Vienna" that was the so-called Christmas massacre in which 19 people died and 200 were wounded "is the world's most wanted terrorist." That is the Christian Science Monitor. When you look at his whole career, Abu Nidal makes the infamous terrorist Carlos [the Jackal] look like a Boy Scout. Abu Nidal himself, quoted in Der Spiegel, "Between America and us, there exists a war to the death. In the coming months and years, Americans will be thinking about us." "For sheer viciousness, Abu Nidal has few rivals in the underworld of terrorism." Newseek. Our own State Department, and we have copies of these that we can make available for insertion in the record, but the State Department summary on Abu Nidal, not exactly an overstatement, notes that his followers, who number an estimated 500, have killed as many as 181 persons, and wounded more than 200, in two years. Abu Nidal does not deny these things. We also have an exhibit that we can provide for you that shows what Abu Nidal did in the Christmas Massacres. One of the people killed in the Christmas Massacre and I do not wish to overdramatize this but the Abu Nidal terrorists in Rome who blasted the 11-year-old American Natasha Simpson to her knees, deliberately zeroed in and fired an extra burst at her head just in case. I want you to know that I'd be more than willing ... to meet Abu Nidal on equal terms anywhere in the world. There's an even deal for him. OK? But I am not willing to have my wife and my four children meet Abu Nidal or his organization on his terms. To emphasize his point, North showed the committee a blow-up of a newspaper article detailing the atrocities of Abu Nidal and recalled that an 11-year-old girl named Natasha Simpson, the daughter of an Associated Press news editor, had been gunned down (along with four other Americans) during an attack by an Abu Nidal group on the El Al terminal at the Rome airport in December 1985. North also later claimed that an attempt on his life had been made five months before his congressional testimony at the instigation of Libyan leader Mohmmar Qadaffi: Mohmmar Qadaffi In February 1987, Muammar Ghadaffi ordered his thugs to carry out a threat made against me in 1986. Thankfully, the FBI intercepted the well-armed perpetrators on the way to our home, and my family and I were sequestered for a time on a military base. The orders from Tripoli were delivered to a terrorist cell in Virginia at the offices of The People's Committee for Libyan Students. So no, Oliver North didn't warn us back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden's "potential threat to the security of the world" or suggest that bin Laden be hunted down by "an assassin team," nor was he given the brush-off by a clueless senator "who disagreed with this approach." Eventually, Col. North drafted his own response to this piece of misinformation: FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.NOVEMBER 28, 2001OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987. A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW: 1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING. 2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K. 3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). 4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS. 5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA. 6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED). 7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED. SEMPER FIDELIS,OLIVER L. NORTH Variations: One variant of this item concluded with the statement "The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all that was shown of the clip. If anyone is interested, the Senator turned out to be none other than ... Al Gore." Senator Al Gore of Tennessee was not a member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and therefore did not take part in the questioning of any witnesses before the Committee. Additional information: Fisk, Robert. "Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace." The [London] Independent. 6 December 1993 (p. 10). Fritz, Sara and Karen Tumulty. "North's Attempt at Cover-Up Is Told." Los Angeles Times. 24 June 1987 (p. A1). Ibrahim, Youssef. "Saudi Stripped of Citizenship for Funding Fundamentalists." The [London] Guardian. 11 April 1994 (p. 8). North, Oliver. "Tackling Terrorism." TownHall.com. 9 June 2000. Tackling Terrorism North, Oliver L. Under Fire: An American Story. New York: HarperCollins, 1992 (pp. 341-344). Pincus, Walter. "North Says He and His Superiors Lied About Contra Aid." The Washington Post. 9 July 1987 (p. A1).

['finance']

False

The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.)Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal, telling a congressional committee:To emphasize his point, North showed the committee a blow-up of a newspaper article detailing the atrocities of Abu Nidal and recalled that an 11-year-old girl named Natasha Simpson, the daughter of an Associated Press news editor, had been gunned down (along with four other Americans) during an attack by an Abu Nidal group on the El Al terminal at the Rome airport in December 1985. North also later claimed that an attempt on his life had been made five months before his congressional testimony at the instigation of Libyan leader Mohmmar Qadaffi:North, Oliver. "Tackling Terrorism." TownHall.com. 9 June 2000.

Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act

['A popular screenshot of a purported Facebook argument over Obamacare versus the ACA is of indeterminate origin.']

In January 2017, screenshots circulated appearing to show a Facebook dispute which involved a man who both opposed Obamacare and unwittingly relied on it as a health care plan. The image was rather large, and documented a friends-locked Facebook dispute between three individuals: "Red," "Black," and "Blue." It began when "Black" posted a C-SPAN link to their personal timeline, along with the following commentary: image One step closer to fixing this mistake, and only a couple more weeks left of Barry's regime. 2017 is already looking up. The usual social media debate ensued in the comments. "Black," the original poster, eventually responded: I'm not on Obamacare. My insurance is through the ACA (Affordable Care Act), which is what they had to come up with after Obamacare crashed and burned as bad as it did. So I'm gonna be fine. This is, of course, untrue, as Obamacare is another name for the Affordable Care Act. "Obamacare" was originally intended as a pejorative but quickly was adopted as its informal name. The screenshot quickly went viral. However, it is virtually impossible to authenticate whether or not it is real without anyone party to it stepping forward with additional screenshots. All images we were able to locate obscured the names of all parties, and it does not appear that any friends of the conversation's participants have released alternate screenshots. Here is the conversation in its entirety:

['insurance']

NEI

In January 2017, screenshots circulated appearing to show a Facebook dispute which involved a man who both opposed Obamacare and unwittingly relied on it as a health care plan. The image was rather large, and documented a friends-locked Facebook dispute between three individuals: "Red," "Black," and "Blue." It began when "Black" posted a C-SPAN link to their personal timeline, along with the following commentary:

Foiled Child Abduction in Tupelo Rumor

['Mexican woman attempts to abduct tot from store in Tupelo, MS?']

Claim: E-mail claims a Mexican woman attempted to abduct a tot from a store in Tupelo, Mississippi. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Ok this is freaky but it really happened at the mall in Tupelo. Everyone please beware this Holiday Season. A couple of weeks ago a lady with two kids was shopping at JCPennys in the mall here at Tupelo. One of her sons was pretty small and he was in a stroller buckled in and the other one was older and he was walking beside her. A mexican woman came by and told the lady how cute her little baby was...well the lady told her "Thank You" and went on her way. A couple of minutes later the mexican woman approched the lady again telling her how cute her little baby boy was. The lady again replied with thank you. As the lady turned her back to look at a piece of clothing the oldest son started screaming. The lady turned around to find that the mexican lady had unbuckled the baby and grabbed him out of the stroller and took off with him. The lady ran after them and caught the mexican woman as the was getting out the door with her son. The only way that she caught her was the mexican woman had long hair and she pulled it and knocked her down. The lady held her in her custody until the authorities arrived. The lady was shocked when the authorities asked her if she wanted to press charges. The lady replied back with heck yeah this is my son your talking about. Come to find out the mexican lady was here illegally. They are coming here to steal our kids and carry them across the border to sell to the black market... scary I know....but I had to pass on. Now you do the same.. Thanks and have a Great Day This really happened to a relative of a girl that goes to church with me. They have the lady in custody that tried to take the baby. She was hispanic and finally admitted that she was taking the baby across the border to sell it. This was last Wednesday night, Nov. 15 at the JC Penneys at Barnes Crossing. They did not catch anyone that was accompanying the lady andwe don't know if she gave up any names. So there could still be predators out there. Warn everyone you know with small children. Very scary... Last night as our family was out eating out at a local resturant , one of my aunts shared with us a very disturbing event that happened this past Wednesday night at JC Penny. A lady was shopping with her 2 small children one a baby in a stroller and the other a toddler that was just old enough to talk. The lady had her children both right next to her as she was looking at clothes and the toddler said "Mama that lady just got my sister". This mother started chasing this Hispanic lady and finally caught her by reaching out and grabbing her hair from behind. She then started screaming this woman has my baby. Security came and took care of the horrible situation and told the Mom - we can almost bet you the lady had a car waiting outside with a driver and ready to take off and sell your baby on the black market in Mexico. This mother's grateful thought was Thank Goodness my toddler could talk and tell me - because she never thought this could happen since her children were right next to her within arms reach. I am sure with the Holiday Season approaching us all, the distractions as we shop will be more - but I hope this will help us all to stay a little more alert while out and about doing our shopping. And better Yet lets all each day Ask for the Lord to Guide and protect us and our families! Origins: In November 2006, these accounts describing a foiled child abduction at a store in Tupelo, Mississippi, began arriving in our e-mail. Akin to other Internet-circulated tales about attempted childnappings at large stores (such as the venerable canard about kids being pulled in store washrooms to be drugged and have their hair dyed by those attempting to make off with them, or the 2006 hoax about a failed child grab at a Blockbuster in North Texas), this one also proved to be a fiction. dyed Blockbuster According to Lee County Sheriff Jim Johnson and Tupelo Police Chief Harold Chaffin, the story about a Mexican woman who initially admired a shopper's baby, then grabbed it from the stroller and ran off with it was pure invention. There hadn't been any such incident no brave mom who seized the would-be abductor by her long hair and held her until police arrived, no baby-stealing illegal immigrant now behind bars awaiting trial, no ring of kidnappers frequenting Tupelo-area stores in search of product for a Mexican black market in American infants. The Mall at Barnes Crossing, a venue where the alleged foiled abduction was said to have taken place, did succeed in tracing the e-mails to their source. Mall manager Jeff Snyder indicated no legal action was contemplated against the rumor's originator, but he noted that this could well be the last time the Mall would be inclined to be so lenient regarding damage done to its reputation. The false story spread from inbox to inbox because it invoked not just the specter of the child-abducting stranger (a frightening enough figure all on its own) but melded into it a bogeyman of the moment, the illegal immigrant from south of the border. While illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico has long been a problem, prior to 2006 it was less of a concern to those not living in border states. In 2006, however, the illegal immigration issue was pushed to the center of the political arena, with some of that pushing taking the form of unsubstantiated rumors positioning all those who come into the U.S. on the sly as violent criminals. The fictive Mexican woman of this tale is presented as a kidnapper of small children, and not even one propelled by misguided maternal desire into taking youngsters so she could become their mother, but one motivated purely by avarice, in it for the cash that selling the purloined tots would bring. She is wholly and irredeemably evil and therefore held up as an example of the sort of person a "look the other way" attitude towards illegal immigration has allowed into the country. Her theft is not merely that of social services, it is of defenseless children; the cost of having her here is not merely a small increase in taxes paid by the typical family, but the risk that the next tot she or her compatriots snatch will be yours. Barbara "bogeyman the barricades" Mikkelson Last updated: 15 December 2006 Sources: Gray, Lloyd. "Today's Falsehoods Spread Faster, Wider." Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. 10 December 2006 (p. B4).

['taxes']

False

Origins: In November 2006, these accounts describing a foiled child abduction at a store in Tupelo, Mississippi, began arriving in our e-mail. Akin to other Internet-circulated tales about attempted childnappings at large stores (such as the venerable canard about kids being pulled in store washrooms to be drugged and have their hair dyed by those attempting to make off with them, or the 2006 hoax about a failed child grab at a Blockbuster in North Texas), this one also proved to be a fiction.

Did Congress Pass the 22nd Amendment in Order to 'Make Sure FDR Did Not Get Re-Elected'?

['Critics seized upon remarks made by Democrat U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during an appearance on MSNBC in March 2019.']

Some critics of Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded with a measure of ridicule and criticism in the Spring of 2019, after remarks she made about the introduction of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which imposed a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency. The Washington Examiner, for example, wrote: wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., might want to brush up on some history after asserting, incorrectly, that Republicans in Congress amended the Constitution to kick President Franklin Delano Roosevelt out of office. "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected," Ocasio-Cortez said [March 29] during a night hall event with MSNBC with Chris Hayes. According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: Ocasio-Cortez was referring to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution which passed in 1947. The text of the amendment states, No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. FDR died in 1945, meaning he was dead for a full two years before presidential term limits were implemented. That article was re-published on the website of Fox News, along with the headline "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez alsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office." re-published The New York Post joined in the criticism, writing: writing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be getting As in social media but shes getting an F in basic history. The Bronx-Queens Democrat flunked 20th century world events last week when she claimed during a town-hall meting [sic] that the Constitution was changed to keep President Franklin D. Roosevelt from being re-elected. In fact, he died two years before the amendment to which she was referring was passed and six years before it was ratified by the requisite number of states. A video clip of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks was prominently shared on Twitter by Tom Elliott, who added: "According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: 'They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected.' (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947)." According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected." (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019 March 31, 2019 Critics of Ocasio-Cortez pounced on her remarks as evidence of a purported lack of historical knowledge on her part. However, the Congresswoman's subsequent comments on the subject, along with clarification provided by her spokesperson, indicated the intended meaning of her remarks was that the catalyst behind the development of the two-term limit (which was ultimately enshrined in the 22nd amendment) had been Roosevelt's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s, and not that the introduction of the 22nd amendment (as opposed to Roosevelt's death) prevented what would have been his fourth re-election. The Congresswoman's remarks came during a web-only question-and-answer session recorded during her appearance on MSNBC's "All In" with Chris Hayes on 29 March, whose focus was the "Green New Deal," a plan put forward by Ocasio-Cortez ;and fellow Democrat Senator Ed Markey to tackle climate change and create jobs centered around renewable energy. plan Mark Paul, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, asked Ocasio-Cortez what lessons she had learned from the "New Deal," the series of economic projects FDR introduced in the 1930s with the intention of helping the U.S. economy to recover from the Great Depression, and the program to which the "Green New Deal" is an allusion. One of the points Ocasio-Cortez made in response to that question was to highlight the importance of Democratic success in facilitating the passage of legislation that introduced New Deal programs. Here's a (lightly edited) transcript of that segment, which can be viewed below: Paul:...What are the lessons from the New Deal that we can bring in today? Ocasio-Cortez: There's [sic] a lot. One is, you know when we talk, when we start picking apart the problem of political will --you know, "Technologically possible, is it politically feasible?" -- one of the big parts of political will is fear, especially fear within our own party. "If we do this, if we are a little too bold, we will lose our majorities, we will lose everything." And it is a difficult question because the House has been gerrymandered in ways that are extremely difficult. But I think there's [sic] a couple of lessons. One is that, when we look into our history, when our [Democratic] party was boldest -- the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on -- we had and carried supermajorities in the House, in the Senate, we carried the presidency. They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected. And there were so many extraordinary things that were happening in that time that were uniting working people, and so that, I think, is one of the encouraging lessons ... The point Ocasio-Cortez was making in that section of the interview was to highlight the role that electoral success for Democrats -- not least of which was FDR's repeated presidential victories during the 1930s and 1940s -- played in facilitating the introduction of major reforms such as the New Deal programs. FDR was first elected in 1932, then re-elected three times, in 1936, 1940, and 1944. To illustrate the extent of FDR's power and popularity at that time, the Congresswoman said: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." The manner in which she phrased that statement ("They had to ... to make sure") indicated, on its face, that Ocasio-Cortez was saying that the introduction of the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment was required in order to prevent FDR from being re-elected a fourth time. It is therefore understandable that some commentators seized upon her remarks and made the rather obvious point that the 22nd Amendment was not required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment was ratified and came into effect. (FDR died two years before the U.S. Congress passed the amendment, but it was not implemented until it was ratified by the requisite number of states six years after his death, contrary to the Washington Examiner's inaccurate statement that he had died "two years before presidential term limits were implemented.") However, that was not the intended meaning of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks, according to a spokesperson for the Congresswoman. The spokesperson told us it was "pretty clear" that her intention was simply to point out that FDR's repeated re-elections, and the sustained implementation of his policy agenda, had been the catalyst for Republican efforts to introduce a term limit on the U.S. presidency, a plan that began while FDR was still alive. That this was Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning is also supported by the fact that the Congresswoman approvingly tweeted out a Newsweek article that presented the "full story" behind her remarks, which reported that: tweeted article The dates appeared to leave the argument cut-and-dried, with both Fox News and the Washington Examiner running the story and calling Ocasio-Cortezs claims false. However, some eagle-eyed social media commenters pointed out that the original architects of the 22nd Amendment were inspired by Roosevelts monopoly on the White House and began campaigning long before his death ... The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortezs back. On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy." It is unquestionably true that efforts to introduce a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency began before FDR's death and were intensified by his unprecedented third and fourth elections in 1940 and 1944. FDR's decision to break precedent and seek a third term in 1940 was in itself a significant part of Republican candidate Wendell Willkie's platform that year. In a speech accepting his party's nomination in August 1940, Willkie said: "I should like to debate the question of the assumption by this President, in seeking a third term, of a greater public confidence than was accorded to our presidential giants, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson." speech In a newspaper advertisement published days before the election, Republicans put "The Third Term" at the top of a list of major issues, writing: "Violating all principles of freedom, and a sacred American tradition of 150 years standing, the President forced his own nomination for a third term at the Chicago convention ... and gave as an excuse I was drafted.' Are we Americans that gullible? ... Let us say together, 'There is no indispensible man. There shall be no third term.'" advertisement (In order to avoid the controversy of actively seeking to break the two-term tradition, FDR coyly declined to openly declare himself a candidate in 1940, and instead his supporters arranged for him to be "drafted" as a nominee by delegates at the 1940 Democratic National Convention.) In a statement issued the day before the election, Willkie called specifically for a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to eight years, saying that "When elected, in order to prevent any subsequent demonstrations of such ambitious views, in my first message to Congress I shall recommend that they submit a constitutional amendment limiting the time any one president may serve to eight years or less." statement Before FDR's third re-election in 1944, his Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey, also called for a term limit of the kind ultimately encapsulated in the 22nd Amendment. In a speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, just days before the election, Dewey said a fourth term for FDR would be "the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed," adding, "I believe that two terms must be established as the limit by constitutional amendment." speech FDR won his fourth presidential election that year, but he died just five months later, in April 1945, leaving Vice President Harry Truman to serve out nearly all of what would have been his fourth term. After the House of Representatives and Senate switched from Democratic to Republican control in the 1946 mid-term elections, the path was cleared for the 22nd amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1947. It eventually entered the U.S. Constitution in February 1951, when Nevada and Utah became the 35th and 36th U.S. states to ratify it, providing the required approval by three-quarters of the states. (The U.S. comprised only 48 states in 1951, with Alaska and Hawaii joining the Union in 1959.) ratify The 22nd amendment states, in part: states No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. What Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on MSNBC on 29 March was that, "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." It is understandable that some of her critics viewed this as her saying that the introduction of the 22nd Amendment was required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, an assertion which would make no sense because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment entered into force. However, according to clarification provided to Snopes by her spokesperson, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning was simply to point out that the catalyst for efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution and impose a two-term limit had been FDR's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s. As we have shown, that is certainly true, and calls for such a constitutional amendment began to intensify even before FDR's second re-election in 1940, almost five years before his death. Gage, John. "AOC Flubs History of FDR& and Change to Constitution." The Washington Examiner. 31 March 2019. Moore, Mark and Nikki Schwab. "Ocasio-Cortez Falsely Says GOP Changed Constitution to Block FDR from Re-Election." The New York Post. 1 April 2019. Daly, Matthew. "Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change." Associated Press. 7 February 2019. Paton, Callum. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Attacked on Twitter for Constitutional Mistake -- But Here's the Full Story." Newsweek. 1 April 2019. Willkie, Wendell. "Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination in Elwood, Indiana." The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. 17 August 1940. The Columbus Telegram. "Americanism Must Live! [Republican Election Advertisement]." 1 November 1940. Associated Press. "Willkie Urges 2-Term Limit for Presidency." The [Wilimington] News Journal. 4 November 1940. United Press International. "Dewey Declares Fourth Term Freedom Threat." The Salt Lake Tribune. 1 November 1944. Williams, Tom. "Anti-3rd Term Amendment Ratified as Nevada Casts Required 36th State Vote." The Terre Haute Star. 27 February 1951. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "U.S. Constitution, 22nd Amendment." Accessed 2 April 2019.

['economy']

NEI

The Washington Examiner, for example, wrote:That article was re-published on the website of Fox News, along with the headline "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez alsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office."The New York Post joined in the criticism, writing:(Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019The Congresswoman's remarks came during a web-only question-and-answer session recorded during her appearance on MSNBC's "All In" with Chris Hayes on 29 March, whose focus was the "Green New Deal," a plan put forward by Ocasio-Cortez ;and fellow Democrat Senator Ed Markey to tackle climate change and create jobs centered around renewable energy.That this was Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning is also supported by the fact that the Congresswoman approvingly tweeted out a Newsweek article that presented the "full story" behind her remarks, which reported that:FDR's decision to break precedent and seek a third term in 1940 was in itself a significant part of Republican candidate Wendell Willkie's platform that year. In a speech accepting his party's nomination in August 1940, Willkie said: "I should like to debate the question of the assumption by this President, in seeking a third term, of a greater public confidence than was accorded to our presidential giants, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson."In a newspaper advertisement published days before the election, Republicans put "The Third Term" at the top of a list of major issues, writing: "Violating all principles of freedom, and a sacred American tradition of 150 years standing, the President forced his own nomination for a third term at the Chicago convention ... and gave as an excuse I was drafted.' Are we Americans that gullible? ... Let us say together, 'There is no indispensible man. There shall be no third term.'"In a statement issued the day before the election, Willkie called specifically for a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to eight years, saying that "When elected, in order to prevent any subsequent demonstrations of such ambitious views, in my first message to Congress I shall recommend that they submit a constitutional amendment limiting the time any one president may serve to eight years or less."Before FDR's third re-election in 1944, his Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey, also called for a term limit of the kind ultimately encapsulated in the 22nd Amendment. In a speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, just days before the election, Dewey said a fourth term for FDR would be "the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed," adding, "I believe that two terms must be established as the limit by constitutional amendment."After the House of Representatives and Senate switched from Democratic to Republican control in the 1946 mid-term elections, the path was cleared for the 22nd amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1947. It eventually entered the U.S. Constitution in February 1951, when Nevada and Utah became the 35th and 36th U.S. states to ratify it, providing the required approval by three-quarters of the states. (The U.S. comprised only 48 states in 1951, with Alaska and Hawaii joining the Union in 1959.)The 22nd amendment states, in part:

The Reality Regarding ANWR

['E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in ANWR.']

Claim: E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) OF AND INFORMATION Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison: And some perspective ... NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain") THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter: And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer: HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland. Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling? Here's that same spot during the winter: Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production. Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins: As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed. A primary focus of such debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR. factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided. Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail: Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states. (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR. Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities. Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR). Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur. Last updated: 2 July 2008

['interest']

NEI

debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR. Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states. (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR. Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities. Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances."

Amazon.com and Intifada.com

['Is the web site Intifada.com partnered with Amazon.com?']

Claim: On-line bookseller Amazon.com is partnered with the web site Intifada.com. Not any more. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] A good friend of mine, while searching the Internet, ran across Intifada.com. OK. Then he sees a promotion right on their web page by Amazon.Com advising the readers that: "You can buy books about the Intifada and Palestine from Amazon.Com. All profits from the referral will go to developing Intifada.com." How great! I would assume that this pretty well eliminates Amazon.Com as a book seller, for those of us that understand that the Intifada is about killing Israeli civilians and driving Israel out of the land of their forefathers. And obviously Amazon.Com is not planning on receiving any more of our business! It would also be nice for us to notify Amazon.Com of our decision and how shocked we were at their evident lack of knowledge of the conflict and the terrorist activities and suicide bombings of civilians that have been the paramount focus of this Intifada. Origins: Like many other web retailers, Amazon.com operates an associates program under which operators of qualifying web sites can earn commissions by directing visitors to purchase books and other products through Amazon.com's own site. (We here at snopes.com participate in this program, offering links on our site to various urban legend-related books which can be purchased through Amazon.com.) associates books An inquiry to Amazon.com about this issue drew the following terse response: Greetings from the Amazon.com Associates Program. Thank you for taking the time to write to us regarding the Web site www.intifada.com. Please note, this account has been suspended pending further investigation, and we have requested they remove all links to Amazon.com immediately. Thanks again for contacting us regarding this matter. posted policy states that sites which may be found unsuitable for acceptance into their associates program include those that promote sexually explicit materials; promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or age; promote illegal activities; include "amazon" or variations or misspellings thereof in their domain names; or otherwise violate intellectual property rights. Intifada.com did have Amazon.com associate links on their site at one time (as confirmed by Amazon.com's statement that their account has been "suspended"), but we have no way of knowing whether Amazon.com took them on as an associate site because they didn't feel the site unsuitable under their guidelines, or because they simply didn't screen the site's application as thoroughly as they ordinarily do. Either way, Intifada.com no longer has any links to Amazon.com that we can find. Last updated: 7 March 2008

['profit']

NEI

Origins: Like many other web retailers, Amazon.com operates an associates program under which operators of qualifying web sites can earn commissions by directing visitors to purchase books and other products through Amazon.com's own site. (We here at snopes.com participate in this program, offering links on our site to various urban legend-related books which can be purchased through Amazon.com.)

Does the NAACP Want to Sandblast Confederate Figures Off Stone Mountain?

['One of many rumors that arose during a national debate on the appropriateness of Confederate monuments and memorials.']

In mid-2015, the historic Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving was the subject of controversy. In June 2015, rumors circulated that a petition aimed at permanently removing the Stone Mountain carving was being circulated, but these rumors referred to a long-inactive petition that predated the Charleston massacre. Then, a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain. This rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared that the carving, along with parts of Southern history, would be permanently destroyed. News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on July 13, 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed and used the term "sand-blasted." The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park. "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery," Rose said. He stated that his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks, and lands, starting with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson. "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said. The following day, July 14, 2015, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be a link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document that was undated and nearly impossible to read. Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's website, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter. It is true that Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose said that the Stone Mountain carving should be "sand-blasted off" the mountain in a June 2015 interview and that the following day the Journal-Constitution referenced a "statement" from the local NAACP chapter. However, we were unable to locate a purported statement released by that chapter or the larger national NAACP organization demanding such an action. Moreover, whether such an action is even possible or plausible (not to mention under consideration to any meaningful degree) is doubtful.

['share']

NEI

In mid-2015, thehistoric Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial CarvingIn June 2015, rumors claimed that a petition was being circulated that aimed to destroy the Stone Mountain carving permanently, but those rumors referenced a long-inactive petition that antedated the Charleston massacre. Then a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain:That rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared the carving (along with parts of Southern history) would be permanently destroyed.News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on 13 July 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed (and used the term "sand-blasted"):The following day (14 July 2015) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document (which was undated and nearly impossible to read):Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's web site, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter.

Under President Barack Obama,Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978.

[]

President Barack Obamas upcoming State of the Union address gave Republicans and Democrats on the Sunday news shows another chance to make their case about the countrys economic performance over the past five years. OnFox News Sunday,Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer pointed out the country has added 8 million jobs since the health care law passed in March 2010. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered a different take on the state of the labor force onFace the Nation. Why are jobs and economic growth so dismal? he asked. Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. And if President Obama wants to give an honest, candid State of the Union address this week, hell address the fact that his economic policies are not working. It's difficult to say how Obama's policies are causing the economy to stall or succeed, but we can examine Cruz's specific claim about labor force participation. Cruz, whose press office did not respond to our request for comment, is correctly breaking down data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor force participation rate is another measurement of the health of the labor market. The unemployment rate is the number of people who are not working as a percent of the labor force. There are multiple lenses through which to view jobs data. Another measure, thelabor force participation rate, refers to the percentage of Americans who are considered to be in the labor force as a part of the overall population. To be counted in the labor force, someone must be working or actively looking for work. In December (and also October), the labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent. In January and March of 1978, it was also 62.8 percent. We know what youre thinking: Cool numbers, PolitiFact, but what do they mean? Take a look at the trend. The labor force participation rate had been increasing since 1948, the first year the labor force participation rate was calculated. Then, it was 58.6 percent. It peaked in the late 1990s and 2000 to just more than 67 percent, before more recently hitting its lowest point in 36 years. Its fallen 2.9 percentage points since Obamas first month on the job in January 2009. Whats happening is the subject of an ongoing debate. There is understandable concern about the countrys long-term unemployed anddiscouraged workers. The economic recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been slow, which may have propelled people to go back to school, stay at home with their kids or give up on a search altogether when they could not find jobs in their field. Still, many economists attribute at least a portion of the drop to an unsurprising reason: the retirement of baby boomers, which does not exactly qualify as an American horror story. The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, ina 2013 PolitiFact interview. Theres no reason to believe things will change anytime soon. The labor force will become older, slowly add workers as the overall population grows and become more racially diverse in the next decade, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. BLS researchers say the labor force participation rate will continue to slowly fall until hitting 61.6 percent in 2022 -- a projected decline of 1.2 percentage points since December 2013. The past decade saw a much more dramatic drop, declining 3.6 percentage points since December 2003. Our ruling Cruz said, Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. Were pretty confident Obama isnt asking Cruz for State of the Union talking points, and hes especially not interested in one that may suggest todays economic policies arent working. Cruz has his statistics right. But well note at least part of the trend has been years in the making and appears strongly tied to the inevitable aging of the baby boomer population. In other words, its not all Obamas fault, and its not going to change the minute he leaves office. We rate Cruzs statement Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy']

True

Another measure, thelabor force participation rate, refers to the percentage of Americans who are considered to be in the labor force as a part of the overall population. To be counted in the labor force, someone must be working or actively looking for work. In December (and also October), the labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent. In January and March of 1978, it was also 62.8 percent.There is understandable concern about the countrys long-term unemployed anddiscouraged workers. The economic recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been slow, which may have propelled people to go back to school, stay at home with their kids or give up on a search altogether when they could not find jobs in their field.The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, ina 2013 PolitiFact interview.Theres no reason to believe things will change anytime soon. The labor force will become older, slowly add workers as the overall population grows and become more racially diverse in the next decade, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics.

President Obama and the Ice Bucket Challenge

["Did President Obama refuse to participate in the ALS Association's 'Ice Bucket Challenge'?"]

Claim: President Obama refused to participate in the ALS Association's "Ice Bucket Challenge." Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Tea Party.net posted on Facebook that President Obama refuse to take the ice bucket challenge from an 86 year old woman who did take the challenge. Is that true and how did this 86 year old lady submit her challenge to the White House to begin with, etc. Is is also true that the original challenge was either do the ice bucket or contribute 100 dollars to your favorite charity compared to the way it is going around now? Origins: In August 2014 the online world was hit with the "Ice Bucket Challenge," a playful competition that encouraged netizens to douse themselves with buckets of ice water, and challenge others to do the same, Ice Bucket Challenge as a method of raising awareness and donations for the ALS Association (ALSA) a national non-profit organization that provides services to persons with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrigs Disease) and helps to fund research into the disease. As of mid-August 2014, ALSA was reporting it had surpassed $10 million in "Ice Bucket" donations. ALS Association reporting As described on ALSA's web page about the "Ice Bucket Challenge," that phenomenon seeks both to raise awareness of ALS (through people actively taking the challenge of dumping buckets of ice water on their heads and posting videos of their activity on the Internet) and to raise funds for ALS research (through donations provided by those who prefer making financial contributions rather than dousing themselves with ice-cold water): The challenge involves people getting doused with buckets of ice water on video, posting that video to social media, then nominating others to do the same, all in an effort to raise ALS awareness. Those who refuse to take the challenge are asked to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice. One of those who accepted the "Ice Bucket Challenge" was 86-year-old Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who took part in a mass challenge event on 10 August 2014 involving numerous members of the Kennedy clan and others, then challenged President Obama to do the same, declaring "Welcome to Cape Cod, President Obama. I nominate you": challenge event The White House responded by stating that President Obama's contribution would be financial rather than participatory: responded The President appreciates Mrs. Kennedy thinking of him for the challenge though his contribution to this effort will be monetary. The President [will] be making a donation to an ALS charity this week. Did President Obama therefore "refuse" to take the "Ice Bucket Challenge"? If one considers the whole essence of the challenge to be pouring ice water over one's head to raise awareness of ALS, then perhaps so. But, as described on the ALSA web site, the challenge also involves raising donations for ALS research from those who decline to participate in the "dousing yourself with ice water" portion and are instead asked "to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice," and President Obama honored the spirit of the challenge by agreeing to the latter aspect. Last updated: 19 August 2014

['profit']

NEI

Origins: In August 2014 the online world was hit with the "Ice Bucket Challenge," a playful competition that encouraged netizens to douse themselves with buckets of ice water, and challenge others to do the same, as a method of raising awareness and donations for the ALS Association (ALSA) a national non-profit organization that provides services to persons with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrigs Disease) and helps to fund research into the disease. As of mid-August 2014, ALSA was reporting it had surpassed $10 million in "Ice Bucket" donations.One of those who accepted the "Ice Bucket Challenge" was 86-year-old Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who took part in a mass challenge event on 10 August 2014 involving numerous members of the Kennedy clan and others, then challenged President Obama to do the same, declaring "Welcome to Cape Cod, President Obama. I nominate you":The White House responded by stating that President Obama's contribution would be financial rather than participatory:

Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global Warming?

['A newspaper clipping from 1912 that anticipates the global warming potential of burning coal is authentic and consistent with the history of climate science.']

On 11 October 2016, the Facebook page Sustainable Business Network NZ posted a photograph of a clipping from the 14 August 1912 edition of the Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette that included a brief item headlined "Coal Consumption Affecting Climate." The item stated, "The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries." The article's authenticity is supported by the fact that it can be found in the digital archives of the National Library of New Zealand. Further attesting to its authenticity (and perhaps its role as a bit of stock news used to fill space) is that an identical story had appeared in an Australian newspaper a month prior, in the 17 July 1912 issue of The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, as found in the digital archives of the National Library of Australia. An even deeper dive reveals that the text of this news item has its origins in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, where it appeared as a caption in an article titled "Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate: What Scientists Predict for the Future." Some online commenters expressed skepticism over the notion that such a clear understanding of the mechanisms relating to greenhouse gases existed in 1912, or that anyone back then would have suggested humans could play a role in altering their concentration. In fact, the timing of these news clips is consistent with the historical record. The first person to use the term "greenhouse gases" was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In a paper published that year, he made an early calculation of how much warmer the Earth was thanks to the energy-trapping nature of some of the gases in the atmosphere. Even at this early stage, he understood that humans had the potential to play a significant role in changing the concentration of at least one of those gases, carbon dioxide (then referred to as carbonic acid). The world's present production of coal reaches, in round numbers, 500 million tons per annum, or 1 ton per km of the Earth's surface. Transformed into carbonic acid, this quantity would correspond to about a thousandth part of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere. Though he didn't explicitly say in that paper that human activity could warm the planet, Arrhenius would go on to make that argument in later works. A 2008 tribute to Arrhenius published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences stated that his ideas about coal and climate were popular and well known in his day but fell out of favor for a while after his death in 1927. While Arrhenius's prediction of warming received great public interest, this typically waned over time but was revived as an important global mechanism by the great atmospheric physicist Carl Gustaf Rossby, who initiated atmospheric CO2 measurements in Sweden in the 1950s. In this sense, the content and date of the newspaper clips in question are consistent with both what was known to scientists about greenhouse gases at the time and what the general public was interested in.

['interest']

True

On 11 October 2016, the Facebook page Sustainable Business Network NZ posted a photograph of a clipping from the 14 August 1912 edition of the Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette that included a brief item headlined Coal Consumption Affecting Climate:This articles authenticity is supported by the fact it can be found in the digital archives of the National Library of New Zealand.Further attesting to its authenticity (and perhaps its role as a bit of stock news used to fill space) is that an identical story had appeared in an Australian newspaper a month prior, in the 17 July 1912, issue of The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, as found in the digital archives of the National Library of Australia.An even deeper dive reveals that the text of this news item has its origins in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, where it appeared as a caption in an article titled "Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate What Scientists Predict for the Future":The first person to use the term greenhouse gases was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In a paper published that year, he made an early calculation of how much warmer the Earth was thanks to the energy-trapping nature of some of the gases in the atmosphere. Even at this early stage, he understood that humans had the potential to play a significant role in changing the concentration of at least one of those gases, carbon dioxide (carbonic acid back then):Though he didnt explicitly say in that paper that human activity could warm the planet, Arrhenius would go on to make that argument in later works. A 2008 tribute to Arrhenius published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences stated that his ideas about coal and climate were popular and well known in his day but fell out of favor for a while after his death in 1927:

The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people.

[]

Do three Americans really have more wealth than half the country? Its a claim made by the runner-up for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president,Bernie Sanders. Campaigningon July 14, 2018 for U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Sanderstold a crowdin Eau Claire: The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. The U.S. senator, an independent from Vermont, previously made the claimon Facebookand repeated it three days after his Wisconsin appearance in a column inUSA Today. What we found is the wealth lead enjoyed by the three billionaires is even larger than what Sanders said. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc. A study Before we dig in, an important note about the nations wealth gap: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. The result is, even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth. To back Sanders claim, his campaign pointed us to a November 2017news articlein Forbes. The business magazine reported ona studypublished that month by the Institute for Policy Studies, which the article described as a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C. The study, which advocates for reducing wealth inequality, also gained news coverage fromUSA TodayandThe Guardian. And its authors wrote opinion articles about it forNewsweekand theLos Angeles Times. The numbers The study used data from Forbes 2017 ranking of the 400 richest Americans; and data for the rest of the country from the 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, which the study says has become widely accepted as the most comprehensive government dataset documenting household wealth. PolitiFact has alsoreliedonthisFed survey in our wealth fact checks. The first finding the study reported was this: The three wealthiest people in the United States now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population combined, a total of 160 million people. Those individuals and their source of wealth are, according to the study: 1.Bill Gates, Microsoft: $89 billion 2. Jeff Bezos, Amazon: $81.5 billion 3.Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway: $78 billion Thats a total of $248.5 billion. The wealth of the bottom 160 million was $245 billion, the Institute for Policy Studies'Josh Hoxietold us. Thats a gap of $3.5 billion. Hoxie, a former a aide to Sanders, also pointed out that the wealth of the three billionaires has ballooned to $330 billion, according to Forbeslatest estimate. We dont have an updated estimate for the bottom 160 million American, as the Fed survey is done only once every three years. But Hoxie said its nearly impossible that the wealth of Americans at the bottom has grown nearly as much as that of the three billionaires. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, by the way, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study says. Other viewpoints More fact checks on wealth inequality Michael Moore, in 2011: Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.True. One Wisconsin Now, in 2013: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.True. Starbucks, in 2015: White people control almost 90 percent of the nation's wealth.True. The studys methodology is sound and its conclusion cited by Sanders is accurate, according toAbdur Chowdhury, an emeritus economics professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee, and economics professorEmmanuel Saez, director of the Center for Equitable Growth at the University of California, Berkeley. As an aside, well note that Saez also said Sanders claim is somewhat meaningless. The meaningful thing to say, Saez told us, is the bottom half of the U.S. families owns essentially no wealth on net, because debts cancel out whatever small assets they may have, on average. Our rating Sanders says: The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. The wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett exceeded that of the 160 million at the bottom of the scale, according to a 2017 study. And more recent estimates indicate the wealth of the three has since grown dramatically, widening the gap even more. We rate Sanders statement True.

['Corporations', 'Poverty', 'Wealth', 'Wisconsin']

True

Its a claim made by the runner-up for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president,Bernie Sanders.Campaigningon July 14, 2018 for U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Sanderstold a crowdin Eau Claire:The U.S. senator, an independent from Vermont, previously made the claimon Facebookand repeated it three days after his Wisconsin appearance in a column inUSA Today.Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc.To back Sanders claim, his campaign pointed us to a November 2017news articlein Forbes. The business magazine reported ona studypublished that month by the Institute for Policy Studies, which the article described as a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.The study, which advocates for reducing wealth inequality, also gained news coverage fromUSA TodayandThe Guardian. And its authors wrote opinion articles about it forNewsweekand theLos Angeles Times.The study used data from Forbes 2017 ranking of the 400 richest Americans; and data for the rest of the country from the 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, which the study says has become widely accepted as the most comprehensive government dataset documenting household wealth. PolitiFact has alsoreliedonthisFed survey in our wealth fact checks.1.Bill Gates, Microsoft: $89 billion3.Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway: $78 billionThats a total of $248.5 billion. The wealth of the bottom 160 million was $245 billion, the Institute for Policy Studies'Josh Hoxietold us. Thats a gap of $3.5 billion.Hoxie, a former a aide to Sanders, also pointed out that the wealth of the three billionaires has ballooned to $330 billion, according to Forbeslatest estimate.Michael Moore, in 2011: Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.True.One Wisconsin Now, in 2013: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.True.Starbucks, in 2015: White people control almost 90 percent of the nation's wealth.True.The studys methodology is sound and its conclusion cited by Sanders is accurate, according toAbdur Chowdhury, an emeritus economics professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee, and economics professorEmmanuel Saez, director of the Center for Equitable Growth at the University of California, Berkeley.

Were Gun-Toting Children Photographed on the United States Border?

['The Drudge Report used a years-old photograph of children in Syria holding toy guns without credit, a description, or attribution to illustrate a story about immigration to the United States.']

On 18 June 2018, the front page of the Drudge Report news aggregator blog featured a link to a story accompanied by a photograph of a group of children, two of whom appeared to be holding guns, along with the headline "Border Battle: USA Taking in 250 Kids Per Day." Although the Drudge Report linked to a 2018 article from the Washington Examiner about how the Trump administration "could be holding 30,000 border kids by August," the featured photograph was neither taken in 2018 nor anywhere near Mexico or the United States, and it had nothing to do with immigration. The Drudge Report apparently chose to feature the misleading photograph (and the phrase "border battle") amidst growing outrage over a Trump administration policy to separate children from families at the Mexico-United States border, while failing to provide a description, note that the children in the image were holding toys rather than actual weapons, or credit the photographer, Christiaan Triebert, who took the picture in Azaz, Syria, in 2012. Triebert stated, "Four young Syrian boys with toy guns are posing in front of my camera during my visit to Azaz, Syria. Most people I met were giving the peace sign. This little city was taken by the Free Syrian Army in the summer of 2012 during the Battle of Azaz." The website eventually removed the image of the Syrian children and replaced it with a slightly more relevant photograph, but this second attempt was still misleading and failed to provide proper context or attribution. This photograph was not taken on the border of Mexico and the United States, nor was it taken in 2018. The image, captured by Associated Press photographer Eduardo Verdugo, was taken in 2013 in the southern Mexican city of Juchitán. It shows immigrants atop the infamous "Tren de la Muerte" ("Train of Death"), also known as La Bestia or The Beast, trying to make their way north to safety. Migrants ride on top of a northbound train toward the US-Mexico border in Juchitán, southern Mexico, on Monday, April 29, 2013. Migrants crossing Mexico to reach the U.S. have increasingly become targets of criminal gangs who kidnap them for ransom. La Bestia has that name because it is an exceptionally dangerous method of travel used only by the most desperate, and few survive the ride unscathed. The cargo trains, which run along multiple lines, carry products north for export. As there are no passenger railcars, migrants must ride atop the moving trains, facing physical dangers that range from amputation to death if they fall or are pushed. Beyond the dangers of the trains themselves, Central American migrants are subject to extortion and violence at the hands of the gangs and organized-crime groups that control the routes north.

['credit']

False

On 18 June 2018, the front page of the Drudge Report news aggregator blog put up a link to a story accompanied by a photograph of a group of children, two of which appeared to be holding guns, and the headline "Border Battle: USA Taking in 250 Kids Per Day":Even though the Drudge Report linked to a 2018 article about how the Trump administration "could be holding 30,000 border kids by August" published by the Washington Examiner, the featured photograph was not taken in 2018, was not taken anywhere near either Mexico or the United States, and it has nothing at all to do with immigration.The Drudge Report apparently deliberately chose to feature the misleading photograph (and phrase "border battle") amidst increasing outrage surrounding a Trump administration policy to separate children from families at the Mexico-United States border while failing to offer a description, note that the children in the image are holding toys, not actual weapons, or even credit the photographer, Christiaan Triebert, who took the picture in Azaz, Syria in 2012:This photograph was not taken on the border of Mexico and the United States, and it was not taken in 2018. The image, which is from Associated Press photographer Eduardo Verdugo, was taken in 2013 in the southern Mexico city of Juchitn. It shows immigrants atop the infamous "Tren de la Muerte" ("Train of Death"), also known as La Bestia or The Beast, trying to make their way north to safety: La Bestia has that name because it is an exceptionally dangerous method of travel that is only used by the most desperate, and few survive the ride unscathed:

U.S. unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.

[]

Activists participating inOccupy Wall Street, a movement that protests greed, corporate influence and unemployment, began camping out in New Yorks financial district in September 2011 and have spawnedsimilardemonstrationsaround the country.Supporters include the left-leaning political advocacy groupMoveOn.organdRuss Feingold, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, whosaidaccountability for corporate greed is long overdue.As part of what is being billed as aninternational protest, local offshoots of the Occupy Wall Streetplanto demonstrate in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton on Oct. 15, 2011.On Oct. 4, 2011, Wisconsin Public Radio hostJoyCardindiscussedthe demonstrations withMatthew Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive. The 102-year-old Madison magazinecallsitselfone of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.When Cardin asked Rothschild why younger people are leading the demonstrations, he said: The unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.Is the rate for younger workers that high?Unemployment has been a major issue since the start of the recession in December 2007 -- and not just for people in their late teens and early 20s.The U.S. Department of Laborreported, for example, that in December 2009, unemployment reached a record 7.2 percent among people ages 55 and over and that people in that age group spent an average of 35 weeks out of work -- considerably more than the average of 23 weeks for unemployed people ages 16 to 24.In making his claim about younger workers, Rothschild told us he was quoting an April 2011reportfrom theEconomic Policy Institute.It said: In 2010, the unemployment rate for workers age 16-24 was 18.4 percent the worst on record in the 60 years that this data has been tracked.So, although Rothschild said the current rate of unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is at a 60-year high, he was referring to the annual rate for 2010.The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank thatsaysit seeks to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.Its report -- which urges substantial additional stimulus spending by the federal government to create jobs for younger workers -- says the unemployment statistics came from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau is the federal governments statistics keeper on unemployment.We queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics database to create achartshowing the monthly and annual unemployment rates for people ages 16 to 24 from 1948 through August 2011.We found that the Economic Policy Institute report was correct: Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 18.4 percent in 2010; and that rate is higher than any annual rate dating back to when statistics were first kept in 1948. Thats more than 60 years.The next-highest annual rates, each exceeding 17 percent, were posted in 1982, 1983 and 2009.In each of the first eight months of 2011, however, the rate has been below the 2010 mark of 18.4 percent.Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 17.7 percent in August 2011, the most recent month for which statistics are available. And the year-to-date average is 17.6 percent.So, the rate is lower today than it was for 2010 as a whole, though only eight months of 2011 are accounted for. We dont know, of course, how the year will end up.Our conclusionRothschild said unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. The 18.4 percent is correct as the average rate for 2010, and that average annual rate is the highest in more than 60 years. More recent figures, however, show the unemployment rate among people ages 16 to 24 has dipped below 18 percent in 2011, at least through August.We rate Rothschilds statement Mostly True.

['Jobs', 'Occupy Wall Street', 'Workers', 'Wisconsin']

True

Activists participating inOccupy Wall Street, a movement that protests greed, corporate influence and unemployment, began camping out in New Yorks financial district in September 2011 and have spawnedsimilardemonstrationsaround the country.Supporters include the left-leaning political advocacy groupMoveOn.organdRuss Feingold, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, whosaidaccountability for corporate greed is long overdue.As part of what is being billed as aninternational protest, local offshoots of the Occupy Wall Streetplanto demonstrate in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton on Oct. 15, 2011.On Oct. 4, 2011, Wisconsin Public Radio hostJoyCardindiscussedthe demonstrations withMatthew Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive. The 102-year-old Madison magazinecallsitselfone of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.When Cardin asked Rothschild why younger people are leading the demonstrations, he said: The unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.Is the rate for younger workers that high?Unemployment has been a major issue since the start of the recession in December 2007 -- and not just for people in their late teens and early 20s.The U.S. Department of Laborreported, for example, that in December 2009, unemployment reached a record 7.2 percent among people ages 55 and over and that people in that age group spent an average of 35 weeks out of work -- considerably more than the average of 23 weeks for unemployed people ages 16 to 24.In making his claim about younger workers, Rothschild told us he was quoting an April 2011reportfrom theEconomic Policy Institute.It said: In 2010, the unemployment rate for workers age 16-24 was 18.4 percent the worst on record in the 60 years that this data has been tracked.So, although Rothschild said the current rate of unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is at a 60-year high, he was referring to the annual rate for 2010.The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank thatsaysit seeks to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.Its report -- which urges substantial additional stimulus spending by the federal government to create jobs for younger workers -- says the unemployment statistics came from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau is the federal governments statistics keeper on unemployment.We queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics database to create achartshowing the monthly and annual unemployment rates for people ages 16 to 24 from 1948 through August 2011.We found that the Economic Policy Institute report was correct: Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 18.4 percent in 2010; and that rate is higher than any annual rate dating back to when statistics were first kept in 1948. Thats more than 60 years.The next-highest annual rates, each exceeding 17 percent, were posted in 1982, 1983 and 2009.In each of the first eight months of 2011, however, the rate has been below the 2010 mark of 18.4 percent.Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 17.7 percent in August 2011, the most recent month for which statistics are available. And the year-to-date average is 17.6 percent.So, the rate is lower today than it was for 2010 as a whole, though only eight months of 2011 are accounted for. We dont know, of course, how the year will end up.Our conclusionRothschild said unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. The 18.4 percent is correct as the average rate for 2010, and that average annual rate is the highest in more than 60 years. More recent figures, however, show the unemployment rate among people ages 16 to 24 has dipped below 18 percent in 2011, at least through August.We rate Rothschilds statement Mostly True.

The U.S.tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent, while the business tax rate in Canada is 15 percent.

[]

Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True.

['Taxes', 'Wisconsin']

True

Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren.A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens On the Record show.He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes.PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent.That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent.To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number.As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service.Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada.CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada.

White House Psych Out

['']

FACT CHECK: Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people? Claim: President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" to be carried out on the American people. MOSTLY FALSE: President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy. WHAT'S FALSE: President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; he specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example: [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015 Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015 Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015 Origins: On 15 September 2015, the website Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public," which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens." President Obama announced a new executive order that authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens." Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And can someone point to the Constitution and show where the government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form, or fashion? It's not there. The government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" to be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's website for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually stated: To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included in the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: Behavioral science insights—research insights about how people make decisions—not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices clearer. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying—by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return—increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another relevant fact sheet detail came in the form of information pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences." Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example, in healthcare, there are simple things we want people to do—eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies' websites and other outreach information. The newly founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing, and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret, and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something—whether that's gas, plastic bags, or emissions—and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, and political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated: 17 September 2015 Originally published: 17 September 2015

['returns']

False

President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed:Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained:A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article:The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues":Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue":

Was This House Saved from a Flood by an 'Inflatable Dam?'

['A Texas homeowner did protect his house from flooding by using an "inflatable dam," but it was filled with water and not air.']

In August 2017, as a devastating hurricane hit Texas, a photograph taken the previous year of a Texas home that survived flooding through the use of a dam was recirculated online, along with the claim that the pictured dam was "inflatable": recirculated The timing of the posts caused some viewers to wonder whether the photograph showed flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall in late August 2017: I don't know if this is from #harvey flood but wow: https://t.co/3f4gdpUlsp #harvey https://t.co/3f4gdpUlsp Jaimy Jones (@Jaimyjones) August 29, 2017 August 29, 2017 This picture was actually taken in June 2016 (more than a year before Hurricane Harvey), after thousands of homes were evacuated in Brazoria County, Texas, due to a severe flood. In an attempt to protect his home, local resident Randy Wagner purchased an "Aqua Dam" and installed it around his property, as a local television station reported at the time: reported Of the thousands of homes evacuated and damaged by flooding in Brazoria County, one familys home is high and dry on West FM 1462 in Rosharon. Randy Wagner decided to take a chance on something called an Aqua Dam, a product he discovered online. The product in question is not "inflatable" in the sense that it is filled with air; rather, the AquaDam encloses water: He filled up 400 feet of 30 inch high tubes made of plastic and fabric with water. I was the crazy guy. Everybody was kinda going by, laughing at me. But today they are really impressed with this AquaDam, said Wagner. He and his family stayed, waited and watched as the water rose to 27 inches, but never seeped through the barriers. The product cost him money, but he told KHOU 11 News it was well worth his sanity. $8,300 is to me a small investment on a house that could have two feet of water in it and cost me $150,000 in repairs. he said. Here's a video report from USA Today about Wagner and his house-saving AquaDam: AquaDam Crea, Jacqueline. "Rosharon Resident Uses AquaDam to Protect Home from Floodwaters." KHOU. 9 June 2016.

['investment']

True

In August 2017, as a devastating hurricane hit Texas, a photograph taken the previous year of a Texas home that survived flooding through the use of a dam was recirculated online, along with the claim that the pictured dam was "inflatable":I don't know if this is from #harvey flood but wow: https://t.co/3f4gdpUlsp Jaimy Jones (@Jaimyjones) August 29, 2017This picture was actually taken in June 2016 (more than a year before Hurricane Harvey), after thousands of homes were evacuated in Brazoria County, Texas, due to a severe flood. In an attempt to protect his home, local resident Randy Wagner purchased an "Aqua Dam" and installed it around his property, as a local television station reported at the time:Here's a video report from USA Today about Wagner and his house-saving AquaDam:

Who Was Michael Myers?

["The face of the mass-murdering Michael Myers character in the 'Halloween' films was originally a Captain Kirk mask."]

One of the most iconic masks in movie history is the one worn by the crazed killer Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise of slasher films, the first installment of which was released in 1978. According to rumor, this frightful face originated with a character from a very different series and medium: Captain Kirk from television's Star Trek. The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have the funds to create a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a Captain Kirk mask at a magic shop and made a few alterations to create the iconic look of Michael Myers. He explained, "There was a choice we had to make because we didn't have any money to make a mask. So the art director went up to Bert Wheeler's magic shop on Hollywood Boulevard, which was right up the street from our offices, and he got two masks. One was a clown mask, and one was a Captain Kirk mask. It was supposed to be Captain Kirk. It looked nothing like William Shatner, nothing like anybody, really. It was just a strange mask, which was perfect for us. So we spray-painted it, altered the eye holes, and just did a couple of things with the hair, and there you had it. I like to think it's Shatner, but it's not really." Similar versions of the story have been told by other members of the crew, including Rick Sternbach, who worked as an illustrator/designer on Halloween 2, and William Shatner (who portrayed Captain Kirk) himself. Sternbach's account is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact. He stated, "I was hired as an illustrator on Halloween 2 in 1981, working for production designer J. Michael Riva. In a supply cabinet at Pumpkin Pie Productions, we had one mask left from the original Halloween and no idea where to get any others for the sequel. It appeared that we'd need to check out some of the toy stores and such, but I noticed that there was some wording molded into the neck area. There was a model number and the words 'Don Post Studios.' I made a call, read off the model number, and the word came back, 'It's our Captain Kirk mask.' I asked if we could buy a number of them, and was told, 'We'll give you a box, just give us credit.' With that, I turned the official dealings over to the higher-ups."

['interest']

True

The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have funds for creating a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and applied a few alterations to it to create the iconic look of Michael Myers:Sternbach's story is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact:

Is GSA's endorsement of the transition procedure an acceptance of Biden's victory by Trump?

['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. However, it was a misinterpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. It is important to note that 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.

Achievements of Obama

['An Internet meme touts the economic achievements of United States President Barack Obama.']

Viral recitations of politicians' achievements and failures have become standard election-year fare on social media, and, like the campaign talking points on which they appear to be based, are long on declarative statements and short on nuance. One of many such lists devoted to President Barack Obama touts his economic accomplishments in office. While the statements it contains are basically true, it behooves the reader to bear in mind that 1.) it's a short list, and 2.) most of the items benefit, accuracy-wise, from a little added context. "Biggest job growth in manufacturing since the '90s" It's accurate, as far as it goes, to say that Obama presided over the largest spurt of manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, but how remarkable is that, really? As illustrated in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph below, the six-year period from 2010 to 2016 saw the largest sustained increase in manufacturing jobs since 1998 (more than 800,000 added), but what it also shows is how deep a trough manufacturing labor had fallen into over the previous decade, and how depressed it remains to this day, despite a modicum of improvement. "Auto industry breaking sales records" Nothing to quibble with here. According to statistics compiled by Autodata, U.S. car sales have increased steadily every year since 2009, and in 2015 set an all-time record of 17.47 million vehicles sold. statistics "Clean energy production doubled" Partly true. Certain kinds of "clean energy" production have doubled during Obama's tenure in office, but others haven't -- hydroelectric power, for example, which is our largest single source of renewable energy. U.S. Energy Information Agency statistics show that the production of hydroelectricity has actually decreased somewhat since 2010, though we do, in fact, produce twice as much clean energy from other sources such as solar, wind and biomass today (300 million megawatthours) as we did in 2009 (150 million megawatthours). statistics "Unemployment cut in half" True. Between 2010 and 2016 the unemployment rate dropped from about 10 percent to about 5 percent, as illustrated in this Bureau of Labor graph: Which is indeed a 50 percent drop, although, once again, our starting point for comparison is the peak of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was at a 20-year high. Perhaps the more impressive statistic is that at 5 percent, the current unemployment rate is below the historical median since 1948 of of 5.5 percent. "Deficit cut by three-quarters" True, provided that the starting point for comparison is fiscal year 2009, when Obama's stimulus program pushed the deficit to $1.4 trillion. Given that the 2015 deficit was $439 billion, a drop of about three-quarters from what it was in 2009, the claim holds water. If, however, one compares 2015 to 2008, when the deficit was about $459 billion, the reduction is relatively inconsequential. "Stock market tripled" True, and then some. As of August 2015, the S&P 500 was up 220 percent over 2009, Nasdaq was up 313 percent and the Dow was up 185 percent from its 2009 low. up 220 percent "And he did it all with Republicans obstructing" What's in question here is not so much whether the Republicans did or did not obstruct whether you call it "obstructing" or "opposing Obama's liberal agenda," they've done so throughout his administration but to what extent Obama "did it all." It's standard political practice for the incumbent to claim credit for economic good news (and blame opponents for the bad), but how much credit does Obama actually deserve for this list of "accomplishments"? On balance, the answer is probably some, but not all. "After all," writes Ben Smith in Politico.com, "the $18 trillion U.S. economy is a massive beast that rises and falls on tectonic forces well beyond the reach of short-term Washington policy changes." writes Some of the early moves by the Obama administration clearly helped get us to where we are right now, especially the government being the spender of last resort after the crisis, said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at Standard & Poors. But the Federal Reserve also played a very big role. And this is also the natural shape of a slow recovery from a deep financial crisis and recession that is finally getting some traction. Burden, Melissa and Wayland, Michael. "Auto Industry Sets All-Time Sales Record in 2015." The Detroit News. 5 January 2016. Long, Heather. "Alarmed by Stocks? 5 Charts Break it Down." CNNMoney. 25 August 2015. Smith, Ben. "An Obama Boom?" Politico.com. 9 January 2015. "Energy in Brief." U.S. Energy Information Administration. 5 May 2016.

['economy']

True

"Auto industry breaking sales records"Nothing to quibble with here. According to statistics compiled by Autodata, U.S. car sales have increased steadily every year since 2009, and in 2015 set an all-time record of 17.47 million vehicles sold.Partly true. Certain kinds of "clean energy" production have doubled during Obama's tenure in office, but others haven't -- hydroelectric power, for example, which is our largest single source of renewable energy. U.S. Energy Information Agency statistics show that the production of hydroelectricity has actually decreased somewhat since 2010, though we do, in fact, produce twice as much clean energy from other sources such as solar, wind and biomass today (300 million megawatthours) as we did in 2009 (150 million megawatthours).True, and then some. As of August 2015, the S&P 500 was up 220 percent over 2009, Nasdaq was up 313 percent and the Dow was up 185 percent from its 2009 low.On balance, the answer is probably some, but not all. "After all," writes Ben Smith in Politico.com, "the $18 trillion U.S. economy is a massive beast that rises and falls on tectonic forces well beyond the reach of short-term Washington policy changes."

Data that has been altered in a dishonest or unethical way.

['']

FACT CHECK: Is President Obama compiling a "secret race database" comprised of "sensitive personal data"? Claim: President Obama is compiling a secret race database comprising Americans' sensitive personal data. MOSTLY WHAT'S : Extant data collection methods used by agencies such as HUD track demographic patterns, including race and integration trends. WHAT'S /CONJECTURE: The Obama administration is collecting demographic data for a broader racial purpose, the practice is new, and the openly-compiled data comprises a "secret race database." Example: [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, July 2015] According to an article in the New York Post, President Obama is collecting a nefarious "secret race database." How much of this is true, and how much is misleading hype? So who are the racists again? Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database https://t.co/63VmYIXqNE via @nypost https://t.co/63VmYIXqNE @nypost Yes, Nick $earcy! (@yesnicksearcy) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015 This is movie level horror material yet it's happening. It's real life. https://t.co/LxxvA7EpyE https://t.co/LxxvA7EpyE Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015 I favor equal opportunity, not govt forcing equal results. This is Affirmative Action on steroids: https://t.co/N3snUnie67 #WakeUpAmerica https://t.co/N3snUnie67 #WakeUpAmerica Senator Dick Black (@SenRichardBlack) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015 Obama collecting Americans' personal info for a secret race database https://t.co/1VNJqRsqQf This makes my skin crawl @RandPaul https://t.co/1VNJqRsqQf @RandPaul Alexis In NH (@AlexisinNH) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015 Origins: On 18 July 2015, the New York Post published an article titled "Obama Collecting Personal Data for a Secret Race Database." The article made vague claims that President Obama (or agents of the government working on his behalf, described as "racial bean counters") had been quietly collecting sensitive, personal data about American citizens for purposes of racial justice: Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama's racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school all to document "inequalities" between minorities and whites. This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make "disparate impact" cases against: banks that don't make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don't offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds. The paper offered up one example of the purported secret racial database's reach, pertaining to Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) data collection practices: The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino and publish geospatial data pinpointing racial imbalances. No explanatory links to this nefarious database were provided, but we managed to hack our way into the program to get the full scoop. Actually, we entered "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" into Google's search box and immediately found HUD's page explaining the program and its purposes. program So secretive is this database that HUD has made numerous documents available describing its overall progress, including links to the Federal Register [PDF] and its most current Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy. (They even tried to bury it by issuing a press release about it.) A portion of that openly published, available for all to view documentation is described by HUD as "[updated data use methods] on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) [aim] to provide all HUD grantees with clear guidelines and the data that will help them to achieve those goals": PDF current press release HUDs rule clarifies and simplifies existing fair housing obligations for HUD grantees to analyze their fair housing landscape and set locally-determined fair housing priorities and goals through an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). To aid communities in this work, HUD will provide open data to grantees and the public on patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity. This improved approach provides a better mechanism for HUD grantees to build fair housing goals into their existing community development and housing planning processes. In addition to providing data and maps, HUD will also provide technical assistance to aid grantees as they adopt this approach. In short, HUD will be using extant data to identify areas in which fair housing laws may not be functionally applied. Similarly, the Federal Register's lengthy (public, easy to find) summary stated: Through this rule, HUD commits to provide states, local governments, public housing agencies (PHAs), the communities they serve, and the general public, to the fullest extent possible, with local and regional data on integrated and segregated living patterns, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, the location of certain publicly supported housing, access to opportunity afforded by key community assets, and disproportionate housing needs based on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. Through the availability of such data and available local data an knowledge, the approach provided by this rule is intended to make program participants better able to evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues such as segregation, conditions that restrict fair housing choice, and disparities in access to housing and opportunity, identify the factors that primarily contribute to the creation or perpetuation of fair housing issues, and establish fair housing priorities and goals. The New York Post cited another shadowy instance of "racial bean counting": Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially balancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores and employment records. Again, the National Mortgage Database was hidden in plain sight. In seconds on Google, intrepid searchers could locate the Federal Housing Finance Agency's page devoted to the National Mortgage Database (upon which no mentions of race or racial equality appeared): page In 2012, FHFA began a major initiative to build a national mortgage database on first-lien single-family mortgages in existence any time from January 1998 forward. This project is being jointly funded and managed by FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The information will primarily be used to support the agencies' policy making and research efforts and help regulators better understand emerging mortgage and housing market trends in this evolving and changing finance market. Like the AFFH, the National Mortgage Database was also buried deep in the annals of the publicly accessible and searchable Federal Register. Federal Register From that point on, the Post's article primarily focused on purportedly nefarious and racially motivated actions by "Obama's brainchild," the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). (In actuality, the CFPB was primarily the "brainchild" of Elizabeth Warren and came into existence as part of Dodd-Frank related financial reforms.) The article claimed the CFPB was compiling separate databases for credit profiles and employment. We were able to locate a Government Accountability Office (GAO) document dated September 2014 [PDF] concerning collection of credit data. However, no portion of that document mentioned race, and we were unable to locate any documents, articles, or other information relating to race-based initiatives and employment efforts undertaken by the CFPB as suggested by the New York Post's article. Elizabeth Warren PDF A final portion of the article claimed that the Department of Education was enforcing segregation by way of race-based data collection (implicitly, at the behest of President Obama). However, a (not secret) page on the U.S. Department of Education's web site indicated that data collection of that description had been ongoing since at least 2000 (eight years before the election of Barack Obama to the presidency). page Last updated: 22July 2015 Originally published: 22July 2015

['finance']

False

So who are the racists again? Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database https://t.co/63VmYIXqNE via @nypost Yes, Nick $earcy! (@yesnicksearcy) July 19, 2015This is movie level horror material yet it's happening. It's real life. https://t.co/LxxvA7EpyE Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) July 19, 2015I favor equal opportunity, not govt forcing equal results. This is Affirmative Action on steroids: https://t.co/N3snUnie67 #WakeUpAmerica Senator Dick Black (@SenRichardBlack) July 19, 2015Obama collecting Americans' personal info for a secret race database https://t.co/1VNJqRsqQf This makes my skin crawl @RandPaul Alexis In NH (@AlexisinNH) July 18, 2015No explanatory links to this nefarious database were provided, but we managed to hack our way into the program to get the full scoop. Actually, we entered "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" into Google's search box and immediately found HUD's page explaining the program and its purposes.So secretive is this database that HUD has made numerous documents available describing its overall progress, including links to the Federal Register [PDF] and its most current Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy. (They even tried to bury it by issuing a press release about it.) A portion of that openly published, available for all to view documentation is described by HUD as "[updated data use methods] on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) [aim] to provide all HUD grantees with clear guidelines and the data that will help them to achieve those goals":Again, the National Mortgage Database was hidden in plain sight. In seconds on Google, intrepid searchers could locate the Federal Housing Finance Agency's page devoted to the National Mortgage Database (upon which no mentions of race or racial equality appeared):Like the AFFH, the National Mortgage Database was also buried deep in the annals of the publicly accessible and searchable Federal Register.From that point on, the Post's article primarily focused on purportedly nefarious and racially motivated actions by "Obama's brainchild," the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). (In actuality, the CFPB was primarily the "brainchild" of Elizabeth Warren and came into existence as part of Dodd-Frank related financial reforms.) The article claimed the CFPB was compiling separate databases for credit profiles and employment. We were able to locate a Government Accountability Office (GAO) document dated September 2014 [PDF] concerning collection of credit data. However, no portion of that document mentioned race, and we were unable to locate any documents, articles, or other information relating to race-based initiatives and employment efforts undertaken by the CFPB as suggested by the New York Post's article.A final portion of the article claimed that the Department of Education was enforcing segregation by way of race-based data collection (implicitly, at the behest of President Obama). However, a (not secret) page on the U.S. Department of Education's web site indicated that data collection of that description had been ongoing since at least 2000 (eight years before the election of Barack Obama to the presidency).

During the Reagan era, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half.

[]

In his latest film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore takes more than a few swipes at President Ronald Reagan, essentially asserting that under Reagan's watch, the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. During the Reagan era, he said, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Moore is correct that the top marginal tax rate the rate of income tax charged to an individual on their last dollar of earnings decreased from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1989. That's not the same as saying the richest had their taxes cut in half. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent on earnings over $161,300. The rate was substantially lower for the income earned below that. For example, that year, there were no taxes on the first $2,300 of income; 14 percent on income between $2,300 and $4,400; and on up via a graduated scale. So if you made $162,000 in 1980, for example, you paid far less on average than 70 percent of your income in federal taxes. The marginal tax rate also doesn't take into account various available deductions and tax credits, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. When Reagan revamped the tax code and dropped the top marginal tax rates to 50 percent in 1982, and then down to 28 percent by 1988, he also closed some of the tax loopholes available to people at the top. It's much fairer, we think, to look at effective individual income tax rates. That's the actual percentage of income that people paid in income taxes, factoring in not only the graduated percentages along the marginal tax rate scale, but also the deductions and tax credits that people were entitled to. In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent. If you widen the field and consider the top 10 percent of earners, instead of just the top 1 percent,the drop in effective individual income tax rate was about the same, just over 10 percent. For middle incomes, the effective individual income tax rate also dropped, from 8 percent to 6 percent. That's a 25 percent decrease. In other words, it wasn't just the rich who saw their income tax rates drop under Reagan. One more thing. When the top marginal tax rate dropped between 1980 and 1989, it went from 70 percent on earnings over $161,300 in 1980 to 28 percent on earnings over $128,810 in 1989. Obviously, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Did the rich get richer during the Reagan years? Yes. And Moore is technically correct when he says that the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. But we suspect some may mistake that for the richest having their taxes cut in half. In fact, we first began to look at this claim from a fact sheet provided on Moore's Web site before the movie was publicly released. And in the fact sheet, it states that the richest had their taxes cut in half. We were prepared to give that a False, as the effective tax rate for the richest was cut by about 10 or 11 percent. But in the movie, Moore describes it as the top income tax rate, apparently referring to the highest marginal rate. As we said, some may misinterpret that, but we think Moore has been careful enough with his words to get a Mostly True.

['National', 'Taxes']

True

In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent.

Did Police in Paris Confiscate 'Baguette Knives' from Fuel Tax Protesters?

['This is not exactly what\'s meant by "breaking bread."']

In November and December 2018, French demonstrators known as 'gilets jaunes' (yellow vests) garnered international attention for their (at times) destructive protests against President Emmanuel Macron's proposed carbon tax increase in the country's 2019 budget. protests On 5 December, the French government announced they would be removing the fuel tax hike from the budget, after weeks of demonstrations that saw extensive property damage and clashes with police take place on the streets of Paris. removing Against that background, one Twitter user with a penchant for sharing viral visual content posted photographs of what was presented as quintessentially French weapons seized from the gilets jaunes protesters. On 3 December, @HansReloaded tweeted images of what looked like a bread knife disguised in a modified baguette and described as "Bladed weapons confiscated from rioters by the Paris police": bladed weapons confiscated from rioters by the paris police. pic.twitter.com/fyVe8alMbv pic.twitter.com/fyVe8alMbv Hans (@HansReloaded) December 3, 2018 December 3, 2018 The tweet was widely promulgated on both Twitter and Facebook, with many users (whether or not they actually took the "weapon" to be authentic) reveling in the stereotype-affirming use of a baguette in the context of violent crime: A knife hidden in a baguette is the most French shit ever. https://t.co/3uqHl3bAOc https://t.co/3uqHl3bAOc Baby D (@ZGAplease) December 4, 2018 December 4, 2018 The photographs posted by @HansReloaded did not originate in the gilets jaunes protests of November and December 2018, and could be found online well before that period. They appear to have been posted originally in September 2017 by a French Twitter user who added the caption "French self-defense": found French self-dfense. pic.twitter.com/tgvymxZCrK pic.twitter.com/tgvymxZCrK Buby-stoukette (@BubyBuubs) September 12, 2017 September 12, 2017 That user confirmed in a later tweet that the photographs were taken at a branch of La Chaise Longue, a chain store with locations throughout France that specializes in novelty household items and gifts, such as the "couteau pain baguette" ("baguette knife") -- which can be purchased from La Chaise Longue's online store for 21.95 ($24.99 as of 6 December 2018): confirmed purchased Willsher, Kim. "Macron Scraps Fuel Tax Rise in Face of Gilets Jaunes Protests." The Guardian. 5 December 2018.

['budget']

False

In November and December 2018, French demonstrators known as 'gilets jaunes' (yellow vests) garnered international attention for their (at times) destructive protests against President Emmanuel Macron's proposed carbon tax increase in the country's 2019 budget.On 5 December, the French government announced they would be removing the fuel tax hike from the budget, after weeks of demonstrations that saw extensive property damage and clashes with police take place on the streets of Paris.bladed weapons confiscated from rioters by the paris police. pic.twitter.com/fyVe8alMbv Hans (@HansReloaded) December 3, 2018A knife hidden in a baguette is the most French shit ever. https://t.co/3uqHl3bAOc Baby D (@ZGAplease) December 4, 2018The photographs posted by @HansReloaded did not originate in the gilets jaunes protests of November and December 2018, and could be found online well before that period. They appear to have been posted originally in September 2017 by a French Twitter user who added the caption "French self-defense":French self-dfense. pic.twitter.com/tgvymxZCrK Buby-stoukette (@BubyBuubs) September 12, 2017That user confirmed in a later tweet that the photographs were taken at a branch of La Chaise Longue, a chain store with locations throughout France that specializes in novelty household items and gifts, such as the "couteau pain baguette" ("baguette knife") -- which can be purchased from La Chaise Longue's online store for 21.95 ($24.99 as of 6 December 2018):

Texas has outstripped the national poverty rate since at least 1959.

[]

Texas remains home to a greater share of people in poverty than the nation as a whole,Bee Moorheadwrote in a September 2015,oped articlein theAustin American-Statesman. Not news? Well, Moorhead, executive director of the Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy/Texas Impact, also wrote that according to U.S. Census Bureau figures, Texas once again outstripped the national poverty rate in 2014, as we have done since at least 1959. Thats 56 years--a long time to be better at poverty. We wondered. To our inquiry, Moorhead emailed us a spreadsheet,drawing on bureau figures, indicating that in select years, or each decade from 1959 through 2009, more Texans lived below the federal poverty level, by percentage, than Americans as a whole. According to the figures, which we confirmed on the bureau website, the share of Texans in poverty was greatest in 1959 31.7 percent, 9 percentage points greater than the 22.1 percent of Americans nationally in poverty. In the selected years, the smallest gap occurred in 1979 when 14.7 percent of Texans lived in poverty compared with 13.1 percent of Americans overall, according to the figures. Moorhead said she separately drew the 2014 Texas poverty rate (16.4 percent) from a chartfetchablefrom a bureau web page last updated Sept. 16, 2015. Nationally in 2014, the bureauannounced,the poverty rate was 14.8 percent, meaning 46.7 million people lived in poverty. Moorhead also pointed out abureau websiteenabling comparisons of poverty in a state to the nation each decade from 1960 through 2010, leading us to develop this Texas-U.S. comparison: SOURCE:Web page,Poverty Rates by County, 1960-2010,U.S. Census Bureau (accessed Oct. 7, 2015) Measuring poverty Through the bureau, the federal government has estimated residents living in poverty for more than 50 years, initially from a U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate of how much income that families under economic stress needed in order to put food on the table. How the government defines poverty has changed a bit over the years, but generally,the bureau says, it uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The thresholds dont vary by location, the bureau says, but are updated for inflation. The poverty definition rolls in income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps), the bureau says. Each years national poverty estimates derive from the bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which surveys about 100,000 households a year, asking about income from more than 50 sources,according tothe bureau. An experts look Moorhead did not delve into poverty rates for every year from 1959 on, so we asked Daniel Dillon of the University of Texas Child and Family Research Partnership for a look. Drawing from CPS data, heput together a chartsuggesting the Texas poverty rate exceeded the national rate each year from 1959 through 2014. But Dillon and bureau spokesman Robert Bernstein told us that comparative year-by-year figures start only in 1980. Since 1980, Dillon summed up, the Texas poverty rate has generally bounced between 15 percent and 17 percent with a few exceptions. The fact that is it so consistent means that the rate of growth in the general population is basically on par with the rate of growth in the poor population. Sometimes they dont change at the same rate though, like after the recession, where the number of poor shot up but population growth was stable. This caused the poverty rate to increase. So the poverty rate is reflecting the interplay between total population change and poor population change, the latter of which is generally more affected by fluctuations in the economy. Big picture: The 4.4 million Texans in poverty in 2014 was double the 2.2 million residents in poverty in 1980,Dillon noted. In the period, the states total population increased 87 percent, escalating from 14.3 million to 26.7 million, he noted. Dillon pointed out there were times the gap between poverty in Texas and the nation narrowed, including 2014. Broadly, he wrote, the gap grew through the 1980s until about 1988, at which point it peaked at a difference of 5 percentage points. Then the gap began to narrow, he wrote, expanding and contracting every few years until 2010 when it began to close. In 2014, Texas had a poverty rate 1.6 percentage points above the national rate, Dillon said. Thats the closest we have been to the national rate since 1984, when the gap was 1.3 percentage points. Several factors, Dillon said, explain why Texas has consistently had a bigger chunk of residents in poverty than the nation on average. The state is home to a larger foreign-born population than most states and is one of a few minority-majority states in that non-Hispanic whites make up a minority of the residents, he wrote. In comparison to their numbers, minority groups in Texas tend to be overrepresented among the poor. Education level is also strongly linked to poverty status, and Texas is the near the bottom when it comes to the percentage of the adult population with a high school degree, Dillon said. Finally, Texas has a higher percentage of children than most states and child poverty has been on the rise. Today, a quarter of Texas children live below the poverty line. Dillon said the narrowing gap between the Texas and national poverty rates might be explained by the state generally growing faster than most states due both to new births and migration from other places. As long as the mix of people moving to Texas are more likely to be above the poverty line than below it, this will drive the poverty rate down. Similarly, if births to non-poor families outpace those to poor families, this will also drive the rate down, Dillon wrote. Another indicator We also askedLori Taylor, a Texas A&M University economist, to evaluate Moorheads claim. By phone, Taylor said that while its likely the Texas poverty rate has consistently outpaced the national rate, on average, its worth mention that the rate has always been calculated by assuming the same income levels put residents in poverty regardless of location. She said this has tended to lead to overstatements of people in poverty in lower cost-of-living parts of the country and understatements of residents in poverty in high-cost areas. Taylor and a colleague pointed out in aDecember 2014 articlethat in 2013, per the government's poverty threshold, a family of four with two children and a household income of $23,624 was classified as poor regardless of whether the family lived in rural Arkansas, where a typical two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $600, or in New York, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for more than $1,400. In the past few years, the census bureau has been developing its Supplemental Poverty Measure, which reaches its rates by taking into account regional differences in housing costs. And, Taylor noted, the bureaufound in its 2013 surveysthat Texas and the U.S. had the same 15.9 percent SPM rate. In contrast, the general 2013 poverty rate for the country was 14.8 percent and the Texas rate was 16.9 percent. By phone, Moorhead agreed that using a standard measure of poverty across the country is insufficient to characterize the complexity of regional economies. But the SPM is a new measure too, she said, and rates havent been calculated retroactively to cover nearly all the years included in her Texas-U.S. comparison. Our ruling Moorhead said Texas has outstripped the national poverty rate since at least 1959. Available poverty rates for select years through 1979 and for 1980 through 2014 back up this statement. Yet poverty rates dont appear to be available for many earlier years. Also, a new supplemental poverty measure makes a case for the same share of Texans and Americans lately living in poverty provided regional differences in housing costs are factored in. We rate this claim Mostly True. 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.

['Economy', 'Poverty', 'States', 'Texas']

True

Texas remains home to a greater share of people in poverty than the nation as a whole,Bee Moorheadwrote in a September 2015,oped articlein theAustin American-Statesman.To our inquiry, Moorhead emailed us a spreadsheet,drawing on bureau figures, indicating that in select years, or each decade from 1959 through 2009, more Texans lived below the federal poverty level, by percentage, than Americans as a whole. According to the figures, which we confirmed on the bureau website, the share of Texans in poverty was greatest in 1959 31.7 percent, 9 percentage points greater than the 22.1 percent of Americans nationally in poverty. In the selected years, the smallest gap occurred in 1979 when 14.7 percent of Texans lived in poverty compared with 13.1 percent of Americans overall, according to the figures.Moorhead said she separately drew the 2014 Texas poverty rate (16.4 percent) from a chartfetchablefrom a bureau web page last updated Sept. 16, 2015. Nationally in 2014, the bureauannounced,the poverty rate was 14.8 percent, meaning 46.7 million people lived in poverty.Moorhead also pointed out abureau websiteenabling comparisons of poverty in a state to the nation each decade from 1960 through 2010, leading us to develop this Texas-U.S. comparison:SOURCE:Web page,Poverty Rates by County, 1960-2010,U.S. Census Bureau (accessed Oct. 7, 2015)Through the bureau, the federal government has estimated residents living in poverty for more than 50 years, initially from a U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate of how much income that families under economic stress needed in order to put food on the table. How the government defines poverty has changed a bit over the years, but generally,the bureau says, it uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The thresholds dont vary by location, the bureau says, but are updated for inflation. The poverty definition rolls in income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps), the bureau says.Each years national poverty estimates derive from the bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which surveys about 100,000 households a year, asking about income from more than 50 sources,according tothe bureau.Moorhead did not delve into poverty rates for every year from 1959 on, so we asked Daniel Dillon of the University of Texas Child and Family Research Partnership for a look. Drawing from CPS data, heput together a chartsuggesting the Texas poverty rate exceeded the national rate each year from 1959 through 2014.Big picture: The 4.4 million Texans in poverty in 2014 was double the 2.2 million residents in poverty in 1980,Dillon noted. In the period, the states total population increased 87 percent, escalating from 14.3 million to 26.7 million, he noted.We also askedLori Taylor, a Texas A&M University economist, to evaluate Moorheads claim. By phone, Taylor said that while its likely the Texas poverty rate has consistently outpaced the national rate, on average, its worth mention that the rate has always been calculated by assuming the same income levels put residents in poverty regardless of location. She said this has tended to lead to overstatements of people in poverty in lower cost-of-living parts of the country and understatements of residents in poverty in high-cost areas. Taylor and a colleague pointed out in aDecember 2014 articlethat in 2013, per the government's poverty threshold, a family of four with two children and a household income of $23,624 was classified as poor regardless of whether the family lived in rural Arkansas, where a typical two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $600, or in New York, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for more than $1,400.In the past few years, the census bureau has been developing its Supplemental Poverty Measure, which reaches its rates by taking into account regional differences in housing costs. And, Taylor noted, the bureaufound in its 2013 surveysthat Texas and the U.S. had the same 15.9 percent SPM rate. In contrast, the general 2013 poverty rate for the country was 14.8 percent and the Texas rate was 16.9 percent.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Did Ben Shapiro Get PPP Loan Forgiveness?

['Today we found out how many real estate agents in California are named "Ben Shapiro."']

In late August 2022, the internet was awash in heated commentary about the Biden administration's plan to forgive some federal student loan debt. For example, after conservative commentator Ben Shapiro voiced his opinion against student loan forgiveness, others clapped back with the accusation that he himself had received a federal loan that was later forgiven. The viral news site Uproxx published a headline that read, "Student Loan Debt Forgiveness Hater Ben Shapiro Got His Ass Handed To Him By Someone Who Pointed Out That He Had Over $20K Of PPP Loan Debt Forgiven." Many on social media shared a partial screenshot from a database tracking Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans provided by the non-profit news agency ProPublica. Here is one example from Twitter, with the Twitter user's name cropped out for privacy: The ProPublica database entry has much more information that would clarify that the "Ben Shapiro" in question is not Ben Shapiro the commentator. The person with that name who received $20,832 in PPP loans is a Los Angeles real estate agent. We reached out to real estate agent Ben Shapiro for comment and will update this story if and when we receive a response. We searched both the U.S. Small Business Administration's PPP database and ProPublica's database to see whether Shapiro's network of websites (The Daily Wire) received any PPP money and found no evidence that they did. We reached out to Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and will update when and if we receive a response. Shapiro called the allegation a "lie" in a Twitter post responding to the rumor. There is additional context to this controversy, namely that the loans in question are very different in purpose and structure. PPP loans were given out during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, with the intent of preventing businesses from shedding employees or going under. They were designed to be forgiven; that is, if businesses used the money to pay workers and bills like rent and utilities, they didn't have to pay the loan back, and their debt would be considered satisfied. Student loans, on the other hand, were designed to fund higher education, with the expectation that they would be paid back in full.

['debt']

False

In late August 2022, the internet was awash in heated commentary abut the Biden administration's plan to forgive some federal student loan debt.For example, after conservative commentator Ben Shapiro voiced his opinion against student loan forgiveness, others clapped back with an accusation that he himself had received a federal loan that was later forgiven. The viral news site Uproxx, for example, published a headline that read, "Student Loan Debt Forgiveness Hater Ben Shapiro Got His Ass Handed To Him By Someone Who Pointed Out That He Had Over $20K Of PPP Loan Debt Forgiven."The ProPublica database entry has much more information that would make it clear that the "Ben Shapiro" in question is not Ben Shapiro the commentator. The person with that name who received $20,832 in PPP loans is a Los Angeles real estate agent. We reached out to real estate agent Ben Shapiro for comment, and will update this story if and when we receive a response.PPP loans were given out during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, with the intent of preventing businesses from shedding employees or going under. They were designed to be forgiven that is, if businesses used the money to pay workers and bills like rent and utilities, they didn't have to pay the loan back, and their debt would be considered satisfied. (Snopes received PPP money). Student loans, on the other hand, were designed to fund higher education, with the expectation that they would be paid back in full.

Card for child support in Delaware.

['A fake news story about a new Delaware "Child Support Card" hit the online world in January 2016.']

On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?" The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention

['funds']

False

While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized.

Says Texas tax legislation would save the average homeowner in Texas $20,000 a year over the next 20 years or so.

[]

Texas Lt. Gov . Dan Patrick made such a dramatic claim about must-pass tax-rate legislation--$20,000 in savings for the average homeowner every year!--we launched a fact check. Patrick, during17 minutes of remarks to Capitol reporters May 17, 2017, namedSenate Bill 2, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, as one of two measures--along with the Senate-backed proposal barring local governments and school districts from letting transgender residents use bathrooms of choice--that must pass, in Patricks view, for lawmakers to avoid one or more special sessions possibly called by Gov. Greg Abbott after the regular session that must end by midnight Memorial Day. Patrick, mindful the House then had yet to vote on SB 2, said the Senate-approved version of the measure would bring about the largest property tax reform in Texas history. It would bring local government spending under control, give the voters an automatic election on government spending, of anything over 5 percent, and, Patrick said, save the average homeowner in Texas $20,000 a year over the next 20 years or so. Patrick aide: He meant $20,000 cumulatively Is that correct? To our inquiry, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia said by email that Patrick had intended to tout savings adding up to $20,000 over 20 years. He pointed out a Texas Tribunenews storyposted two days after Patrick spoke quoting an unnamed Patrick staffer saying the same. The Tribune story said Patrick provided its reporter with asheet of figuressuggesting $20,856 in cumulative savings to the average homeowner, a conclusionpredicatedon local tax-rate hikes running higher than usual. The story quoted Dick Lavine, a tax analyst for the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities,which opposes SB 2, saying: This calculation certainly does not portray what an average homeowner could expect in any given year, to say nothing of experiencing these savings every year for the next 20 years. Bettencourt offers backup We didnt draw any backup from Patrick. But Bettencourt replied to our inquiry by offeringa chartsuggesting escalating savings for what he described as the owner of the median-valued Texas home based, he said, onresearch by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, which drew on data on home sales culled monthly by the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University: SOURCE:Chartprojecting homeowner savings from Senate-approved version of Senate Bill 2 (received by email from Lauri Saathoff, director of communications, state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, May 17, 2017) In phone messages, Bettencourt noted that the associations analysis suggests that over five recent years, through 2015, the owner of a median-valued home saw a nearly 34 percent escalation in property taxes paid to the local government entities targeted by SB 2, which averages out to increases of more than 6 percent a year. Those entities are cities, counties and special districts though not school districts. How the chart gets to a $22,761 cumulative savings in year 20 figure: It shows first-year savings under SB 2 for the median-value homeowner of $46, second-year property tax savings of $99 with annual savings exceeding $1,100 starting in year 12--and topping $2,100 a year starting in year 17. Each years savings, the chart shows, reflects the difference between what the homeowner would face in local property taxes if all government units raised taxes 8 percent minus what the homeowner would face if the local government entities all raised taxes 5 percent. Under existing law, local governments may raise effective tax rates up to 8 percent without residents being able to petition for a rollback election.The effective raterefers to the rate needed for the governing unit to raise the same total amount of taxes from the same local properties as the unit garnered the year before. Under the Senates version of SB 2, any of the affected entities could raise such taxes up to 5 percent with any additional bump automatically touching off a rollback election. Realistic tax-rate assumptions? We asked Bettencourt about the basis of the charts assumption that local governments will every year across-the-board raise effective tax rates 5 percent and if its realistic to compare that to an assumption that such governments would otherwise uniformly be driving up rates 8 percent every year. In phone messages, Bettencourt stressed the TTARA chart showing the recent average 6-percent-plus increases in property taxes charged the owner of a median-valued home. Separately, Dale Craymer of TTARA declined to comment. Bettencourt also gave us analternate savings projectionpremised on all government entities affected by SB 2 annually raising effective rates 6 percent (rather than 3 percent) without a change in law. Upshot: Cumulative savings to the median-value homeowner would exceed $17,000 in year 20, the second chart suggests. We asked Bettencourt about available data showing local governments had widely maximized tax rates every year of late.In writing, he replied that hed heard testimony along those lines from an Arlington and a Dallas official during pre-session hearings of the Bettencourt-chairedTexas Senate Select Committee on Property Tax Reform and Relief. Actual county, city tax rate changes Advocates for cities and counties say the senators assumption--that local governments will always uniformly raise effective tax rates to the maximum level allowable without risking a rollback vote at the polls--doesnt reflect what Texas governments have been doing. By phone, Don Lee of the Texas Conference of Urban Counties,representing38 member-counties home to most of the states residents, said that from 2014 through 2016, the counties averaged 2.2 percent effective tax rate increases, falling far short of the 8 percent rate that would open the way to a rollback vote. Lee emailed us aspreadsheetindicating the member counties averaged effective tax rate increases of 3.1 percent in 2014; 3.2 percent in 2015; and 0.7 percent in 2016. We also queried the Texas Municipal League,which says it represents most of the states cities, and whose legislative counsel, Bill Longley, emailed spreadsheets he described as based on effective city tax ratesposted by the Texas state comptrollers officefor a couple of recent years. The sheets show, Longley noted, that the vast majority of cities havent been increasing their tax rates above the current 8 percent rollback rate. According to the sheets, in2014and2015, respectively, about 21 percent of the states cities adopted effective rates equal to or exceeding 8 percent. And, in keeping with SB 2s proposed 5 percent rollback rate, how many cities lately have escalated rates that much or more? According to the sheets, 38 percent (382 of 1,002 cities) in 2014 and 39 percent (376 of 963 cities) in 2015. In both cases, Longley wrote, more than 60 percent of cities were under a 5 percent rollback rate, if it had been in place. Texas A&M expert For an outside perspective, we askedJim Gaines, chief economist of the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, to appraise Bettencourts analysis and chart. By phone, Gaines said TTARA presented an accurate figure on its spreadsheet for a median-valued Texas home. But Gaines called highly questionable the assumptions behind the dollar figures in Bettencourts chart--both of local governments uniformly and annually driving up effective tax rates 8 percent without a change in law and of such governments under SB 2 all increasing rates 5 percent year after year. Counties, for instance, dont act identically, Gaines said. Each county is going to be unique, he said. Comptroller makes no homeowner savings estimate Next, we checked thefiscal noteon the Senate-approved version of SB 2 that was public by the time Patrick spoke (a more recentversionappeared May 19, 2017). The March 16, 2017,note, prepared by the advisory Legislative Budget Board staff, states up front that the financial effects of reducing the rollback rate cant be estimated. However, it also says, the table below is a hypothetical example of potential costs of the bill to counties, cities, and special districts based in part on assuming that no voters approve rates exceeding the 5 percent rollback rate and that future rate-setting practices would be similar to the rate-setting practices demonstrated in the available historical tax rate data. And in fiscal 2019, the first year of tax effects, cities, counties and special districts would lose nearly $199 million in revenue, the comptrollers office estimated, an indication of some taxpayer savings, it seemed to us. The hypothetical shows additional costs to affected government entities in subsequent years. Does the hypothetical lost revenue, we wondered, mean the comptroller got a fix on how much homeowners and other property taxpayers might save? By phone, a spokeswoman for the comptrollers office, Lauren Willis, said the agency has not estimated particular savings for homeowners. Tim Wooten, a comptroller consultant who worked on the table, told us by phone thats because we cant predict what local taxing entities will do in setting rates or if voters indeed will reject all increases at the polls. We asked Wooten to unpack how he reached the hypothesized revenue losses. Wooten said he applied the SB 2 limits to 2015 tax rates set by the targeted entities, finding that in that year, 60 percent of cities and special districts and 70 percent of counties did not set rates high enough to touch off the rollback elections envisioned in SB 2. Wooten said too that a lot of the remaining government entities would have sustained small 2015 losses in revenue if SB 2 had been law then. Bettencourt stands by $20,000-plus figure Following up, we asked Bettencourt if most local entities covered by SB 2 dont reach existing or proposed rollback tax rates, arent homeowner savings impossible to precisely forecast? Of course, Bettencourt saidin writing, because we are dealing with future projections to a 20-year degree. However, downward pressure on property tax rates means tax rate reductions across the board in probability. When we said it looked to us like his projected homeowner savings were based on unrealistic assumptions about all the affected government entities maximizing tax rates every year, Bettencourt replied: Disagree strongly, urging us to revisit the spreadsheet he attributed to TTARA. Our ruling Patrick said legislation targeting local tax rate growth will result in the average Texas homeowner saving $20,000 a year over 20 years. Thats an absurd amount. Even if we look at what Patrick purportedly meant to say $20,000 over 20 years we find major flaws in the assumptions underlying that calculation. To reach that amount, one must assume that every city, county and special taxing district will raise tax rates by 8 percent every year without this legislation in place and by 5 percent a year with it. Neither assumption is in line with recent history, making the total savings figure highly suspect, at best a wild guess. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. CORRECTION, 9:55 a.m., May 24, 2017: Thanks to a reader's nudge, we amended this story to correct our description of the second tax-rollback savings chart provided by Bettencourt. This revision did not affect our rating of the claim.

['Corrections and Updates', 'Taxes', 'Texas']

False

Patrick, during17 minutes of remarks to Capitol reporters May 17, 2017, namedSenate Bill 2, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, as one of two measures--along with the Senate-backed proposal barring local governments and school districts from letting transgender residents use bathrooms of choice--that must pass, in Patricks view, for lawmakers to avoid one or more special sessions possibly called by Gov. Greg Abbott after the regular session that must end by midnight Memorial Day.Is that correct? To our inquiry, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia said by email that Patrick had intended to tout savings adding up to $20,000 over 20 years. He pointed out a Texas Tribunenews storyposted two days after Patrick spoke quoting an unnamed Patrick staffer saying the same.The Tribune story said Patrick provided its reporter with asheet of figuressuggesting $20,856 in cumulative savings to the average homeowner, a conclusionpredicatedon local tax-rate hikes running higher than usual. The story quoted Dick Lavine, a tax analyst for the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities,which opposes SB 2, saying: This calculation certainly does not portray what an average homeowner could expect in any given year, to say nothing of experiencing these savings every year for the next 20 years.We didnt draw any backup from Patrick. But Bettencourt replied to our inquiry by offeringa chartsuggesting escalating savings for what he described as the owner of the median-valued Texas home based, he said, onresearch by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, which drew on data on home sales culled monthly by the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University:SOURCE:Chartprojecting homeowner savings from Senate-approved version of Senate Bill 2 (received by email from Lauri Saathoff, director of communications, state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, May 17, 2017)Under existing law, local governments may raise effective tax rates up to 8 percent without residents being able to petition for a rollback election.The effective raterefers to the rate needed for the governing unit to raise the same total amount of taxes from the same local properties as the unit garnered the year before. Under the Senates version of SB 2, any of the affected entities could raise such taxes up to 5 percent with any additional bump automatically touching off a rollback election.Bettencourt also gave us analternate savings projectionpremised on all government entities affected by SB 2 annually raising effective rates 6 percent (rather than 3 percent) without a change in law. Upshot: Cumulative savings to the median-value homeowner would exceed $17,000 in year 20, the second chart suggests.We asked Bettencourt about available data showing local governments had widely maximized tax rates every year of late.In writing, he replied that hed heard testimony along those lines from an Arlington and a Dallas official during pre-session hearings of the Bettencourt-chairedTexas Senate Select Committee on Property Tax Reform and Relief.By phone, Don Lee of the Texas Conference of Urban Counties,representing38 member-counties home to most of the states residents, said that from 2014 through 2016, the counties averaged 2.2 percent effective tax rate increases, falling far short of the 8 percent rate that would open the way to a rollback vote. Lee emailed us aspreadsheetindicating the member counties averaged effective tax rate increases of 3.1 percent in 2014; 3.2 percent in 2015; and 0.7 percent in 2016.We also queried the Texas Municipal League,which says it represents most of the states cities, and whose legislative counsel, Bill Longley, emailed spreadsheets he described as based on effective city tax ratesposted by the Texas state comptrollers officefor a couple of recent years. The sheets show, Longley noted, that the vast majority of cities havent been increasing their tax rates above the current 8 percent rollback rate.According to the sheets, in2014and2015, respectively, about 21 percent of the states cities adopted effective rates equal to or exceeding 8 percent. And, in keeping with SB 2s proposed 5 percent rollback rate, how many cities lately have escalated rates that much or more? According to the sheets, 38 percent (382 of 1,002 cities) in 2014 and 39 percent (376 of 963 cities) in 2015. In both cases, Longley wrote, more than 60 percent of cities were under a 5 percent rollback rate, if it had been in place.For an outside perspective, we askedJim Gaines, chief economist of the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, to appraise Bettencourts analysis and chart.Next, we checked thefiscal noteon the Senate-approved version of SB 2 that was public by the time Patrick spoke (a more recentversionappeared May 19, 2017).The March 16, 2017,note, prepared by the advisory Legislative Budget Board staff, states up front that the financial effects of reducing the rollback rate cant be estimated. However, it also says, the table below is a hypothetical example of potential costs of the bill to counties, cities, and special districts based in part on assuming that no voters approve rates exceeding the 5 percent rollback rate and that future rate-setting practices would be similar to the rate-setting practices demonstrated in the available historical tax rate data.Of course, Bettencourt saidin writing, because we are dealing with future projections to a 20-year degree. However, downward pressure on property tax rates means tax rate reductions across the board in probability.PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Did Jared Kushner Delete Tweets After News Surfaced About Trump's Taxes?

["It's decidedly difficult to remove something that never existed. "]

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. It is essential to keep fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017, and had not paid federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years, in addition to taking an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor began to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account. This rumor is false. Kushner did not delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes. The tweet displayed above contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011, none of which were related to taxes, but then remained inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then. In other words, Kushner did not wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago. This isn't the first time someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor circulated on social media again. The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.

['income']

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 Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns.As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account:The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011 none of which was related to taxes but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then. This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets.A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:

Elaborate Welfare Housing Project

["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 getting 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.

False Rumor Suggests Sinking of Titanic Was Inside Job

['We wish we could say that the memes pushing this rumor were created simply as a joke to troll conspiracy theorists.']

On Sept. 13, 2022, a Telegram user shared a baseless meme suggesting that the sinking of the Titanic was an inside job. It read, "These men opposed globalist world banks (Federal Reserve). Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, and John Jacob Astor all opposed the new Federal Reserve bank. Today, these men would be worth $11 billion. All three were aboard the Titanic when it sank, and all three died that night." According to the TinEye reverse image search website, this meme had been circulating since at least 2014. However, the rumor itself had begun spreading several years earlier. It is true that American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, Macy's co-owner Isidor Straus, and fur magnate and real estate developer John Jacob Astor all perished in the sinking of the Titanic. However, the overall claim implied by the meme was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory. The misleading meme appears to have originated from previous ones that mentioned American financier J.P. Morgan. Morgan owned the companies that managed the Titanic and was not a passenger on its maiden voyage. Past memes suggested that Morgan had somehow orchestrated the voyage to end in tragedy in order to kill Guggenheim, Straus, and Astor. According to these memes, Morgan's supposed reason for planning the demise of the three prominent men was that they all opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. (The centralized banking system was established in 1913, the year after the sinking of the Titanic.) The meme in question also stated, "Today, these men would be worth $11 billion." However, it is unclear how much each of the men's descendants would be worth today had they survived. In March 2021, Reuters published a thorough report that debunked the rumor behind all of the memes on this subject. The article included an interview with a Titanic expert named George Behe, whose research into the history of the Titanic dates back to the 1970s. According to Behe, there is no known evidence that shows Guggenheim, Straus, or Astor opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. In fact, in 1911, The New York Times reported that Astor was very much in favor of the idea. It is widely agreed upon by experts that the sinking of the Titanic was an accident, as reported by Reuters. The ship struck an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912. Within hours, more than 1,500 people had died. We contacted Behe to find out if there had been any updates since Reuters published its story in 2021. "To the best of my knowledge, the conspiracy theory is just as false today as it was when it was first created, and no important new revelations have turned up within the last couple of years," Behe told us in an email dated Jan. 8, 2023. "Sadly, once these nonsensical conspiracy theories have been foisted upon the general public via the internet, they are destined to plague humanity forevermore and will continue to fool innocent people who are unfamiliar with the facts." For further details, Behe directed us to historian J. Kent Layton, who is credited as an author of books including "Conspiracies at Sea: Titanic and Lusitania," "On a Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic," and "Recreating Titanic & Her Sisters: A Visual History." "We've been tackling this nonsense with historical data since at least the late '90s to early '00s," Layton told us by email in June 2023. "However, social media is a fantastic breeding ground for conspiracies of all sorts. Titanic seems to be a favorite of many." Layton elaborated on why the conspiracy theory made no sense to him: "I would point out that if the sinking had actually been a conspiracy to kill those three individuals, there would have been no way to ensure their actual demise unless they had locked them somewhere inside the ship to die as it sank. Instead, the evidence indicates that all three were seen during the sinking. Guggenheim famously cast aside his heavy coat and lifebelt after his steward had helped him into them, saying that he and his manservant were 'dressed in their best and prepared to go down as gentlemen.' Straus nearly made it into a lifeboat, and fellow passengers even recommended that he board a lifeboat with his wife, but he deferred, preferring to let women and children board while he waited behind with other men. Astor was seen very late in the disaster, helping his wife into a lifeboat; when he asked an officer loading the boat, apparently Second Officer Lightoller, if he could board, Lightoller said no. However, Lightoller had maintained a rather rigid policy of allowing no men into the lifeboats that he filled, and there had been plenty of other opportunities for Astor to board a boat. In fact, we recently discovered an account indicating that Astor and his wife had approached an early boat on the other side of the ship, when the situation seemed less serious, but they had stepped back from the lifeboat of their own accord at the last moment and stayed for a while longer on the ship. If a conspiracy to kill these three men had been so deep and involved as to actually sink an ocean liner and kill hundreds of innocent people, one would think that the individuals responsible would not have left the survival of these three men to chance. This story will be updated in the future should we uncover any further helpful information.

['banking']

False

It's true that American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, Macy's co-owner Isidor Straus, and fur magnate and real estate developer John Jacob Astor all perished in the sinking of the Titanic. However, the overall claim intimated by the meme was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory.The misleading meme appears to have been born out of previous ones that mentioned American financier J.P. Morgan. Morgan owned the companies that managed the Titanic and was not a passenger on its maiden voyage.According to the memes, Morgan's supposed reason for planning the demise of the three prominent men was because they all opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. (The centralized banking system was established in 1913, the year after the sinking of the Titanic.)In March 2021, Reuters published a thorough report that debunked the rumor behind all of the memes on this subject. The article included an interview with a Titanic expert named George Behe, whose research into the history of Titanic goes all the way back to the 1970s. According to Behe, there is no known evidence that showed Guggenheim, Straus, or Astor opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. In fact, in 1911, The New York Times reported that Astor was very much in favor of the idea.It's widely agreed upon by experts that the sinking of the Titanic was an accident, the reporting from Reuters said. The ship struck an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912. Within hours, more than 1,500 people had died.

Did a Russian Asbestos Company Put Trump's Face on Their Product?

['A Russian asbestos producer shared a photograph of their product to social media with a seal of Donald Trumps face and the text "Approved by Donald Trump.']

On 25 June 2018, a Russian mining company named Uralasbest, which is one of the worlds largest producers of asbestos, posted a message of support for President Trump on their official Facebook and VK (a Russian version of Facebook) pages. The post included photographs of packed asbestos material adorned with the face of Trump and the text "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States." largest Facebook VK Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in construction projects for its fire resistant properties, but research has since linked it to a variety of cancers, most notably lung cancer and mesothelioma. cancers The non-profit health and environmental protection Environmental Working Group, who first called attention to the Uralasbest post, provided an English translation of the text that was shared alongside the image: "Donald is on our side! ... He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos '100% safe after application.'" provided These images, as they were posted to the official social media accounts of Uralasbest, are genuine. Also genuine is President Trumps support of the asbestos industry. Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was 100% safe once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-led conspiracy: "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented." Uralasbest opined In June, when Uralasbest posted their message of support, then-Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt had recently announced new interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act that could allow for new uses of asbestos to be approved in the United States. While this move would not allow for previously banned uses to be considered, it was a reversal of Obama-era rules that barred the EPA from considering any new uses for asbestos. new interpretations rules Milman, Oliver. "Russian Mining Firm Puts Trump's Face on Its Asbestos Products. The Guardian. 11 July 2018. American Cancer Society. "Asbestos and Cancer Risk. Accessed 20 July 2018. Environmental Working Group. "Russian Asbestos Giant Praises Trump Administration Actions to Keep Deadly Carcinogen Legal. 11 July 2018. Goodkind, Nicole. "Donald Trump Called Asbestos Poisoning a Mob-Led Conspiracy, Now His EPA Wont Evaluate Asbestos Already in Homes. Huffington Post. 8 June 2018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Federal Register Notices Archived from 19 January 2017.

['profit']

True

On 25 June 2018, a Russian mining company named Uralasbest, which is one of the worlds largest producers of asbestos, posted a message of support for President Trump on their official Facebook and VK (a Russian version of Facebook) pages. The post included photographs of packed asbestos material adorned with the face of Trump and the text "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States."Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in construction projects for its fire resistant properties, but research has since linked it to a variety of cancers, most notably lung cancer and mesothelioma. The non-profit health and environmental protection Environmental Working Group, who first called attention to the Uralasbest post, provided an English translation of the text that was shared alongside the image: "Donald is on our side! ... He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos '100% safe after application.'"These images, as they were posted to the official social media accounts of Uralasbest, are genuine. Also genuine is President Trumps support of the asbestos industry. Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was 100% safe once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-led conspiracy: "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented."In June, when Uralasbest posted their message of support, then-Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt had recently announced new interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act that could allow for new uses of asbestos to be approved in the United States. While this move would not allow for previously banned uses to be considered, it was a reversal of Obama-era rules that barred the EPA from considering any new uses for asbestos.

Has the net worth of U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell reportedly seen a growth of almost $2.4 million annually over a span of ten years?

['A meme based on a 2014 campaign ad has continued to make the online rounds years later.']

In late February 2019, a misleading meme was circulated on Facebook that led viewers to ask whether U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had mysteriously amassed vast wealth in yearly increments to the tune of $2.4 million while in office: As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell received an annual salary of $193,400, but the Kentucky Republican reported an influx of family wealth between $5 million and $25 million in 2008, according to his financial disclosures. That influx was the result of an inheritance his wife received upon the death of her mother, and that information has been part of public discourse since 2014, when it became campaign fodder for McConnell's Democratic opponent, Allison Lundergan Grimes: salary Although the meme and the campaign ad upon which it was likely based were set up to make it seem as if McConnell's wealth increase were the result of his role in the Senate and thus involved unethical or illegal activities, most of his net worth actually derives from his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who hails from a wealthy business family and married McConnell in 1993. Chao is the daughter of James S.C. and Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. Her father is the founder of the New York-based international shipping and trading company Foremost Group, an organization her sister, Angela, chairs. How wealthy is the Chao family? Wealthy enough to have bestowed Harvard Business School with a $40 million gift in 2012. chairs gift According to the non-profit government transparency organization Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell's net worth jumped from an estimated $7.8 million in 2007 to $17 million in 2008, owing entirely to a tax-exempt, money market fund in an account he held jointly with his wife: 2008 As the Washington Post reported in 2014, McConnell's increase in wealth reflected inheritance mone Chao received when her mother passed away in 2007: reported Thats almost a sevenfold increase in 10 years. McConnell has quadrupled his net worth since 2007, when it was $7.8 million. So what happened in 2008? His financial disclosure form tells the storysuddenly there appeared a tax-exempt money market fund, valued at between $5 million and $25 million, listed as a gift from a filers relative. (Look at Line 2 and then Line 3.) Indeed, a McConnell spokesman confirms that this was an inheritance for McConnells wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, after her mother died in 2007. Chao, who married McConnell in 1993, earns significant income on her own, serving on corporate boards, and has at least $1 million in a Vanguard 500 Index Fund. (Since these shares are in her name, McConnell only needs to report they have a minimum value of $1 million.) The Center for Responsive Politics estimated McConnell's net worth in 2015, the most recent figure available, to be nearly $27 million. 2015 Kessler, Glenn. "How Did Mitch McConnells Net Worth Soar?" The Washington Post. 22 May 2014. Newmyer, Tory. "The Secret to Mitch McConnell's Millions." Fortune. 20 March 2014.

['income']

NEI

As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell received an annual salary of $193,400, but the Kentucky Republican reported an influx of family wealth between $5 million and $25 million in 2008, according to his financial disclosures. That influx was the result of an inheritance his wife received upon the death of her mother, and that information has been part of public discourse since 2014, when it became campaign fodder for McConnell's Democratic opponent, Allison Lundergan Grimes:Chao is the daughter of James S.C. and Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. Her father is the founder of the New York-based international shipping and trading company Foremost Group, an organization her sister, Angela, chairs. How wealthy is the Chao family? Wealthy enough to have bestowed Harvard Business School with a $40 million gift in 2012.According to the non-profit government transparency organization Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell's net worth jumped from an estimated $7.8 million in 2007 to $17 million in 2008, owing entirely to a tax-exempt, money market fund in an account he held jointly with his wife:As the Washington Post reported in 2014, McConnell's increase in wealth reflected inheritance mone Chao received when her mother passed away in 2007:The Center for Responsive Politics estimated McConnell's net worth in 2015, the most recent figure available, to be nearly $27 million.

450K Facebook Users Fell for This Toyota Tundra Giveaway Scam

["Here's the lowdown on what these scammers were looking to accomplish."]

On Dec. 15, 2023, we received reader mail inquiring about a purported giveaway on Facebook that promised one winner a 2023 Toyota Tundra pickup truck. The numerous Facebook pages promoting the supposed giveaway were named 2023 Tundra, TRD. One of the posts read as follows and directed users to a sites.google.com website: "Christmas surprise! This Toyota Tundra wasn't sold, so we're giving it to someone by December 19th who $hared. Register here." Another post asked users to enter the giveaway in the comments by typing "@" and then clicking on "highlight." In the pinned comment under the post, users were directed to visit a website to "validate" their entry. However, none of these posts hosted a genuine giveaway for a 2023 Toyota Tundra. All of this was a scam, apparently designed to entice users to fill out surveys, sign up for "free trials" on websites, and perform other tasks, at least partially to allow the scammers to obtain an affiliate-marketing commission. In other words, it was a waste of time—and a potentially dangerous one at that—for users who hoped to win a free pickup truck. Unfortunately, as of Dec. 15, over 450,000 users had commented on just one of the posts. It's unclear how many of these users continued with the scam by clicking on one of the links. The reason the scammers asked users to type "@" in the comments and then click "highlight" was to boost the page's following. This would potentially help the scammer sell the follower-filled page in the future, if that was the goal. Based on the actions of scammers over the last several years, it's likely that they will attempt the same fake giveaway strategy in the future using the makes and models of other cars. For any users who fell for these scams and provided their financial information (e.g., a credit card number), we recommend retracing your steps and ensuring that any "free trials" you signed up for are canceled, so that no future charges appear on your statement. Call your credit card company for further advice. For further reading, the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) published an article about how to spot fake giveaways on social media. One of those tips mentioned finding out if the Facebook page offering the giveaway has a verified badge. If it has a verified badge, it's likely a legitimate giveaway. However, scammers have been known to seize accounts with verified badges to advertise their scams, so bear in mind that this is not a foolproof tip.

['credit']

False

Another post asked users to enter the giveaway in the comments by typing "@" and then clicking on "highlight." In the pinned comment under the post, users were directed to visit a website to "validate" their entry.The reason why the scammers asked users to type "@" in the comments and then click "highlight" was to boost the page's following. This would potentially help the scammer to sell the follower-filled page in the future, if that was the goal. (We previously reported about the "highlight" feature on Facebook.)For further reading, the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) published an article about how to spot fake giveaways on social media. One of those tips mentioned to find out if the Facebook page that's offering the giveaway has a verified badge or not. If it has a verified badge, it's likely a legitimate giveaway. However, scammers have been known to seize on accounts with verified badges in order to advertise their scams, so bear in mind that this is not a foolproof tip.

Do Seniors on Social Security Have to Pay for Medicare While 'Illegal Immigrants' Get It Free?

["It's a familiar trope on the internet but remains factually challenged."]

In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook. Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is common, it is generally misleading. Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers to work, allowing them to pay billions of dollars into the system without ever reaping those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs are actually helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So it's the other way around—it's not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017, the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S." In the short term and at the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care, and law enforcement. However, in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to the higher incomes of their descendants, who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes," and that's true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons. Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of those who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.

['economy']

False

Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading.Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research.The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.

Most Americans dont own stocks.

[]

The Dow Jones Industrial Average hasrisen by 32 percentsince President Donald Trump took office. But are Americans overall benefiting? U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna. D-Calif., suggested that they are not ina Facebook postspotted by a PolitiFact reader. Khannas post featured the headline, Most Americans dont own stocks. He repeated that point in his message, which accompanied a bar graph: FACT: Most Americans dont own any stocks. Instead of celebrating whenever the Dow Jones goes up, we need to focus on bringing investment and good jobs to the areas of this country that havent been part of the economic recovery. The accompanying graph details the distribution of stock ownership by wealth percentile, specifically 84 percent for the top 10 percent, 9.3 percent for the next 10 percent and 6.7 percent for the bottom 80 percent. The data in the graph stems from a peer-reviewed academic paper. However, when we took a closer look, we found the data in the graph doesnt directly support the claim that most Americans dont own stocks. In fact, the actual data on that question shows that a small majority of Americans do have a stake in the stock market. The data in the graph comes from apaperpublished in November 2017 by New York University professor Edward N. Wolff. One of the papersfindingswas that despite the fact that almost half of all households owned stock shares either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of these stocks in 2016. This line by Wolff presents a key contrast that Khannas post glosses over: While about half of households own stocks in one way or another, the richest Americans hold the lions share of the value. Khanna uses a bar graph that highlights the imbalance in thevalueof stock holdings, but his headline claim is about thereachof stock ownership throughout the population. Those are two different things. When we contacted Wolff, he agreed that Khannas headline was wrong. So what does the data show on the reach of stock ownership? Its a bit wider than Khanna suggests. Even if you dont own or trade individual stocks, theres a decent chance you have a 401(k) account or an Individual Retirement Account or belong to a pension fund that is invested in stocks. Many individuals have an indirect interest in the stock market by means of their claims on pension funds that own stocks and use these stock positions to fund pension payments, said Hendrik Bessembinder, a professor at Arizona State Universitys W.P. Carey School of Business. A once-every-three-yearsstudyby the Federal Reserve Board found that in 2016, 51.9 percent of families owned stocks, either directly or as part of a fund. And in 2017,Gallupfound that 54 percent of respondents owned stocks either directly or as part of a fund. Those findings show a majority owning stocks a modest majority, but still a majority. In an email interview, Khanna told PolitiFact that he still feels the essence of the post is accurate but added that a better headline would have been, Most Americans Dont Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market. Khanna has a point that a households affluence does help determine how vested they are in the stock market. The Federal Reserve Board study found that about one-third of families in the lower half of the income scale had stock holdings. In the next 40 percent of the income scale, about 70 percent of households held stocks, while households in the top 10 percent of the income scale had stock ownership rates above 90 percent. Here's a chart from the Fed's report, showing how stock ownership rates vary depending on income level. Gallup, meanwhile, found that certain subgroups were notably less likely to own stocks, including those without a college education, younger Americans, unmarried Americans, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Khanna wrote that most Americans dont own stocks. To be precise, a narrow majority of Americans does own stocks, according to credible recent studies. But Khanna has a point that Americans of modest incomes are significantly less invested in the stock market than wealthier Americans are. Other large groups, including minorities and those without a college education, also lag in stock ownership, meaning that the stock rally is largely passing them by. We rate the statement Half True.

['Economy', 'Financial Regulation', 'California']

NEI

The Dow Jones Industrial Average hasrisen by 32 percentsince President Donald Trump took office. But are Americans overall benefiting?U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna. D-Calif., suggested that they are not ina Facebook postspotted by a PolitiFact reader.The data in the graph comes from apaperpublished in November 2017 by New York University professor Edward N. Wolff.One of the papersfindingswas that despite the fact that almost half of all households owned stock shares either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of these stocks in 2016.A once-every-three-yearsstudyby the Federal Reserve Board found that in 2016, 51.9 percent of families owned stocks, either directly or as part of a fund.And in 2017,Gallupfound that 54 percent of respondents owned stocks either directly or as part of a fund.

We have the highest (corporate tax rates) in the world right now.

[]

On the Jan. 2, 2011, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pa., cited a striking statistic in urging the United States to lower its corporate tax rates. When asked by host David Gregory about possible areas where President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans could work together, Toomey suggested several areas, including taxes. "I think tax policy is a possible area, one with plenty of landmines but plenty of opportunities," Toomey said. "Simplify the code, lower rates. We should be lowering corporate tax rates because we have the highest in the world right now." (Later in the roundtable discussion, Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter repeated the statistic, but we'll check Toomey's quote here.) We wondered whether the U.S. really has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Using the most straightforward definition of corporate tax rates, Toomey is right. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 32 large, industrialized democracies, ranks the combined corporate income tax rate in its member nations. That means the highest tax bracket for general corporate income, excluding taxes levied on specific products or services. For 2010, the U.S. ranks second to Japan by a fraction of a percentage point—39.54 percent for Japan to 39.21 percent for the U.S. But that figure is already outdated: Japan has recently moved to cut its rate for 2011 by 5 percentage points, leaving the U.S. with the highest corporate tax rate among OECD nations. But before we declare Toomey's statement true, let's dig a little deeper. The OECD rate is the statutory rate—that is, the top corporate tax rate on the books. However, many companies pay considerably less than that due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting for these factors produces a statistic called the effective tax rate. The World Bank has assembled data from 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate—27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand, and Thailand produced a higher effective rate in the World Bank study. And Japan's number should fall by the time next year's study comes out. The World Bank also produces another—and broader—statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183—meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain, and Sweden. This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky. There's also broader context that Toomey doesn't address. In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes—not just corporate taxes—are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden. Still, if you rate Toomey on his specific wording by looking at corporate tax rates, he's right that the U.S. does now have the highest corporate tax rates on the books, at least among the biggest industrialized democracies, which is most economists' typical yardstick. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

['National', 'Taxes']

True

On the Jan. 2, 2011, edition of NBC'sMeet the Press, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pa., cited a striking statistic in urging the United States to lower its corporate tax rates.Asked by host David Gregory about possible areas where President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans can work together, Toomey suggested several areas, including taxes.I think tax policy is a possible area, one with plenty of landmines but plenty of opportunities,Toomey said. Simplify the code, lower rates. We should be lowering corporate tax rates because we have the highest in the world right now. (Later in the roundtable discussion, Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter repeated the statistic, but we'll check Toomey's quote here.)We wondered whether the U.S. really has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.Using the most straightforward definition of corporate tax rates, Toomey is right. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 32 large, industrialized democracies,ranksthe combined corporate income tax rate in its member nations. That means the highest tax bracket for general corporate income, excluding taxes levied on specific products or services.For 2010, the U.S ranks second to Japan by a fraction of a percentage point -- 39.54 percent for Japan to 39.21 percent for the U.S. But that figure is already outdated: Japan has recently moved to cut its rate for 2011 by 5 percentage points, leaving the U.S. with the highest corporate tax rate among OECD nations.But before we declare Toomey's statement True, let's dig a little deeper.The OECD rate is the statutory rate -- that is, the top corporate tax rate on the books. But many companies pay considerably less than that, due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting for these factors produces a statistic called the effective tax rate.The World Bankhas assembled datafrom 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand produced a higher effective rate in the World Bank study. And Japan's number should fall by the time next year's study comes out.The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky.There's also broader context that Toomey doesn't get into.In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden.Still, if you rate Toomey on his specific wording by looking at corporate tax rates, he's right that the U.S. does now have the highest corporate tax rates on the books, at least among the biggest industrialized democracies, which is most economists' typical yardstick. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country.

[]

In an opinionarticlehe wrote for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for an end to corporate socialism and made a claim about wealth inequality. The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country, and they will do everything they can to block our agenda, wrote Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The latest-available data back up his statement, and it appears the gap is widening. A note aboutwealth, before we dig in: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home. But they also have debt, typically from a mortgage, credit cards or other bills. The result is that even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth the more technical term for wealth. Sanders campaign told us his claim is based on a 2017 study from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. It used Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and data from agold-standardfederal government source on wealth. Those are 2016 figures, from the Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances, which are updated every three years. The study found that the three wealthiest individuals wereBill Gatesof Microsoft with $89 billion, Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $81.5 billion andWarren Buffettof Berkshire Hathaway with $78 billion. Their total wealth of $248.5 billion was higher than the wealth of the bottom 160 million Americans, at $245 billion. Despite Sanders suggestion that the three men would block his agenda, they have expressed centrist political views over the years, and Buffett was a well-known supporter of former PresidentBarack Obama, a Democrat. Whatever their views, Sanders is correct about their wealth, which is on the rise. Forbes latest annual rankingsfor 2018show Bezos, Gates and Buffett still ranked at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and that their total wealth was $345 billion. New federal figures for the bottom 160 million Americans arent expected to be released until sometime later in 2019. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study said. University of Michigan sociology professorFabian Pfeffer, whose research specialties include wealth inequality, was among a number of economists and wealth inequality experts who told us the federal figures used in the study are the best for assessing wealth in the population. He told us that the wealth gap is much greater in the United States than in other Western industrialized nations. Pfeffer said the top 5% hold more than 70% of all net worth in the United States. Thats compared to 44% in Austria and Sweden, and lower figures in other comparable nations. Sanders said, The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. The latest available figures indicate that the total wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett was $248.5 billion, exceeding the total wealth of $245 billion of the bottom half of Americans. We rate Sanders statement True.

['National', 'Wealth']

True

In an opinionarticlehe wrote for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for an end to corporate socialism and made a claim about wealth inequality.A note aboutwealth, before we dig in:Sanders campaign told us his claim is based on a 2017 study from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. It used Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and data from agold-standardfederal government source on wealth. Those are 2016 figures, from the Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances, which are updated every three years.The study found that the three wealthiest individuals wereBill Gatesof Microsoft with $89 billion, Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $81.5 billion andWarren Buffettof Berkshire Hathaway with $78 billion.Despite Sanders suggestion that the three men would block his agenda, they have expressed centrist political views over the years, and Buffett was a well-known supporter of former PresidentBarack Obama, a Democrat.Forbes latest annual rankingsfor 2018show Bezos, Gates and Buffett still ranked at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and that their total wealth was $345 billion.University of Michigan sociology professorFabian Pfeffer, whose research specialties include wealth inequality, was among a number of economists and wealth inequality experts who told us the federal figures used in the study are the best for assessing wealth in the population. He told us that the wealth gap is much greater in the United States than in other Western industrialized nations.

Does Joe Biden Own the Largest Mansion in His State?

['Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden definitely owns a few expensive pieces of real estate.']

On Aug. 23, 2019, conservative radio personality Mark Simone posted a message on Twitter asserting that that former U.S. Vice President (and 2020 presidential candidate) Joe Biden owned the largest mansion in his state: posted Since Simone's tweet, near verbatim copies of this message "Joe Biden lives in the biggest mansion in his state and just bought another mansion in DC, Bernie Sanders has 4 hours, Obama just got his 3rd mansion. All of this money was made from lecturing you on income inequality!" have been reposted by a several additional Twitter accounts. This message was also turned into a meme that has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook: reposted several additional Twitter accounts meme shared While Simone's post mentioned politicians Bernie Sanders and former President Barack Obama, for the purposes of this article we'll be focusing on the real estate rumors concerning Biden. It's unclear which state this meme is referring to by "his state." Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, but he represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate for more than 30 years between 1973 and 2009. As Biden doesn't own any property in Pennsylvania (and therefore couldn't own the largest mansion in that state), we'll assume that this meme references Delaware, where Biden owns two properties. The Washington Post reported in June 2019 that Biden owned two homes in Delaware: his primary residence, a 7,000-square-foot lakeside home in Wilmington, and a 4,800-square-foot vacation house in Rehoboth Beach. While these are both sizable and expensive properties (the beach house was purchased for $2.7 million), neither of them would be considered the "biggest mansion" in the state of Delaware. reported By one measure, the Winterthur Estate could be considered Delaware's largest mansion. The house was originally built in 1839 but has been enlarged considerably over the years. Henry Francis du Pont renovated the building between 1929 and 1931, resulting in a 175-room mansion sitting on 2,500 acres. This estate was turned into a museum in 1951, however, so some may not consider it to be the "largest mansion" in Delaware. Winterthur Estate The Du Pont family built another massive property in Delaware in the early 1900s. While the Nemours Mansion dwarfs the properties owned by Biden at 47,000 sq. ft. (compared to 7,000), this property, too, no longer serves as a single-family residence and therefore may not be an applicable comparison. Nemours Mansion Still, Biden's Delaware homes are not the biggest in the state. We were able to find several articles concerning homes with more square footage than Biden's residence in Wilmington. The image below shows a 17,588-square-foot estate in Wilmington, for instance, according to Homes of the Rich: Homes of the Rich The most expensive home in Delaware, according to Delaware Online, is a $14.9 million, 7,800-square-foot oceanfront home. Redfin.com also lists properties in excess of 7,000-square-feet, including this 9,957-square-foot property in Dewey Beach, and this 12,000-square-foot home in Wilmington. Delaware Online Dewey Beach Wilmington While Biden's Delaware homes are certainly large, they are not the biggest mansions in the state. The Washington Post's June 2019 article about Biden's finances also mentioned that he had started renting a large home in McLean, Virginia, after leaving the White House: The Georgian-style home from the front a brick version of the White House once belonged to Alexander Haig, the former secretary of state. Nestled on a wooded lot in McLean, the nearly 12,000-square-foot residence has five bedrooms and 10 bathrooms, marble fireplaces, a gym and a sauna. While the McLean property is larger than both of Biden's Delaware properties, it is not the biggest mansion in Virginia. For instance, a $62.95 million, 48,900-square-foot residence dubbed The Falls went up for sale in McLean in 2018. for sale Zap, Claudine. "Oceanfront Opulence: $14.9M Shell House Is Delaware's Most Expensive Home." Realtor.com. 5 February 2019. Gerhardt, Nick. "The Biggest Home in Each State That Will Stun You." Family Handyman. Retrieved 22 October 2019. Viser, Matt. "Once the Poorest Senator, 'Middle Class Joe Biden Has Reaped Millions in Income Since Leaving the Vice Presidency." The Washington Post. 25 June 2019. Polus, Sarah. "A New Listing Sets the Record for the Most Expensive Home to Ever Hit the D.C. Area Market." The Washington Post. 29 May 2018.

['income']

False

On Aug. 23, 2019, conservative radio personality Mark Simone posted a message on Twitter asserting that that former U.S. Vice President (and 2020 presidential candidate) Joe Biden owned the largest mansion in his state:Since Simone's tweet, near verbatim copies of this message "Joe Biden lives in the biggest mansion in his state and just bought another mansion in DC, Bernie Sanders has 4 hours, Obama just got his 3rd mansion. All of this money was made from lecturing you on income inequality!" have been reposted by a several additional Twitter accounts. This message was also turned into a meme that has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook:The Washington Post reported in June 2019 that Biden owned two homes in Delaware: his primary residence, a 7,000-square-foot lakeside home in Wilmington, and a 4,800-square-foot vacation house in Rehoboth Beach. While these are both sizable and expensive properties (the beach house was purchased for $2.7 million), neither of them would be considered the "biggest mansion" in the state of Delaware.By one measure, the Winterthur Estate could be considered Delaware's largest mansion. The house was originally built in 1839 but has been enlarged considerably over the years. Henry Francis du Pont renovated the building between 1929 and 1931, resulting in a 175-room mansion sitting on 2,500 acres. This estate was turned into a museum in 1951, however, so some may not consider it to be the "largest mansion" in Delaware.The Du Pont family built another massive property in Delaware in the early 1900s. While the Nemours Mansion dwarfs the properties owned by Biden at 47,000 sq. ft. (compared to 7,000), this property, too, no longer serves as a single-family residence and therefore may not be an applicable comparison.Still, Biden's Delaware homes are not the biggest in the state. We were able to find several articles concerning homes with more square footage than Biden's residence in Wilmington. The image below shows a 17,588-square-foot estate in Wilmington, for instance, according to Homes of the Rich:The most expensive home in Delaware, according to Delaware Online, is a $14.9 million, 7,800-square-foot oceanfront home. Redfin.com also lists properties in excess of 7,000-square-feet, including this 9,957-square-foot property in Dewey Beach, and this 12,000-square-foot home in Wilmington.While the McLean property is larger than both of Biden's Delaware properties, it is not the biggest mansion in Virginia. For instance, a $62.95 million, 48,900-square-foot residence dubbed The Falls went up for sale in McLean in 2018.

Did Officers in Georgia Kill Over 250 People?

["The humor in a parody post on Facebook was lost on many who don't watch a popular zombie-themed television series."]

On 24 December 2015, the following meme was published to the Facebook group "MCM [Movie Comic Media] EXPO GROUP." It held that two police officers from Georgia were responsible for a multitude of crimes, including the deaths of more than 250 civilians: THIS IS HUGE!!!! Why isn't the mainstream media covering this? These two officers in Georgia have killed over 250 people in the line of duty. The officer on the left, Shane Walsh, has killed 41 people in the line of duty, before being killed in cold blood on a cold fall night by his very own partner and best friend on the right, Rick Grimes, back in late 2011. This was due to a custody dispute and argument over who was the better father and lover to Rick's wife, Lori Grimes, who slept with Deputy Walsh several times and was believed to be pregnant with Deputy Walsh's child as well. If that's not bad enough, Deputy Grimes is still allowed to keep his position as a Georgia full-time deputy sheriff and holds custody over his son Carl and his recently deceased wife Lori and Shane Walsh's child Judith. Rick is an unstable father and has killed over 200 people in the line of duty. It's time to speak up and against people like this. While the post, and its accompanying image, were recognizable to many social media users in the United States as a description of the zombie-themed television and graphic novel seriesThe Walking Dead, its appearance in a European group led to some confusion among users unfamiliar with the show. The post was shared tens of thousands of times, and comments included the following: Demented and evil America. Where murderers in the police and other forces are decorated. And celebrated by US government and politicians. I swear the guy on the right is from love actually x As a matter of fact, Andrew Lincoln, the British actor who plays one ofmain characters in The Walking Dead, did indeed have a role in the movieLove Actually. role While most viewers appeared to have shared the post as a joke,manywere genuinely concerned about the two murderous cops and their increasing body count in a fictional, post-apocalyptic Georgia.

['share']

False

As a matter of fact, Andrew Lincoln, the British actor who plays one ofmain characters in The Walking Dead, did indeed have a role in the movieLove Actually.

Scam Alert: Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden Facebook Vouchers

['Viral Facebook posts on multiple pages and profiles claimed to offer a "meal for two with drinks voucher offer for everyone!"']

In early March 2022, we reviewed several reader emails inquiring about purported voucher offers for Olive Garden and Chick-fil-A on Facebook. The posts on multiple Facebook profiles and pages displayed pictures of food from both restaurants and claimed to provide a "meal for two with drinks" for "everyone." However, these were not legitimate offers. The fake voucher offer for Chick-fil-A appeared on facebook.com/ChickFans, as well as other profiles and pages. This page is not managed by the fast-food chicken chain. This was the first step of a scam. We recommend reporting posts like these to Facebook. The post read as follows: "Hello everyone, I'm Michael Gorham. I am very happy to announce I'm the new CEO of Chick-Fil-A. I'd like to start my new job off with a good deed for everyone, as I know recent times have been tough, which is why I'm going to be rewarding everyone who shares and comments in the next 24 hours with a voucher to get a meal for two at any Chick-Fil-A for lunch or dinner." To be clear, Andrew Truett Cathy is the CEO of Chick-fil-A, not someone named "Michael Gorham." Several helpful readers sent in screenshots of the purported voucher offer for Olive Garden. It was similar to the posts for Chick-fil-A and had been circulating since at least September 2021. This did not come from a legitimate Facebook page. The scam Facebook posts with the fake "meal for two with drinks" voucher offer for Olive Garden read as follows: "Olive Garden Meal for two with drinks voucher offer for everyone! I'm Dave George, the president of Olive Garden. I know times have been tough, so to help everyone out, I have a special surprise for everyone who shares and comments. Every person who does this by Sep 28th can get a voucher. Each voucher can be used at any Olive Garden restaurant to get a meal for two with drinks!" Not only was there no voucher since it was a scam, but also Dave George hasn't been with Olive Garden since he retired in 2020. As of early 2022, the company's president was Dan Kiernan. After users commented on the above posts, the scammers directed them to other posts that looked like the one below: These scams have been circulating since at least 2021. Notice that the post pictured above has photographs for Olive Garden but also a Chick-fil-A profile picture in the top-left corner. This indicated that the Facebook accounts involved had managed scams for both restaurant chains. The post read: "#CONGRATULATIONS For those of you who have received comments from us, you have a chance to win them. To Enter??? Step 1 = Like and Share Step 2 = Enter here ? (link removed) ? Step 3 = comment DONE. Like and share our page below?????? God bless you." Upon clicking the link in the posts—something we advise readers against doing—we were led to rewardgiantztesters.com and then promotionsonlineusa.com. These websites appeared to lead to endless offers and surveys. Similar websites can also potentially lead to attempts at phishing, identity theft, or other similar outcomes. According to multiple pages we found that were pushing the same scams, these pages and profiles that promised the fake offers for Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden may have been managed from Vietnam and Indonesia. Several of the profiles named "Olive Garden Fans" that are linked in the paragraph above appeared to have switched profile pictures from Olive Garden to Chick-fil-A to run one or both scams. Some of the profiles and pages that displayed the scams showed other businesses as well. The scammers appeared to also push fake voucher offers for Costco, Texas Roadhouse, and KFC. In sum, no, Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden were not giving away vouchers, gift cards, or anything else on Facebook that included a "meal for two with drinks voucher offer." The official Facebook pages for Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden feature blue verified badges. This symbol indicates that a page is genuine.

['share']

False

In early March 2022, we reviewed several reader emails that inquired about purported voucher offers for Olive Garden and Chick-fil-A on Facebook. The posts on multiple Facebook profiles and pages showed pictures of food at both restaurants and claimed to provide a "meal for two with drinks" for "everyone."The fake voucher offer for Chick-fil-A appeared on facebook.com/ChickFans as well as other profiles and pages. This page is not managed by the fast food chicken chain: This was the first step of a scam. We recommend reporting posts like these to Facebook.To be clear, Andrew Truett Cathy is the CEO of Chick-fil-A, not someone named "Michael Gorham."Several helpful readers sent in screenshots of the purported voucher offer for Olive Garden. It was similar to the posts for Chick-fil-A, and had been going around since at least September 2021: This did not come from a legitimate Facebook page.The scam Facebook posts with the fake "meal for two with drinks" voucher offer for Olive Garden read as follows:I'm Dave George, the president of Olive Garden. I know times have been tough so to help everyone out I have a special surprise for everyone who shares&comments then. Every person who does this by Sep 28th can get a voucher. Each voucher can be used at any Olive Garden restaurant to get a meal for two with drinks!Not only was there no voucher since it was a scam, but also Dave George hasn't been with Olive Garden since he retired in 2020. As of early 2022, the company's president was Dan Kiernan. These scams have been going around since at least 2021.Notice that the post pictured above has photographs for Olive Garden but also a Chick-fil-A profile picture in the top-left corner. This indicated that the Facebook accounts that were involved had managed scams for both restaurant chains. The post read:According to multiple pages we found that were pushing the same scams, these pages and profiles that promised the fake offers for Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden may have been managed from Vietnam and Indonesia.Several of the profiles named "Olive Garden Fans" that are linked in the paragraph above appeared to have switched profile pictures from Olive Garden to Chick-fil-A to run one or both scams.Some of the profiles and pages that displayed the scams showed other businesses as well. The scammers appeared to also push fake voucher offers for Costco, Texas Roadhouse, and KFC.In sum, no, Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden were not giving away vouchers, gift cards, or anything else on Facebook that included a "meal for two with drinks voucher offer." This was a scam. The official Facebook pages for Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden feature blue verified badges. This symbol is an indication that a page is genuine.

Did ISIS Call for the Assassination of Barron Trump?

['A message on the Telegram app from an "ISIS supporter" used a hashtag translated to "handle the son of the mule of America."']

On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which, in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a "detailed plan" for how the deed would be accomplished. Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon, which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear. The MEMRI report was not available on their website at the time of this writing. The full report, which MEMRI sent to us via email, can be seen below. The MEMRI report states that this threat was posted in a "pro-ISIS" channel on Telegram, a popular communication app, by a "supporter of ISIS." The report did not state that the threat came from a known terrorist, a leader of ISIS, or through any form of official communication from the terrorist organization. This lack of verification of the message's original source puts the post on shaky ground and was omitted from the exaggerated headlines. When we reached out to MEMRI for comment, they emphasized this distinction: "Please note the report indicates it was a supporter of ISIS on a pro-ISIS Telegram channel." Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app. Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a "detailed plan." The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean "handle the son of the mule of America," appears to be the only reference to a "plan" for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long before this message was posted on Telegram. Here is the full report from MEMRI: On November 21, 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) on Telegram called for the assassination of Barron Trump and shared the name of the school that Barron attends along with a Google map pinpointing its location. Using the hashtag "handle the son of the mule of America," the supporter, who uses the name "Dak Al-Munafiqeen," Arabic for "striking the hypocrites," wrote: "Barron Trump goes to this school in Washington." The post was followed by a photo of Barron Trump. To widely disseminate the call for assassination, several pro-ISIS Telegram channels have shared and forwarded the post. Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled "Selective MEMRI," Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world. The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." Threats against the President and the First Family should not be taken lightly, but the outlets reporting that "ISIS called for the assassination of Barron Trump" exaggerated the contents of a message posted to Telegram to make it appear as if this were a credible threat sent directly from the terrorist organization.

['profit']

NEI

On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a "detailed plan" of how the deed would be accomplished:Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear. Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app.Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a "detailed plan." The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean "handle the son of the mule of America," appears to be the only reference to a "plan" for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long-before this message was posted on Telegram. Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled "Selective MEMRI," Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world:

Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200.

[]

A day after a Florida man landed a gyrocopter on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to demand campaign finance reform, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson discussed his own efforts to focus on small donations and his potential U.S. Senate bid. Grayson, an Orlando Democrat, told a reporter for Democracy Now on April 16 that he will probably run in a primary against U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, for Marco Rubio's Senate seat in 2016. As Democratic Party activists and leaders consider their best path to winning that seat, Grayson wants to remind them of his populist fundraising: "I'm the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200," he said. We decided to check if Grayson holds a record in the House for contributions of less than $200. (A spokesman for Grayson told PolitiFact Florida that he is likely a few weeks away from making his decision but reiterated that he has said he will probably run.) Counting small donations, the Federal Election Commission considers donations of less than $200 as small donations, which don't have to be individually reported. Instead, candidates report a total amount of money from small donors. In the House for the 2013-14 election cycle, those who received the largest share of their campaign revenue from small contributions were Democrats, and Grayson was indeed No. 1, according to a November 2014 analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Grayson's small donations totaled about $1.8 million and equaled 57 percent of his $3.1 million in donations. The House member who raised the next highest amount in small donations was Florida's Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, and head of the Democratic National Committee. She raised $1.2 million in small donations, which equaled 47 percent of her contributions. (Wasserman Schultz recently ruled out running for Senate in 2016.) The third-place House finisher was U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who raised about $850,000 in small donations, or 41 percent of his total. On the Senate side for the 2013-14 cycle, Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota topped the list with $11.7 million in small donations, equaling about 40 percent of his total donations. (During his Democracy Now interview, Grayson mentioned U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a leader in the Senate in raising small donations. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and was re-elected in 2012, raised almost $5 million in small donations, or about 61 percent.) So why are some members of Congress small donor leaders? In the case of Franken, a former Saturday Night Live star, the Center for Responsive Politics noted that name recognition, combined with hailing from a state with a strong grassroots tradition, doesn't hurt. Grayson's persona as a Democratic firebrand likely contributes to his fundraising abilities. The most successful small-money fundraisers mix media exposure with partisan taunting and ideological appeals, Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, wrote in 2011. Grayson is famous for his provocative taunts against Republicans, such as describing the GOP health care plan as "if you do get sick, die quickly," or comparing Dick Cheney to a vampire. Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute and a political science professor at the University at Albany, said polarization alone won't get candidates a lot of money in small donations. In many cases, candidates are tapping into political organizations with an existing network of small donors. Grayson, for example, has received money bundled through ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising group that focuses on competitive races. Candidates got their boost from national organizations that created support for the candidates by recommending them to donors who trusted the bundling organization(s) and who probably would not otherwise have known who the candidates were, Malbin wrote. Grayson said, "I'm the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200." Grayson's small donations equaled 57 percent of his donations during the most recent cycle, putting him ahead of second-place finisher Wasserman Schultz at 47 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. We rate this claim True.

['Campaign Finance', 'Florida']

True

Grayson, an Orlando Democrat, told a reporter forDemocracy Nowon April 16 that he will probably run in a primary againstU.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, for Marco Rubios Senate seat in 2016. As Democratic Party activists and leaders consider their best path to winning that seat, Grayson wants to remind them of his populist fundraising:(A spokesman for Grayson told PolitiFact Florida that he is likely a few weeks away from making his decision but reiterated that he has said he willprobably run.)In the House for the 2013-14 election cycle, those who received the largest share of their campaign revenue from small contributions were Democrats -- andGraysonwas indeed No. 1, according to a November 2014analysisby the Center for Responsive Politics.The House member who raised the next highest amount in small donations was FloridasDebbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, and head of the Democratic National Committee. She raised $1.2 million in small donations, which equaled 47 percent of her contributions. (Wasserman Schultz recently ruled out running for Senate in 2016.)The third place House finisher wasU.S. Rep. Keith Ellisonof Minnesota who raised about $850,000 in small donations, or 41 percent of his pot.On theSenate sidefor the 2013-14 cycle, Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota topped the list with $11.7 million in small donations, equaling about 40 percent of his donations.(During his Democracy Now interview, Grayson mentioned U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a leader in the Senate in raising small donations. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and was re-elected in 2012, raised almost $5 million in small donations, or about61 percent.)Graysons persona as a Democratic firebrand likely contributes to his fundraising abilities. The most successful small-money fundraisers mix media exposure with partisan taunting and ideological appeals,Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, wrote in 2011.Graysonis famous for his provocative taunts against Republicans, such asdescribing the GOPhealth care plan as if you do get sick, die quickly, orcomparing Dick Cheney to a vampire.Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute and a political science professor at the University at Albany,saidpolarization alone wont get candidates a lot of money in small donations. In many cases, candidates are tapping into political organizations with an existing network of small donors. Grayson, for example, has received money bundled through ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising group that focuses on competitive races.

Does This Pic Show a Real Animal Called a 'Carpet Shark'?

['The so-called carpet shark, or tasseled wobbegong, is said to inhabit shallow coral reefs near northern Australia.']

A photograph supposedly depicting the so-called carpet shark, also known as the tasseled wobbegong, has been shared on social media since at least November 2021. Though there is no evidence of digital editing, it does not genuinely depict a tasseled wobbegong which is a real species of carpet shark but rather an entirely different species of fish found along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. real species The Snopes newsroom came across the photograph in July 2022 when it was shared to Reddit's r/interestingasfuck subreddit. That post included a caption that framed the image as an underwater snapshot of the tasseled wobbegonging in the "shallow coral reefs off northern Australia, New Guinea, and adjacent islands." That post But that caption was misleading. The photograph does not show a tasseled wobbegong. Rather, it depicts a goosefish, which is also known as a monkfish or American angler. While we were not able to verify the exact origins of the image in question, we do not doubt that the photograph is authentic, based on similar images showing the goosefish. A quick reverse-image search showed that the photograph has been circulating on social media in various iterations since at least 2021. quick reverse-image Tineye Since that time, several social media users pointed out that it was erroneous to call the photographed fish a tasseled wobbegong when it was really a goosefish. several pointed out Sometimes called a monkfish or American angler, the goosefish (scientific name Lophius americanus) is found in the north and mid-Atlantic. The fish is described by NOAA as having mottled dark brown to olive-green skin on top and whitish skin underneath. Some say the goosefish has a tadpole-like appearance, characterized by a broad head and large mouth. described by NOAA Goosefish are ambush predators. Though the seafloor-looking fish typically reach lengths of up to 4 feet, they can disappear into their surroundings and sit in camouflage along the ocean floor. The bottom-dwellers use their modified spines like fishing poles to lure prey small fish including other goosefish toward their mouths. In addition to fish, goosefish also eat crustaceans, mollusks, seabirds, and diving ducks, notes NOAA. While the goosefish finds its home waters along the eastern coast of the U.S., the tasseled wobbegong lives in the waters of northern Australia and is a member of the carpet shark family, a predatory species named for its seafloor-dwelling habits. tasseled wobbegong carpet shark Tasselled Wobbegong. Oceana, https://oceana.org/marine-life/tasselled-wobbegong/. Accessed 11 July 2022.Fisheries, NOAA. Monkfish | NOAA Fisheries. NOAA, 5 May 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/monkfish.

['share']

NEI

A photograph supposedly depicting the so-called carpet shark, also known as the tasseled wobbegong, has been shared on social media since at least November 2021. Though there is no evidence of digital editing, it does not genuinely depict a tasseled wobbegong which is a real species of carpet shark but rather an entirely different species of fish found along the eastern seaboard of the U.S.The Snopes newsroom came across the photograph in July 2022 when it was shared to Reddit's r/interestingasfuck subreddit. That post included a caption that framed the image as an underwater snapshot of the tasseled wobbegonging in the "shallow coral reefs off northern Australia, New Guinea, and adjacent islands."A quick reverse-image search showed that the photograph has been circulating on social media in various iterations since at least 2021.Since that time, several social media users pointed out that it was erroneous to call the photographed fish a tasseled wobbegong when it was really a goosefish.Sometimes called a monkfish or American angler, the goosefish (scientific name Lophius americanus) is found in the north and mid-Atlantic. The fish is described by NOAA as having mottled dark brown to olive-green skin on top and whitish skin underneath. Some say the goosefish has a tadpole-like appearance, characterized by a broad head and large mouth.While the goosefish finds its home waters along the eastern coast of the U.S., the tasseled wobbegong lives in the waters of northern Australia and is a member of the carpet shark family, a predatory species named for its seafloor-dwelling habits.

Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.

[]

The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone.If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly.If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see.And because people who don't have insurance areseven times more likelyto skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else.So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of theRhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, beganan opinion columnin The Providence Journal by asserting that Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders.We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large.When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information froma story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It wasbased on a mapdeveloped by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between.Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group.We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching.When we contacted CDC, they directed us tostate-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call.According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance.But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance.However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine.For additional context, we looked at thepercentages going back to 1995(excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website).It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent.By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance.Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate.More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average.Because of those omissions, we rate her statement Mostly True.

['Rhode Island', 'Economy', 'Health Care', 'Poverty']

True

The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone.If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly.If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see.And because people who don't have insurance areseven times more likelyto skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else.So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of theRhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, beganan opinion columnin The Providence Journal by asserting that Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders.We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large.When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information froma story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It wasbased on a mapdeveloped by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between.Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group.We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching.When we contacted CDC, they directed us tostate-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call.According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance.But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance.However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine.For additional context, we looked at thepercentages going back to 1995(excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website).It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent.By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance.Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate.More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average.Because of those omissions, we rate her statement Mostly True.

Did 'Shark Tank' Endorse a Keto Diet Pill?

['Nobody would ever lie in an ad for a diet product, right?']

In November 2019, several readers began inquiring about the existence of a keto pill that had allegedly been funded through the popular NBC TV show "Shark Tank" a program in which affluent judges decide for or against investing their personal funds in various entrepreneurial ventures pitched to them in front of the camera. Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank." form of dieting In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019. marketed finding Shark Tank" claim Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales. dropshipping One such method is to lie about who has endorsed the product, as evidenced in claims that PureFit Keto had been funded on "Shark Tank." Similar products have also been advertised as if famous celebrities use them. For example, marketers of a product named Keto Fit claimed the supplement was endorsed by model Chrissy Teigen, providing made-up quotes from her to sell the product. Teigen publicly repudiated the practice when it was brought to her attention in January 2019: Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product. Demi Lovato reviews on blogs Though these various keto products often change names the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB). rebranded BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank." a ketone Masood, Wajeed and Kalyan R. Uppaluri. Ketogenic Diet. StatPearls. As updated on 21 March 2019. BBB.com. PureFit KETO. Accessed 19 November 2019. Amazon.com. Purefit Keto Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women - Ketogenic Diet Supplement - Burn Fat for Energy - BHB Formula (1 Month). Accessed 19 November 2019. Shopify. The Ultimate Guide to Dropshipping. Accessed 19 November 2019. Brar, Faith. BHB: The Miracle Molecule of the Keto Diet? StatPearls. 28 September 2017.

['income']

False

Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank."In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019.Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales. Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product.Though these various keto products often change names the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB).BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank."

Did Israel Destroy the Palestine National Library, the Azhar Library, and the 'National Cultural Center'?

['A cultural center was indeed destroyed in Gaza in August 2018, but a viral meme contains some inaccurate and misleading information about it. ']

In May 2019, a set of images supposedly showing the Palestine "National Cultural Center" before and after it was destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) went viral on social media, along with the claim that the IDF had also destroyed the National Palestine Library and the Azhar Library. Many social media users presented these images as if they were recent, even comparing them to the fire that had broken out at Notre Dame Cathedral a few weeks prior. The photographs used in this meme were real, but they were not taken recently, and the accompanying information was inaccurate or misleading. These photographs show the Said al-Mishal Centre (not the "National Cultural Center") in Gaza, which was destroyed during an airstrike on August 9, 2018, at the end of a "round of escalation" between the militant group Hamas and the IDF. Here's how the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center summed up the events that eventually led to the Centre's destruction: On August 8 and 9, 2018, there was a fifth round of escalation between Hamas and the IDF. Hamas and other terrorist organizations fired about 180 rockets and mortar shells at Israeli territory. The IDF responded with extensive attacks on Hamas infrastructure and assets. During and between the rounds of escalation (from the end of May to August 9, 2018), more than 610 rockets and mortar shells were fired from the Gaza Strip at Israeli territory. At the same time, contacts were held to reach an agreement between the sides, mediated by Egypt and the UN envoy to the Middle East, but so far without result. The Israeli military maintained that the Said al-Mishal Centre was targeted because it was being "used by the Hamas terror organizations' interior security forces for military purposes." However, Sameer al-Mishal, the director general of the Centre, disputed this assertion, and the Palestinian Performing Arts Network released a statement claiming that the IDF was attacking the culture of Palestine: "The centre was a symbol of Palestinian cultural heritage and was purposefully targeted by the Israeli occupation because art and culture reinforce and strengthen Palestinian national and cultural identity." While we were able to find a number of reports concerning the destruction of the Said al-Mishal Centre in August 2018, as well as several images showing the aftermath of that attack (including the image featured on the right-hand side of this meme), our search for news reports about the destruction of the Palestine National Library was less successful. The claim that Israel destroyed the "Palestine National Library" likely refers to a July 2018 bombing at a Hamas training facility in Gaza. YnetNews reported that the five-story, unfinished building, which sat on a network of tunnels, had originally been planned as a national library. The Hamas training facility in Gaza that the IAF attacked on Saturday was meant to be the "Palestinian national library," the IDF said. The facility, located next to the Sheikh Zayed mosque, is an unfinished and abandoned five-story building in the al-Shati refugee camp, which was meant to be used for public or government services for the Palestinians, or at the very least for housing. Instead, the IDF said it has been used for years as an urban warfare training facility for Hamas, and in recent months, Hamas has also been using it to drill survival in the tunnels. A tunnel was dug under the building, which connects to Hamas's massive underground tunnel network in the strip. While this building may have been intended at one time to house a "Palestinian National Library," the edifice apparently never operated in this function. Again, it's unclear exactly what facility this meme is referring to as the "Azhar" library. Our best guess is that it is referencing the Al-Azhar University - Gaza (AUG) Library of the Faculty of Agriculture. While that library is still standing as of this writing, one of its branches was severely damaged by "Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip in 2009." It contains a huge collection of materials in Agricultural and Animal Sciences essential for students in the Faculty of Agriculture. Al-Azhar University - Gaza (AUG) has the only faculty specialized in Agriculture in the Gaza Strip. However, the library was severely damaged during the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip in 2009. The total destruction of the library forced the university administration to combine what was left of it with the central library in a hall named the Faculty of Agriculture hall. We were unable to find many additional details about this attack. A contemporary article from the New Humanitarian didn't mention the library specifically, but it did report that Al-Azhar University - Gaza was damaged during an attack in 2009, and that thousands of students were unable to return to school due to "issues related to war." Al-Azhar, Gaza's second-largest university, generally seen as pro-Fatah (the political faction associated with Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank), was hit on the same day. Three thousand of the 20,000 registered students could not return this semester due to issues related to the war, said public relations officer at Al-Azhar University Sameh Hassanin, who also said there had been a 20 percent increase in the number of students unable to afford fees since the offensive ended. There is also a library at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, but we found no reports concerning the destruction of that library.

['asset']

False

Many social media users presented these images as if they were recent, even comparing them to the fire that had broken out at Notre Dame Cathedral a few weeks prior:These photographs show the Said al-Mishal Centre (not the "National Cultural Center") in Gaza that was destroyed during an air strike on 9 August 2018 at the end of a "round of escalation" between the militant group Hamas and the IDF. Here's how the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center summed up the events that eventually led to the Centre's destruction:The Israeli military maintained that the Said al-Mishal Centre was targeted because it was being "used by the Hamas terror organisations interior security forces for military purposes." But Sameer al-Mishal, director general of the Centre, disputed this assertion, and the Palestinian Performing Arts Network released a statement claiming that the IDF was attacking the culture of Palestine: The centre was a symbol of Palestinian cultural heritage and was purposefully targeted by the Israeli occupation because art and culture reinforce and strengthen Palestinian national and cultural identity."While we were able to find a number of reports concerning the destruction of the Said al-Mishal Centre in August 2018, as well as several images showing the aftermath of that attack (including the image featured on the right-hand side of this meme), our search for news reports about the destruction of the Palestine National Library were less successful.The claim that Israel destroyed the "Palestine National Library" likely refers to a July 2018 bombing at a Hamas training facility in Gaza. YnetNews reported that the five-story, unfinished building, which sat on a network of tunnels, had originally been planned as a national library:Library of Faculty of Agriculture:We were unable to find many additional details about this attack. A contemporary article from the New Humanitarian didn't mention the library specifically, but it did report that Al-Azhar University - Gaza was damaged during an attack in 2009, and that thousands of students were unable to return to school due to "issues related to war":There is also a library at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, but we found no reports concerning the destruction of that library.

Is Carl Nassib a Registered Republican Voter?

['After Nassib made history as the first openly gay active NFL player in June 2021, attention quickly turned to his political affiliations.']

In June 2021, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib came out as gay, making history as the first openly gay active NFL player. Given the high-profile nature of his announcement, it was perhaps unsurprising that the episode quickly turned political, with claims that Nassib is registered to vote as a Republican. came out as gay On June 22, for example, right-wing activist Brigitte Gabriel tweeted: tweeted "FUN FACT: The first openly gay active NFL player, Carl Nassib, is a registered Republican voter." Some left-leaning and LGBTQ observers expressed disappointment at such claims, and others posted what appeared to be screenshots of voter registration details relating to Nassib. expressed disappointment at such claims others posted In general, readers should be wary of claims about a specific individual's party affiliation and voter registration, which often crop up in the aftermath of arrests, scandals and other controversies. Links and screenshots purporting to contain such details often come from unofficial and unreliable sources. often crop up aftermath It should also be noted that Nassib's personal political beliefs and party affiliation are of no inherent interest to the writers and editors at Snopes, and that this fact check is simply in response to widespread and substantive factual claims about a public figure currently in the news. In any event, Snopes has checked official, reliable voter registration data from Nevada and Florida, and can confirm that Nassib is indeed registered to vote as a Republican, and has been in at least two states, since May 2019 at the latest. We are therefore issuing a rating of Nassib joined the Raiders in March 2020, and lives in Las Vegas. On June 23, Snopes downloaded voter rolls from the 16th state assembly district, from the official website of Clark County, Nevada. official website That database contains an entry for Carl Paul Nassib, born in 1993, with an address in Las Vegas, and shows that he is an active voter who registered as a Republican on Nov. 3, 2020 the date of the most recent general election. In the screenshot below, we have redacted certain columns which, although public record, contained personal details including Nassib's home address: Before joining the Raiders, Nassib played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and lived in Hillsborough County, Florida. We checked registration information on the official website of the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections, and found that Nassib registered as a Republican there on May 15, 2019. We have redacted Nassib's voter registration number, as well as his residential and permanent addresses, from the screenshot below: official website Before joining the Buccaneers, Nassib played for the Cleveland Browns. Information found on the official website of the Medina County Board of Elections showed that he voted there in the 2016 general election, on Nov. 8, but did not indicate his party affiliation at that time, if any. official website As we have shown, Nassib has been registered as a Republican in two different states Florida and Nevada since May 2019 at the latest, and he was registered as a Republican for the most recent general election, in November 2020. The claim that Nassib is registered to vote, as a Republican, is therefore undoubtedly accurate, as of June 2021.

['interest']

True

In June 2021, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib came out as gay, making history as the first openly gay active NFL player. Given the high-profile nature of his announcement, it was perhaps unsurprising that the episode quickly turned political, with claims that Nassib is registered to vote as a Republican.On June 22, for example, right-wing activist Brigitte Gabriel tweeted:Some left-leaning and LGBTQ observers expressed disappointment at such claims, and others posted what appeared to be screenshots of voter registration details relating to Nassib. In general, readers should be wary of claims about a specific individual's party affiliation and voter registration, which often crop up in the aftermath of arrests, scandals and other controversies. Links and screenshots purporting to contain such details often come from unofficial and unreliable sources. Nassib joined the Raiders in March 2020, and lives in Las Vegas. On June 23, Snopes downloaded voter rolls from the 16th state assembly district, from the official website of Clark County, Nevada.Before joining the Raiders, Nassib played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and lived in Hillsborough County, Florida. We checked registration information on the official website of the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections, and found that Nassib registered as a Republican there on May 15, 2019. We have redacted Nassib's voter registration number, as well as his residential and permanent addresses, from the screenshot below:Before joining the Buccaneers, Nassib played for the Cleveland Browns. Information found on the official website of the Medina County Board of Elections showed that he voted there in the 2016 general election, on Nov. 8, but did not indicate his party affiliation at that time, if any.

Obama to Outlaw .223 Ammunition (M855) Through Executive Action

["Rumor: The BATF plans to ban 'green tip' ammunition due to an executive order issued by President Obama."]

Claim: The BATF plans to ban "green tip" ammunition due to an executive order issued by President Obama. The BATF has proposed a reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from "primarily used for sporting purposes" to "armor-piercing ammunition." President Obama initiated the proposed reclassification or codified it through executive order. Examples: [Collected via Twitter, February 2015] Obama just bypassed Congress to ban .223 ammo. Obama illegal executive order to ban AR-15 ammo on March 16th. All Patriots, speak out for 2nd Amendment Rights HERE. Backdoor #Obama# #executive #ammo ban on AR-15 in partnership with the #ATF. Obviously, they don't take the #oath seriously. @SpeakerBoehner Third Gun Control Exec Order This Year. Of course, Congress will just sit on their thumbs and pivot. Origins: On 13 February 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) released a document [PDF] that proposed the reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from the category of "primarily used for sporting purposes" to that of "armor-piercing ammunition." The 17-page document was titled "ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE 'PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)" and was uploaded to ATF.gov, in part to enable interested parties to review it and submit comments before 16 March 2015. The proposal cited the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-408, known as "LEOPA") and referenced discussions with law enforcement agencies across the country about whether "green tip" ammunition could reasonably be construed as an exempt form of sporting ammo under the 1986 guidelines. The publicly available document noted that handguns made to employ the potentially affected ammunition were not available to civilians at the time the exemption was initially granted, and that the ammo type in question did not appear to meet the standard for a sporting purpose exemption: Applying the sporting purposes framework set forth above, the 5.56mm projectile that ATF exempted in 1986 does not qualify for an exemption because that projectile, when loaded into SS109 and M855 cartridges, may be used in a handgun other than a single-shot handgun. Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used in both "AR-type" rifles and "AR-type" handguns. The AR platform is the semi-automatic version of the M16 machine gun originally designed for and used by the military. The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers. These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor-piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges. The ATF's proposal was immediately controversial, particularly among gun rights advocates. On 14 February 2015, a guns and ammunition retailer published a blog post titled "Obama to Outlaw .223 Ammunition (M855) Through Executive Action": It is doubtful that anyone reading this article will truly be surprised that Obama and his cronies in key government posts are trying to once again de facto suppress our Second Amendment rights. They were not able to make it happen through the legislature, but Obama has his phone and his pen. Currently, it seems the President is using both to target gun owners, specifically owners of AR-15s. If you can't outlaw the guns, get rid of the ammunition. The popularity of the AR-15/MSR is the reason it is a target of the Obama administration. The latest assault on the Second Amendment came after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) unexpectedly announced on Friday the 13th that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as "armor-piercing ammunition." Instead of going through the legislative process as intended, President Obama is using his executive authority to once again impose gun control measures. Another blogger published an entry on 19 February 2015 that made similar claims: President Obama is taking executive action to bypass Congressional authority and the will of the American people. This time the objective is backdoor gun control. Obama is trying to justify the proposal by arguing that the M855 ball, the most widely used .223-caliber round, is "armor-piercing" and cannot be used in handguns, per the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended by Congress in 1986. He is also claiming that the ammunition in the AR-15 and similar rifles puts the lives of police officers at risk. While it's true that the ATF proposed a ban on "green tip" ammunition in February 2015, President Obama was not involved through executive action of any description. The ATF described the proposal as the result of a long-term examination, several years in the making, of whether the ammunition fit the criteria for an exemption for sporting purposes: In light of recent developments in the firearm and ammunition marketplace, ATF sought input from industry, law enforcement organizations, and the general public on the application of the unique "sporting purpose" exemption set forth in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). In November 2012, ATF held four meetings with interested parties representing law enforcement, the firearms and ammunition industries, and non-governmental organizations. In addition, after completion of these meetings, ATF also solicited and accepted comments from the general public through December 31, 2012. All of that input was considered in interpreting the meaning of the statutory language and developing the framework described below. On 10 March 2015, the ATF released a statement confirming that the reclassification proposal was halted indefinitely due to overwhelming public commentary opposing it: Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are "primarily intended for sporting purposes" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable. Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide an additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework. Last updated: 10 March 2015.

['interest']

NEI

Origins: On 13 February 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) released a document [PDF] that proposed the reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from the category of "primarily used for sporting purposes" to that of "armor piercing ammunition." The 17-page document was titled "ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE 'PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)" and uploaded to ATF.gov, in part to enable interested parties to review it and submit comments before 16 March 2015.The ATF's proposal was immediately controversial, particularly among gun rights advocates. On 14 February 2015, a guns and ammunition retailer published a blog post titled "Obama to Outlaw .223 Ammunition (M855) Through Executive Action":Another blogger published an entry on 19 February 2015 that made similar claims:On 10 March 2015, the ATF released a statement confirming that the reclassification proposal was halted indefinitely due to overwhelming public commentary opposing it:

Says Trump administration is raiding moneyfrom military service member pensions to pay for the border wall.

[]

California Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has sharply criticized President Trump for his plans to divert military funds to pay for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. In February, Trump declared a national emergency on the border to access billions of dollars that Congress refused to allocate for the wall. One of Harris's recent attacks caught our attention: she claimed the Trump administration was raiding money from the military pensions of service members to pay for the barrier. "Members of our military have already given so much. Raiding money from their pensions to fund the President's wasteful vanity project is outrageous. Our servicemembers deserve better," Harris said on March 8 on Twitter and Facebook. Is the Trump administration really planning to raid military pensions? FactCheck.org, along with some social media users who commented on Harris's posts, described her claim as misleading or wrong. We decided to fact-check her provocative statement ourselves. Democratic leaders have called Trump's emergency declaration a power grab, and some Republicans have also said it sets a dangerous precedent. The move allows the president to transfer $3.6 billion from military construction projects to the wall, according to the White House. It also gives him the ability to tap $2.5 billion from drug interdiction programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement in February: "The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available." The House and Senate voted this month to block the declaration. Trump vetoed the joint resolution shortly after. A bid to override the veto failed this week in the House. Sixteen states, including California, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trump's authority to divert funds for the border wall. To support her statement, Harris linked in her social media posts to a March 7 Associated Press article. Reading just the headline—"Pentagon may tap military pay, pensions for border wall"—Harris's claim seems mostly accurate. However, the first paragraph describes the money as leftover funds, casting a different light. "The Pentagon is planning to tap $1 billion in leftover funds from military pay and pension accounts to help President Donald Trump pay for his long-sought border wall," a top Senate Democrat said Thursday. The money is available because the Army missed a recruitment goal by 6,500 enlistees. Additionally, fewer soldiers opted to take financial incentives for voluntary early retirement, according to the article. The Pentagon plans to move the extra money to its drug interdiction account, freeing it up to spend on border barriers, the AP reported. To further assess Harris's claim of raiding pensions, we spoke with three experts on federal defense budgets. Each said the senator's statement was inaccurate. "It's off-base," said Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization. He explained that the money is leftover in certain Army personnel accounts. "It's a separate issue worth debating whether that money should be used for the border wall or for other purposes within the military. But the fact that they're moving money out of these accounts is not an indication that anyone is cutting military pay or cutting benefits or pension payments. That's not the case. No military service member's pension would be reduced," he said. Mark Cancian, who worked for the White House Office of Management and Budget on defense budget strategy during the Obama administration, agreed that Harris's statement is wrong. "The answer is, No. They are not raiding military pensions," Cancian said. "I'm sure the Army had some places they would have preferred to send that money. But they are not taking any money from pensions." Cancian is now a senior advisor with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Travis Sharp directs the budget program at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which provides independent defense budget analysis. He also said Harris's statement is flawed. "This is another example of there being a lot of confusion about what it means to cut something in the budget," Sharp said. "Transferring money after an agency overestimated how much something would cost is not the same as a cut," he explained. "The Department of Defense has to budget in advance for things that are unpredictable. The money that's leftover is what the Trump administration is trying to reallocate. Does that constitute a cut? In my opinion, no. That's not a cut." When the Pentagon has funds remaining in one account, it can reprogram the money to others, such as health care or fuel accounts that have a budget shortfall, Cancian said. If that doesn't happen, Congress will rescind that money and use it for other purposes, Harrison said. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: "The AP reported that money is being transferred from a fund dedicated to pensions of armed service members. The President is trying to circumvent Congress, which refused to give him funding for this wall, by diverting resources from other military funds." The spokesperson would not say whether the senator stood by the original claim. Our rating: Sen. Kamala Harris claimed the Trump administration was raiding money from the military pensions of service members to pay for the wall. In reality, the Pentagon plans to move leftover pay and retirement funds that are available because fewer soldiers opted for an early retirement program and because the Army missed a recruitment goal by 6,500 enlistees. No service members would lose pay or retirement benefits as a result of the move, according to experts on federal defense budgets. The headline in the article Harris relied on did not make this clear. But it's important for anyone, especially a public official, to read beyond a headline before making such a claim. The debate over whether the Trump administration should tap this money is a separate issue. Harris's claim was off the mark. We rate it False.

['Immigration', 'Congress', 'Military', 'Pensions', 'California']

False

Members of our military have already given so much. Raiding money from their pensions to fund the Presidents wasteful vanity project is outrageous. Our servicemembers deserve better, Harris said on March 8 onTwitterandFacebook.FactCheck.org, along with some social media users who commented on Harris posts, described her claim as misleading or wrong. We decided to fact-check her provocative statement ourselves.Sixteen states, including California, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trumps authority to divert funds for the border wall.To support her statement, Harris linked in her social media posts to a March 7 Associated Pressarticle. Reading just the headline -- Pentagon may tap military pay, pensions for border wall -- Harris claim seems mostly accurate.Its off-base, said Todd Harrison, senior fellow at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

'Be Like Bill' Spreads Malware?

['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. It's known as 'clickbait,' and if you haven't read the terms and conditions on the creator's website, the details may shock you. 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 your computer, use your Facebook profile in ways you might not know, or even attempt to steal your 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 just 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 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). 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 you or your computer. 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 you see 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 to Facebook, they must be logged into Facebook. 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, with 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 are about 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 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.

['share']

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.

Is the Jim Henson Company Making Labyrinth 2?

["Is the Jim Henson Company producing a 'reboot' of, a sequel to, or a continuation of, 1986's 'Labyrinth'? The answer is unclear."]

Claim: The Jim Henson Company has announced development of a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth. Example: [Collected via email, November 2013] "Labyrinth 2 return of the goblin king is rumored to be released soon but I can't find a release date anywhere and it's floating around facebook like wild fire.. Is this a rumor? or can all of the Jim Henson lovers of the world get stoked about the upcoming Labyrinth 2?!" Origins: On 9 October 2014, a rumor began circulating via social media that the Jim Henson Company was working on Labyrinth 2, a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth. The rumor stemmed from an article published by Variety about Billy Crystal's joining the cast of another Jim Henson project, Which Witch. At the end of the article, author Davy McNary mentioned the Henson company also had several other projects in the works: article It's also working on a quartet of legacy titles in the Henson library a Fraggle Rock movie that's been in development at New Regency; a sequel to 1982's The Dark Crystal; a sequel to 1986's Labyrinth; and a movie based on the Emmet Otter character. Variety updated the article on 13 October 2014 to clarify the above-quoted sentence: Henson Co. is working on a project based on Labyrinth, but it is not a sequel. But that correction didn't kill the rumor, because in November 2014 a fake movie poster for Labyrinth 2 started circulating on the internet: That movie poster was a private mockup for the not-in-the-works Labyrinth 2 created by artist Ruben Ireland which went viral shortly after it was published by Slash Film on 11 November 2014 in an article titled "Cool Stuff: Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened." article In January 2016, Variety reported that Sony had closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce what was described as a Labyrinth "reboot" (rather than a sequel): Sony is developing a reboot of "Labyrinth," the final movie directed by Jim Henson, and has closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce the film with Sony's TriStar division. Lisa Henson of the Henson Co. will produce the project. "Guardians of the Galaxy" co-writer Nicole Perlman will write the script. The original musical fantasy movie, released in 1986, starred a 15-year-old Jennifer Connelly as the protagonist who has to navigate a maze to save her infant brother, who had been kidnapped by a goblin king played by David Bowie, who recorded five songs for the film. Tri-Star's Nicole Brown will oversee the new "Labyrinth" for the studio. However, EW then confusingly reported that "the new 'Labyrinth' film will be a sequel to the original, not a reboot." reported Shortly afterwards, screenwriter Nicole Perlman fostered even more uncertainty when she tweeted to say that "no one is remaking 'Labyrinth'" and suggested that a "continuation" of the film was in the works: Guys, please don't fall for all the clickbait. No one is remaking "Labyrinth." That movie is perfect as it is. Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 24, 2016 January 24, 2016 Labyrinth is my favorite film from childhood, so I share your concerns that any continuation of the world be handled with love and respect. Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016 Henson Co & I started talking in late 2014, so the timing of these rumors is so upsetting. I would never seek to profit from Bowie's death. Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016 So what's next in the Labyrinth realm: a sequel, a reboot, or a continuation? The answer remains unclear. The original Labyrinth was something of a box office bust when it was released in 1986 but has built a cult following over the years thanks to Jim Henson's amazing puppetry and a flamboyant performance by the Goblin King, David Bowie: bust Last updated: 6 February 2016 Lussier, Germain. "Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened." Slash Film. 11 November 2014. McNary, David. "Billy Crystal Joins Henson Co.'s 'Which Witch.'" Variety. 9 October 2014. McNary, David. "Sony Rebooting Jim Henson's 'Labyrinth.'" Variety. 22 January 2016.

['profit']

NEI

Origins: On 9 October 2014, a rumor began circulating via social media that the Jim Henson Company was working on Labyrinth 2, a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth. The rumor stemmed from an article published by Variety about Billy Crystal's joining the cast of another Jim Henson project, Which Witch. At the end of the article, author Davy McNary mentioned the Henson company also had several other projects in the works:That movie poster was a private mockup for the not-in-the-works Labyrinth 2 created by artist Ruben Ireland which went viral shortly after it was published by Slash Film on 11 November 2014 in an article titled "Cool Stuff: Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened." However, EW then confusingly reported that "the new 'Labyrinth' film will be a sequel to the original, not a reboot." Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 24, 2016 Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016The original Labyrinth was something of a box office bust when it was released in 1986 but has built a cult following over the years thanks to Jim Henson's amazing puppetry and a flamboyant performance by the Goblin King, David Bowie:

What Happened, Quietly, on January 1, 2015?

['This claim about taxes quietly imposed as part of the Affordable Care Act has been circulating for years.']

An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases: Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list. These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis. Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6% The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%). The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%). Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold. It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation). estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket. Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income. (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax. The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended. Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill

['income']

False

Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list. These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis. Under the provisions of that bill:It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold. It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation). The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket. Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income. (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.)Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.)

Did Macron Scold Biden at NATO Summit?

['Single photographs can be misinterpreted easily. ']

In June 2021, world leaders from dozens of countries met in Brussels for the 31st formal meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. President Joe Biden held a number of bilateral meetings and news conferences during the event. While several world leaders made remarks praising the American president, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson described Biden as "a big breath of fresh air," and French President Emmanuel Macron stated it was "great to have a U.S. president who's part of the club." However, some Biden critics focused on a single image from the multi-day trip that they claimed showed Macron "scolding" the U.S. president. This is a genuine image of Biden and Macron. However, the claim that Macron was "scolding" Biden is based purely on speculation. A single photograph is rarely enough to tell the entire story of an interaction. In fact, we have covered multiple instances in which single photographs were misrepresented and shared with misleading or fabricated context. In May 2017, for example, an image of Pope Francis "frowning" with former President Donald Trump was shared alongside an image of the pope "smiling" with former President Barack Obama. These photographs were both real, but they only captured a single moment from each president's meeting with the pope and did not accurately depict his mood during these meetings. We found other images that showed the pope smiling with Trump and frowning with Obama. This tactic of cherry-picking a single image to create a misleading narrative was also at play when users shared the image that supposedly showed Macron "scolding" Biden. Although one could share this "scolding" image along with claims that Biden was "bullied" by European leaders, one could also share other photographs (such as the one at the top of this page) to claim that Biden was best buds with Macron. This image of Macron "scolding" Biden is available via Getty Images. The caption states that the two leaders were having a discussion before the start of the NATO summit: "US President Joe Biden (R) and French President Emmanuel Macron (L) have a conversation ahead of the NATO summit at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels, on June 14, 2021." We did not find video showing the specific moment captured in this photograph, but we did find some footage of Biden and Macron talking before the start of the NATO summit. You can catch a glimpse of Biden and Macron speaking at the 3:08-minute mark of the following video. You can't hear what they are saying to one another, but it doesn't appear that this is a heated conversation. Reporting from the NATO summit also made no mention of unusual tensions between the two world leaders. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Reuters reported that the United States is back as a cooperative leader of the free world under President Joe Biden, illustrating the relief felt by many key U.S.

['share']

False

In June 2021, world leaders from dozens of countries met in Brussels for the 31st formal meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. President Joe Biden held a number of bilateral meetings and news conferences during the event, and although a number of world leaders made remarks praising the American president British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Biden was "a big breath of fresh air," and French President Emmanuel Macron said it was "great to have a U.S. president whos part of the club" some Biden critics focused on a single image from the multi-day trip that they claimed showed Macron "scolding" the U.S. president:A single photograph is rarely enough to tell the entire story of an interaction. In fact, we've covered multiple instances in which single photographs were misrepresented and shared with misleading or fabricated context. In May 2017, for example, an image of Pope Francis "frowning" with former President Donald Trump was shared alongside an image of the pope "smiling" with former President Barack Obama. These photographs were both real, but they only showed a single moment from each president's meeting with the pope and did not accurately depict his mood during these meetings. We found other images that showed the pope smiling with Trump and frowning with Obama.This image of Macron "scolding" Biden is available via Getty Images. The caption states that the two leaders were having a discussion before the start of the NATO summit:Reuters reported:Biden and Macron shared several moments together in June 2021. We found several images of them laughing together and even walking arm in arm. Reporting from the event also indicated that Macron's attitude toward the new U.S. president was generally positive. Here's a video of Biden and Macron during a meeting a few days before the NATO summit:

Did Senator Tom Cotton Call for Drug Testing for Social Security Recipients?

['The Arkansas Republican has supported drug screening for welfare programs, but never for Social Security.']

Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities. In that vein, a widely shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bugbear: drug testing for welfare recipients. On January 21, 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote, "Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested; those who test positive will lose benefits." This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an email, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients. Indeed, even those who call for drug testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance that have raised eyebrows. In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actual comments, were more nuanced. In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake: "It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be, at least at the county and regional level, something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job... After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees or begin or continue to move out of the area. Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime." In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description. According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: "I don't think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obama's government," Cotton said. "Nor should we have a food stamp program that isn't reformed, that doesn't have job training and work requirements, that doesn't have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars." In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule that limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance. President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs but never for Social Security.

['insurance']

False

On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description. According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants:In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance. President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs but never for Social Security.

Norton Renewal Email Scam Lures Victims with Fake Invoice

['We called the phone numbers listed in the emails. They had nothing to do with Norton or Norton products. ']

Since at least 2021, an email scam has targeted victims with the claim that Norton had renewed their annual membership subscriptions. Some of the scam renewal emails mentioned Norton Total Protection, Norton Total All Round Security, Norton 360, Norton 360 Auto Edition, Norton PC Life, Norton Family All Device, and Norton LifeLock. Turns out, a few of these weren't even real Norton products. We looked into these emails, which are in fact part of a known "phishing" operation aimed at tricking recipients into divulge private information. scam Norton The phone number listed in some of the Norton scam emails was 760-248-4214. We called the number knowing that the whole thing was a ruse. We were connected to a scammer who may have been located in a foreign call center. The scammer asked for the invoice number in the email. Norton This is known as a refund scam. The emails claimed that a payment had been successfully processed to renew a Norton subscription. However, this was nothing more than a fake set up for the scam. Norton The goal for the scammers was for consumers to respond by email or phone to ask for a refund for the supposed Norton product renewal. The scammers eventually would ask for bank account or credit card details, claiming that a refund would be processed. In reality, they would take the financial information and attempt to steal funds. One Norton scam email we reviewed was from [email protected] and copied [email protected]. It claimed that an "annual product membership" for Norton Total Protection had been renewed. The email also listed the same phone number that began with the 760 area code. The email addresses and phone number were all managed by scammers: Norton Flashback to 2010 when it was more popular to buy McAfee and Norton security products in stores. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Another Norton scam email was from [email protected]. It mentioned Norton Total All Round Security. One little red flag in the fake product name was the fact that the scammers chose the words "All Round" instead of "All Around." Once again, [email protected] was copied onto the email, and the same phone number was there too. To restate, these email addresses and the phone number were all part of the scam and were not managed by Norton: Payment successfull, Invoice DYU24012022LAM Hello Customer! Thank you for your interest in our products. Your Annual membership for NORTON Total All Round Security has been renewed and updated successfully. ITEM Finish Date Qty Total Amount Method of Payment NORTON Total All Round Security In One year 1 $267.00 USD Auto Debit Invoice No. DYU24012022LAM Invoice Date: 2022-01-24 If you require urgent assistance, please call our Experts for refund and settlement issue on +1 ( 760 ) ( 248 ) 4214 --Thank you!,Patrick R.BILLING & SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT On Jan. 24, a Reddit user posted a third example of the Norton email renewal scam. It appeared to be a variation of the same thing, likely leading to a fake refund: posted Your Order Has Been Received From: Purchase Team Hey, Thanks for being with us! We are glad to inform you that your order has been successfully placed, it will activated shortly. If you want to know more details about your order then go through the invoice attached with this mail.. With Regards, Billing Team! PDF-XXX224.pdf Scammers and hackers are often depicted in movies as hooded masterminds looking at code from "The Matrix" fly down the screen while sitting in a room lit in menacing colors. However, the reality of a scammer's life is usually far less glamorous. (Courtesy: Seksan Mongkhonkhamsao/Getty Images) A fourth email we reviewed came from the email address [email protected]. The message copied in [email protected]. It read: order confirmation mail # MDI948__ID VALUABLE_______consumer thanks for joining norton 360 auto edition services. through us. we have receive an order PLACED by you in your norton account which is linked with your bank account. billing DESCRIPTION client ORDER I.d : - # MDI948__ID service details: - pc ANTIVIRUS (system) paid THROUGH: - auto debit PRICE cost : - $367.29 PURCHASE on : - 21ST jan 2022 your subscription has been ACTIVATED. thats the reason why we sent you this mail or if you want to continue this subscription THEN kindly forget this mail or if you are facing any kind of problems then please feel free to connect WITH our help care department. you can reach us ON: - 1+ 804-(742)-0254 BEST regards JOHN WILLIAMSON The scammer's phone number was emailed as 804-742-0254. We called the number but did not receive an answer. The goal here was once again to lure unsuspecting victims to contact the scammers to try to obtain a refund. This would again result in the theft of money from the consumer's financial accounts. A fifth example of the scam email came from the email address [email protected] (purportedly someone named Gerard Riou). We also noticed that [email protected] was copied into the message. It read: (KXWAGTRZY - ORDER) Dear Precious Customer, Your 1 year plan for NORTON - SUPPORT has been successfully renewed & restored. The full transaction will be reflected within next 24 to 48 hours on your account record. _PRODUCT DESCRIPTION_ Invoice No : KXWAGTRZY Product Code : NORTON - SUPPORT Starting Date : 25th January 2022 Ending Date : 1 year from the date of purchase Amount : $242.43USD Payment Method : AUTO RENEW * If you wish to claim a REFUND then please feel free to contact our billing department as soon as possible. * You can Reach us on +1 (844) 678 9560 Regards, Billing Department The phone number listed by the scammers was 844-678-9560. This email went around in November 2021 from an account named Bible Prophecy with the email address [email protected]: Payment Received for Help Call +1 (919) 617-6616 Hello, We have received your Payment, Kindly find the enclosed invoice. For any questions or queries, Kindly connect us on 24*7 customer support at +1 (919) 617-6616. Regards! Nortan Security Nortan Invoice.pdf The scammer's phone number was 919-617-6616. Another message that went around in January 2022 was purportedly from an account named Norton.Alert with the email address [email protected]. The end of the email mentioned someone named Erick McBride. It might not have been a renewal or refund scam, but it was definitely a scam: URGENT: Your Norton Subscription Expired... Your device has been infected (23) m8aUF5OyNI -This message was sent from a trusted sender. Protect your data and privacy. Click Here. Get a Norton 360 Deluxe annual membership for $29.99 your first year. "WARNING!!! The system has been infected (13) on your computer..." Norton Affiliate Program Your Devices May Be At Risk! Purchase or renew now to keep your PC protected! If your PC is unprotected, it is at risk for viruses and other malware. Get Protected. *Advertisement by an independent affiliate of Norton This is a third party advertisement from a marketing partner of Norton. This offer is brought to you by Erick McBride. Also in January 2022, an email from an account named Threat Protection showed the email address [email protected] and said it came "via nats.quarkfive.net." Just like the previous example, this one might not have been a refund or renewal scam, but it was definitely a scam: Don't leave your devices at risk - Get Antivirus Protection Now Hi Is your computer safe? Save big on Norton Antivirus Activate today to protect your devices It was received in the Comic Sans font: Norton would never use Comic Sans font in its messaging. In this ninth example, the scam email came from [email protected], copied in [email protected], and mentioned the phone number 937-340-1969: STATEMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION - ONK2022FY Dear User, Thank you for your interest in our products. Your Annual membership for NORTON 360 has been renewed and updated successfully. Product Title Finish Date Quantity Total Payment MethodNORTON 360 In 1 year 1 $548.00 USD Automatic Debit Invoice No. ONK2022FY Order Date: 2022-01-26 If you require urgent assistance, please call our Experts for refund and settlement issue on +1 ( 937 ) ( 340 ) 1969 --Regards,Aaron M.BILLING & SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT This example claimed to come from the company Intuit from [email protected]. However, a check of the email's information showed it likely came from [email protected]. The email address [email protected] was also copied in. The phone number listed was 888-913-5992: Invoice 1242 has been paid... INVOICE NO. 1242 DETAILS Sales Team Norton DUE 02/03/2022USD 367.84Print or savePowered by QuickBooks Dear Customer, Your Order has been Processed as online delivery.Transaction Id: PTYRF-78945 For Norton Antivirus. Amount has been charged Successfully.. Any issues with the Invoice.Dial Us Now: +1 (888) 913-5992 Bill to CustomerTerms Net 3031/01/2022Sales USD 367.84All-in-one protection that includes device security with antivirus to help block hackers, Secure VPN to help keep your online activity private, Password Manager and more.1 X USD 367.84Balance due USD 367.84Dear Norton User, We have Processed the payment request Successfully.Amount will be charged in next 2 hours . Any issues with the Invoice Please get in touch Now +1 (888) 913-5992 Norton BillingPrint or saveSales Team NortonIf you receive an email that seems fraudulent, please check with the business owner before paying. Intuit, Inc. All rights reserved.Privacy | Security | Terms of Service The phone number 806-839-6579 showed up in this one, as did the email addresses [email protected] and [email protected]: ONE STEP STRONGER #TRF6849JO Dear respect user As part of the Norton family Your plan for computer protection has been successfully initiated and UPDATED. The amount will be reflecting in YOUR account between 24-48 hours or 3-4 working days The Product information ARE listed below: .. Invoice NUMBER : TRF6849JO Item name : Norton SECURITY .. Order DATE : 31th Jan 2021 Expiry date : 24 months from the date OF initialization .. AMOUNT :$350 USD PAYMENT METHOD : auto renewal toll FREE :+ 1 (806 - 839 - 6579) . If you do not wish to pursue further and wish to cancel the subscription kindly GET in touch with us You can reach us ON Regards BILLING department Another message from the same email address had a different subject line: "START A NEW ONE #IYG4762DC." This version of the scam email came from [email protected]: Invoice No. #INV80019PJC Sttroje Prrejui Dear Customer, Your Annual subscription for NORTON 360 PROTECTION has been renewed & updated successfully. The amount charged will be available within the next 24 to 48 hrs on your account profile. BILLING DETAILS]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] INVOICE NUM @ INV80019PJC PRODUCT NAME @ NORTON 360 PROTECTION START DATE @ 2022 Feb 07 FINISH DATE @ 1 year from Start Date GRAND TOTAL @ $249.96 USD PAYMENT METHOD @ Automatic Debit If you wish to not to continue and claim a REFUND then please feel free to contact our Billing Department as soon as possible!]]]]]]]]] You can Reach us on : +1 ( 855 ) ( 592 ) 1827 Sincerely,Billing DepartmentSB This one used the phone number 855-592-1827. The best course of action is to delete scam emails that make claims about Norton, renewals, and refunds. For more details, we recommend visiting the company's official website, Norton.com. The company published a page about these renewal refund scams. Norton.com page They also listed several email addresses Norton has used to send official correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. These can be trusted, according to the company. 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

['funds']

False

Since at least 2021, an email scam has targeted victims with the claim that Norton had renewed their annual membership subscriptions. Some of the scam renewal emails mentioned Norton Total Protection, Norton Total All Round Security, Norton 360, Norton 360 Auto Edition, Norton PC Life, Norton Family All Device, and Norton LifeLock. Turns out, a few of these weren't even real Norton products. We looked into these emails, which are in fact part of a known "phishing" operation aimed at tricking recipients into divulge private information.The phone number listed in some of the Norton scam emails was 760-248-4214. We called the number knowing that the whole thing was a ruse. We were connected to a scammer who may have been located in a foreign call center. The scammer asked for the invoice number in the email.This is known as a refund scam. The emails claimed that a payment had been successfully processed to renew a Norton subscription. However, this was nothing more than a fake set up for the scam.One Norton scam email we reviewed was from [email protected] and copied [email protected]. It claimed that an "annual product membership" for Norton Total Protection had been renewed. The email also listed the same phone number that began with the 760 area code. The email addresses and phone number were all managed by scammers: Flashback to 2010 when it was more popular to buy McAfee and Norton security products in stores. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)On Jan. 24, a Reddit user posted a third example of the Norton email renewal scam. It appeared to be a variation of the same thing, likely leading to a fake refund: Scammers and hackers are often depicted in movies as hooded masterminds looking at code from "The Matrix" fly down the screen while sitting in a room lit in menacing colors. However, the reality of a scammer's life is usually far less glamorous. (Courtesy: Seksan Mongkhonkhamsao/Getty Images) Norton would never use Comic Sans font in its messaging.For more details, we recommend visiting the company's official website, Norton.com. The company published a page about these renewal refund scams.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.

Was JFK Jr. a U.S. Senate Frontrunner Before His 'Suspicious' Plane Crash?

["John F. Kennedy Jr. was not a candidate in New York's U.S. Senate race before dying in a July 1999 plane crash, clearing the way for Hillary Clinton to win the seat."]

John F. Kennedy Jr. was a popular public figure from his childhood until he died in a plane crash at the age of 38 in 1999. While there is never a shortage of conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedys, or for that matter, the Clintons, an unfounded rumor circulating in political circles during the 2016 presidential election claimed that John-John was on the cusp of a successful U.S. Senate bid until Hillary Clinton threw her hat in the ring, with the insinuation that Kennedy was killed to clear the way for her candidacy. There is no evidence that Kennedy had definitively decided to stage a U.S. Senate run in 1999 in the face of Hillary Clinton's similar interest in the New York seat. Days after Kennedy's death on July 16, 1999, the New York Daily News ran a story quoting two unnamed friends of Kennedy who stated that he had considered running for the seat about to be vacated by retiring Senator Daniel Moynihan but had already dropped the idea when Hillary Clinton also expressed interest in it. Earlier that year, in one of the best-kept secrets in state politics, friends confirmed that Kennedy had considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan in 2000. The idea became moot once First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton signaled her interest in running, but the two friends said they expected the son of the slain President would eventually jump into politics as a candidate. One friend, who expected Kennedy to seek office in the "foreseeable future," also spoke of a conversation with Kennedy earlier that year about the Moynihan seat. "I asked him if he was casually thinking about it or if he was serious. He sort of said, 'I'm not sure. Let me think about it.' But the second friend called Kennedy's interest 'pretty serious,' adding, 'I think he was intrigued by the idea... Would he have decided in the end to go for it? I don't know. But he was clearly thinking about it. He talked to a few people about it. Then the Hillary thing ended it pretty quickly.' Clinton won the Senate election on November 7, 2000, beating Republican Rick Lazio more than a year after Kennedy Jr. was killed along with his wife, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, 33, and his sister-in-law, Lauren G. Bessette, 34, in the crash of the single-engine plane he was flying to Martha's Vineyard. The implication that the Clintons had somehow engineered the death of Kennedy Jr. to prevent him from challenging her in her first bid for elective office is contradicted by the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) report on the accident, which assigned the probable cause to pilot error. The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the report, is the pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident included haze and the dark night. There was nothing suspicious about the circumstances of the crash. Kennedy was an inexperienced pilot, and he chose to take his plane up despite questionable weather that caused haze to obscure the view of the horizon. The New York Times reported in 2000 that one of his instructors had offered to accompany him on the flight, but he declined. Kennedy only had about 72 flying hours logged without an instructor at the time of the accident. Weather reports on the night of the crash, July 16, 1999, cited haze or mist and visibility as low as four miles. Pilots who flew over the Cape Cod-Martha's Vineyard area that night reported serious haze; one told investigators he had flown over Martha's Vineyard and thought there was a power failure on the island because he could not see any lights. It's not inconceivable that the Kennedy family at one time eyed the seat being vacated by Moynihan. JFK Jr.'s death seemed to put a final nail in the coffin of the Kennedy myth known as "Camelot" and the family's political star power, but a July 25, 1999, Washington Post article on the family's future political prospects suggested that his cousin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (who did not "conveniently" die), had been approached about entering the New York senatorial race. But there are suggestions among liberal Democrats that it is a fervent desire that Joseph P. Kennedy II's brother Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 45, might become a candidate. The environmental lawyer from the Hudson River Valley has some of the electricity of his martyred father and has said in the past that he could be interested in being governor of New York. According to one Kennedy insider, leading Democrats unsuccessfully approached RFK Jr. to run for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. John Kennedy Jr. had won the nation's heart when, at two years old, he was seen on camera saluting his father's coffin during the nationally televised funeral procession after President Kennedy's November 1963 assassination. Nicknamed John-John, he grew up handsome and charismatic and was thus seen as a potential heir to the family's glory days of political influence and celebrity. While his death was untimely and no doubt a tragedy, it was ruled an accident. And though Kennedy may have been personally popular and polled well, it is misleading to describe him as a "frontrunner" in a Senate race in which he was never actually a candidate.

['interest']

False

There is no evidence that Kennedy had definitively decided to stage a U.S. Senate run in 1999 in the face of Hillary Clinton's similar interest in the New York seat. Days after Kennedy's 16 July 1999 death, the New York Daily News ran a story quoting two unnamed friends of Kennedy's who stated that Kennedy had mulled over running for the seat about to be vacated by retiring Senator Daniel Moynihan but had already dropped the idea when Hillary Clinton also expressed interest in it:Clinton won the Senate election on 7 November 2000, beating Republican Rick Lazio more than a year after Kennedy Jr. was killed along with his wife, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, 33, and his sister-in-law, Lauren G. Bessette, 34, in the crash of the single-engine plane he was flying to Martha's Vineyard.The implication that the Clintons had somehow engineered the death of Kennedy Jr. to prevent him from challenging her in her first bid for elective office is contradicted by the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) report on the accident, which assigned the probable cause to pilot error:There was nothing suspicious about the circumstances of the crash. Kennedy was an inexperienced pilot, and he chose to take his plane up despite questionable weather that caused haze to obscure the view of the horizon. The New York Times reported in 2000 that one of his instructors had offered to accompany him on the flight, but he declined. Kennedy only had about 72 flying hours logged without an instructor at the time of the accident:It's not inconceivable that the Kennedy family at one time eyed the seat being vacated by Moynihan. JFK Jr.'s death seemed to put a final nail in the coffin of the Kennedy myth known as "Camelot" and the family's political star power, but a 25 July 1999 Washington Post article on the family's future political prospects suggested that his cousin, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who did not "conveniently" die), had been approached about entering the New York senatorial race:

Do Republican Presidents Lead to Poorer Performance for the Dow Jones?

['A Facebook meme purporting to prove that the Dow suffers under Republican presidencies ignores key data. ']

After the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost a historic 1,175 points in a single day in February 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats was keen to point out a trend. In a 6 February meme, the page listed what it called the "Biggest One-Day Drops in Dow Jones History," along with the name of the U.S. president in office at the time of each point drop. According to the meme, each of the largest drops occurred during the presidencies of Donald Trump and George W. Bush—both Republicans. The meme concluded: "Share this for your friends who STILL think Republicans are GOOD for the economy!" The meme correctly lists the seven biggest one-day point drops in Dow Jones history, which all took place during the tenure of two Republican presidents, though it leaves out the eighth, ninth, and tenth, which occurred with Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the White House. The main problem with the meme, however, is that its conclusion (that the numbers show which president is good for the economy) overstates the influence of a president— as opposed to macroeconomic and geopolitical forces—on stock market trends. In fact, one-day losses and gains can sometimes happen despite the policies and efforts of the person in the Oval Office. For example, many commentators attributed the 29 September 2008 points drop—the second-biggest ever—to the U.S. House of Representatives' failure to pass a $700 billion bank bailout bill, which President George W. Bush had pushed for. Even if one simply wanted to examine during which presidencies the Dow suffered the largest single-day losses, looking at the largest point drops wouldn't be the way to do it. As the stock market has grown in value over the last century, large point drops have become more common, even if their impact on the overall market value isn't particularly great. To get a clearer picture of the impact of these drops, one would have to measure the drop in percentage terms rather than points. Five of these ten events took place during the era of the Great Depression, and all but one occurred during the tenure of Republican presidents. However, if one were to insist on linking the occupant of the White House to the performance of the stock market, a better way to do it would be to track the average performance of the Dow Jones over the entire course of a presidency, rather than looking at one-day outliers in isolation. To illustrate this, we looked at the average performance of the Dow over the course of the last nine presidential terms. We used Yahoo! Finance data for this, which only goes back as far as 29 January 1985, so we're missing figures for the first week or so of Ronald Reagan's second administration. So while Donald Trump's presidency did see the largest one-day points drop in Dow Jones history, it has also seen the biggest average one-day percentage growth since 1985. However, this is based on only 12 months of data, and the next three years could see that 0.09 percent growth rate drop. The biggest average daily percentage growth over the course of a four-year presidency was 0.08 percent, during Bill Clinton's first administration between 1993 and 1997.

['economy']

NEI

After the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost a historic 1,175 points in a single day in February 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats was keen to point out a trend. In a 6 February meme, the page listed what it called the "Biggest One-Day Drops in Dow Jones History," along with the name of the U.S. president in office at the time of each point drop. The main problem with the meme, however, is that its conclusion (that the numbers show which president is good for the economy) overstates the influence of a president -- as opposed to macro-economic and geopolitical forces -- on stock market trends. In fact, one-day losses and gains can sometimes happen despite the policies and efforts of the person in the Oval Office. For example, many commentators attributed the 29 September 2008 points drop -- the second-biggest ever -- to the U.S. House of Representatives' failure to pass a $700 billion bank bailout bill, which President George W. Bush had pushed for. (Sources: Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data)

Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states.

[]

Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin says recent Democratic governors have pushed Virginia into economic decline and people are moving out. Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states, he said during aMay 21 interviewon WRVA radio in Richmond. Youngkin holds two Democrats responsible: Current Gov. Ralph Northam and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who led the state from 2014-2018 and is Youngkins opponent this year. Virginia is the only state that bars governors from serving successive terms. We fact-checked Youngkins talking-point claim that more people are leaving Virginia than coming in and found it to be correct, although the reasons for the outward migration go far beyond any governors control. The numbers The Internal Revenue Service publishes annual statistics on the number of households that moved and filed federal tax returns from a different state than the one in which they lived the previous year. Demographers and economists use these figures to track the net migration of families in the U.S. from year to year. Thedatashow that from 1991 through 2012, Virginia always had more households coming in than going out. That changed in 2013, when there was a net loss of 4,270 households. Virginia had fewer filing households in each of the next five years - an average annual loss of 5,600 families. In 2018, the last year for which figures are available, Virginia lost a net of 4,707 households. This doesnt mean theres been a massive flow out of Virginia. To give some perspective, about4 millionVirginia households annually file federal taxes. The net losses to other states in 2018 came to less than one-eighth of 1% of households. The U.S. Census Bureau also tracks net migration. Itestimatesthat Virginia lost a net 11,994 people through domestic migration during the 12-month period that ended July 1, 2019. The reasons Jobs were the main reason people left Virginia for other states at the start of the last decade. That switched to the rising cost of living at the end of the decade, according to economic and demographic studies. Virginia is home to large military bases, and a fleet of defense and government contractors and federal workers that drive the states economic engine in Northern Virginia. The region was hurt by sequestration programs beginning in 2013 that automatically cut defense and domestic spending when Congress could not agree on a budget. The result was that many Virginians whose paychecks were dependent on federal spending, particularly for defense, left the state to find new jobs, according to a2016 reportby Old Dominion University. More recently, the migration has been mainly triggered by people escaping the high cost of living in Northern Virginia, according to Hamilton Lombard, a demographer at the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia. They are largely young professionals seeking to buy first homes and raise families. Many are heading South to growing regions in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Texas. Lombard also said that Virginia is losing retirees, mostly to Southern states. Youngkin blames the migration losses on McAuliffe and Northam.He prefaced his claim by saying he is frustrated with what the Democratic leadership had done to Virginia over eight years. But Lombard said the governors have had little control over the economic trends that have caused losses. Think of the cost of housing; the state has little control of that, he said. If you could point to anything that could have been done on the state level over the years, maybe it could have focused on making more of Virginia (economically) competitive outside Northern Virginia, Lombard said. Our ruling Youngkin said, Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states. IRS data backs him up. But Youngkin wraps the data in a questionable political context. He blames the last two Democratic governors for the net migration loss when research shows most of the drop has been caused by problems largely beyond any governor's control: federal budget cuts and high prices for buying a home in Northern Virginia. Youngkins statement is accurate but needs clarification. So, we rate it Mostly True.

['Economy', 'Population', 'Virginia']

True

Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states, he said during aMay 21 interviewon WRVA radio in Richmond.Thedatashow that from 1991 through 2012, Virginia always had more households coming in than going out. That changed in 2013, when there was a net loss of 4,270 households. Virginia had fewer filing households in each of the next five years - an average annual loss of 5,600 families. In 2018, the last year for which figures are available, Virginia lost a net of 4,707 households.This doesnt mean theres been a massive flow out of Virginia. To give some perspective, about4 millionVirginia households annually file federal taxes. The net losses to other states in 2018 came to less than one-eighth of 1% of households.The U.S. Census Bureau also tracks net migration. Itestimatesthat Virginia lost a net 11,994 people through domestic migration during the 12-month period that ended July 1, 2019.The result was that many Virginians whose paychecks were dependent on federal spending, particularly for defense, left the state to find new jobs, according to a2016 reportby Old Dominion University.

Is the Trump campaign automatically selecting a "Recurring Donation" option that will expire in December?

['The campaign website, until recently, had been accepting recurring donations up until Election Day. ']

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to circulate. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Oct. 31, 2020, The New York Times reported that the Trump Campaign's fundraising landing page was "now automatically checking a box to create recurring weekly donations from supporters until mid-December." This is true, although the "automatically checked box" development is fairly old news. The Trump Campaign's primary fundraising platform, WinRed, changed the landing page to automatically check the monthly recurring donation option in March 2020. The shift to soliciting weekly donations occurred in mid-September 2020, with that option also appearing as pre-checked. The more recent development is the change in when those weekly contributions would stop. Earlier solicitations committed people to donations that would stop automatically on Election Day, Nov. 3, 2020. In late October, the text was changed to read "make this a recurring donation until 12/14." It is worth mentioning that well before any returns came in on Nov. 3, the campaign encouraged donations as a way to "keep fighting after election day" because "there will be voter fraud like you've never seen." Speaking to the Times, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh stated that no one would receive a recurring charge without their knowledge and that donors could opt out at any time. He argued that funds were needed because "this race will be very close, and it is possible that multiple states will require recounts and potential additional spending from our campaign." From a factual standpoint, there is no guarantee that the money goes to fight election-related lawsuits. Some of the money goes to resolving Trump Campaign debt, while much of the rest goes to the Republican National Committee's general operating account. Because the Trump Campaign is indeed accepting recurring donations until Dec. 12, and because that option is auto-checked on the campaign's primary fundraising platform, we rank this claim.

['debt']

True

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 Oct. 31 2020, The New York Times reported that the Trump Campaign's fundraising landing page was "now automatically checking a box to create recurring weekly donations from supporters until mid-December." This is true, though the "automatically checked box" development is fairly old news. The Trump Campaign's primary fundraising platform WinRed changed the landing page to automatically check the monthly recurring donation option in March 2020. The shift to soliciting for weekly donations occurred in mid-September 2020, with that option also appearing as pre-checked.The more recent development is the change in when those weekly contributions would stop. Earlier solicitations committed people to donations that would stop automatically recurring on Election Day, Nov. 3 2020. In late October, the text was changed to read "make this a recurring donation until 12/14." It bears mentioning that well before any returns came in on Nov. 3, the campaign encouraged donations as a way to "keep fighting after election day" because "there will be voter fraud like you've never seen."Speaking to the Times, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said that no one would receive a recurring charge without their knowledge and donors could opt out at any time. He argued that funds were needed because "this race will be very close, and it is possible that multiple states will require recounts and potential additional spending from our campaign.From a factual standpoint, there is no guarantee that the money goes to fight election-related lawsuits. Some of the money goes to resolving Trump Campaign debt, much of the rest goes to the Republican National Committees' general operating account. Because the Trump Campaign is indeed accepting recurring donations until Dec. 12, and because that option is auto-checked on the campaign's primary fundraising platform, we rank this claim

Internet Taxation Moratorium

['Will a moratorium on Internet taxation expire on 1 November 2003?']

Claim: A moratorium on Internet taxation expires in 2007. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] This should be considered "urgent". As you know the "MORTORIUM" on the so called internet tax expires in 2 or 3 days. It was reported on Fox News a few minutes ago, that the Senate is now considering this bill. The House has passed their version of the Bill by Voice vote to keep the moratorium in place. The news on fox reported that the Senate is considering a "TAX ON EVERY ITEM ON THE INTERNET TO INCLUDE a TAX ON EACH EMAIL SENT OUT." I have voiced my opinion to the offices of Sen. Thad Cochran and Sen. Trent Lott, I have asked them to vote AGAINST ANY TAX. The Staff members said they would relay my feeling. I also told them I wanted to know how my two Senators voted on this. I would suggest that each addressee call today and ask their Senators to VOTE against any TAXES on the internet. Origins: In October 1998, Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which called for a 3-year moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access and multiple or discriminatory taxes on e-commerce. After the provisions of ITFA expired in October 2001, they were extended for two years by passage of the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (ITNA), then extended again for a further four years in ITFA ITNA 2003. The Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation intended to extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, was introduced to Congress in 2003. It was passed (as H.R. 49) by the House of Representatives on 17 September 2003 (under a motion to suspend the rules, agreed to by voice vote), passed by the Senate (as S. 150) on 19 November 2004, and signed by President Bush and made into law on 3 December 2004. It is set to expire on 1 November 2007. passed S. 150 The 2003 claim that the Senate was considering a "tax on every item on the Internet, to include a tax on each e-mail sent out" was incorrect. The Senate was merely considering whether or not to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes created by the earlier Internet Tax Freedom Act and Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act; the Senate was not proposing any specific Internet-related taxes at that time. As described by The New York Times, the bill hung up in 2003 in a Senate debate over whether a permanent moratorium on Internet taxes might eventually become too broad a ban and deprive states of much-needed revenue streams: The argument over the bill has been as heated as a chat-room brawl. Opponents contend that state coffers will be emptied as more areas of commerce like telephone service become Internet-based and fall within the ban. "Every time we, in our wisdom, tell a state or a city that it cannot use this tax, all we are doing is increasing the chance that Minnesota or Tennessee will increase some other tax, or fire some teachers or lay off some employees or close some parks," Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said Tuesday on the Senate floor. Supporters argue that the states want to tax every e-mail message, even every electron. The bill, they say, will not have the dire effects that opponents predict. The only thing that both sides agree on, it seems, is that the bill has nothing to do with banning sales taxes on online purchases. The moratorium bans taxes on Internet access, including high-speed access through telephone digital subscriber lines; "discriminatory" taxes, which include taxes by multiple states on the sales of a single item; and taxes that would treat Internet purchases differently from sales at brick-and-mortar stores. Sources: Dalrymple, Mary. "Permanent Ban on Internet Service Taxes Bogs Down as Temporary Ban Runs Out." Associated Press. 31 October 2003. McCullagh, Declan. "Ban on Internet Access Tax Stalls in Senate." CNET News.com. 7 November 2003. Schwartz, John. "Senate Debate Due on Hotly Contested Internet Tax Bill." The New York Times. 6 November 2003 (p. C1). Shiver Jr., Jube "Internet Tax Ban Stalls in Senate." Los Angeles Times. 26 November 2003 (p. C3). Bloomberg News. "Senate Postpones Vote on Internet Tax Ban." The New York Times. 8 November 2003 (p. C1).

['taxes']

True

Origins: In October 1998, Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which called for a 3-year moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access and multiple or discriminatory taxes on e-commerce. After the provisions of ITFA expired in October 2001, they were extended for two years by passage of the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (ITNA), then extended again for a further four years in The Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation intended to extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, was introduced to Congress in 2003. It was passed (as H.R. 49) by the House of Representatives on 17 September 2003 (under a motion to suspend the rules, agreed to by voice vote), passed by the Senate (as S. 150) on 19 November 2004, and signed by President Bush and made into law on 3 December 2004. It is set to expire on 1 November 2007.

Are Hackers Stealing Private Information via 'What Would You Look Like Bald' Facebook Apps?

['Viral warnings about "extreme hackers" stealing information via popular entertainment apps on Facebook are false and misleading.']

A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by "extreme hackers" out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you "to see what you would look like as the opposite sex" and also one that lets you see what you look like "as a bald person". DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, "What would you look like as a bald person?": Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results: This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Terms of Service Privacy Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: provides Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. other info In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically "hackers" (much less "extreme hackers," which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the "black market." However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them.

['share']

False

We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties.Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them:Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale.

Has Target discontinued its 'Shop with a Cop' initiative?

['Pointing out a rumor exists is not the same as proving that the rumor is true. ']

In late July 2020, Snopes readers requested verification of numerous social media posts stating that Target had canceled its annual "Shop with a Cop" program, officially known as "Heroes & Helpers," in an effort to "distance themselves from police officers." Here is an example of one such post circulating on Facebook: Similar posts also circulated on Twitter, and to add to the confusion, a website called The Courier Daily only reported that people were discussing the rumor on Twitter but didn't provide any evidence for the claim. We reached out to the source itself, asking Target Corporate whether it had ended the long-standing program that pairs children from low-income backgrounds with local law enforcement officers for holiday shopping trips funded by charitable donations. A spokesperson for Target informed us that the program will continue, although details about how it will proceed amid the COVID-19 pandemic are still pending. In response to our inquiry about whether the program had been canceled, the company sent the following statement: "We plan to continue to support children with Heroes & Helpers events across the country this holiday season. Like many of our holiday programs, we are carefully considering how to manage these events during the COVID-19 environment in a way that ensures the health and safety of our team and guests. We will have additional details to share as we approach the holiday season." The program was launched in 2009 and takes place in stores nationwide. To date, $5 million in grants has been used to support the shopping trips, and more than 100,000 children and 60,000 police officers have participated, according to Target. The false social media rumors may have been inspired by the fact that since the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, there have been ongoing protests against and discussions about police violence and racism in America, spurring calls to reform policing practices and even some activists calling for police departments to be defunded. However, as of this writing, Target does not plan to cancel the program as a result of the racial justice protests. With the information currently available, we rate this claim as a Bullseye View. "Target Teams Up with Donnie Wahlberg to Celebrate 10 Years of Heroes & Helpers." 4 December 2019. Trujillo, Damian. "Shop With a Cop Foundation Considers Name Change to Reconnect with Community." KNTV. 2 July 2020. Hill, Evan, et al. "How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody." The New York Times. 31 May 2020.

['income']

False

Similar posts also made the rounds on Twitter, and to add to the confusion, a website called The Courier Daily only reported that people were talking about the rumor on Twitter but didn't offer any evidence for the claim.The program was launched in 2009 and takes place in stores nationwide. To date, $5 million in grants has been used to support the shopping trips, and more than 100,000 children and 60,000 police officers have participated, per Target.The false social media rumors may have been inspired by the fact that since the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, there have been ongoing protests against and conversation about police violence and racism in America, spurring calls to reform policing practices and even some activists calling for police departments to be defunded.

Rephrase this document: IRS Notification

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

Claim: The IRS is sending out unsolicited e-mails providing taxpayers with a web form to use to check on the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You filed your tax return and you're expecting a refund. You have just one question and you want the answer now - Where's My Refund? Access this secure website to find out if the IRS received your return and whether your refund was processed and sent to you. New program enhancements allow you to begin a refund trace online if you have not received your check within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date. Some of you will also be able to correct or change your mailing address within this application if your check was returned to us as undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. "Where's My Refund?" will prompt you when these features are available for your situation. To check your refund status, you'll need to provide the following information as shown on your return: your first and last name, your Social Security Number (or IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number), and your credit card information. Okay now, Where's My Refund? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we must inform you that our legal right to ask for information is based on Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a), and their regulations. They state that you must furnish us with records or statements for any tax for which you are liable, including the withholding of taxes by your employer. We ask for information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, and you are required to provide this information. We may share the information with the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, other federal agencies, states, cities, and the District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws. If you don't provide this information or provide fraudulent information, the law stipulates that you may be charged penalties, and in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. We may also have to disallow the exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on the tax return. This could increase your tax liability or delay any refund. Interest may also be charged. Origins: In December 2005, we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <[email protected]>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS website, but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN). The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds. Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at 1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS website. Where's My Refund? Last updated: 20 December 2005 Sources: Tri-Town News [Howell, NJ]. "IRS Warns of E-Mail Scam." 8 December 2005.

['income']

False

Okay now, Where's My Refund?December 2005 we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <[email protected]>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS web site, but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN).The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds. Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at 1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS web site.

Did Land Surface Temperatures Reach 140 Degrees F in India, Pakistan?

['To answer the question, we must first understand the difference between land and air temperatures, and the impacts of wet bulb temperature.']

As parts of Pakistan and India saw life-threatening temperatures that broke recent records in spring 2022, a map depicting what appeared to be record-setting land surface temperatures was hot on social media. The above tweet was by posted by the ADAM Platform account on April 29, 2022. ADAM stands for the Advanced geospatial Data Management (ADAM) tool that compiles global environmental data. Its part of the European Open Science Cloud, an initiative to make scientific data publicly available. The ADAM account noted that the image above was collected by the Copernicus Sentinel 3 Land Surface Temperature (LST) device, a satellite operating under the European Space Agency that collects land surface temperature. ADAM Copernicus Sentinel 3 Widely circulated on social media, the LST map shared by the ADAM platform indeed painted a dire picture for residents living under oppressive temperatures in Southeast Asia. But some social media users unintentionally used the map out of context. out of context The post came as India and Pakistan saw an intense heatwave in early spring as temperatures in parts of the two countries reached record levels. Indian government officials stated that April was the third-hottest the country had seen since 1901, with an average maximum of 95.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Meanwhile, Pakistan was similarly plagued by warming temperatures in what could be an equally dire situation for both nations, where many lack access to air conditioning. reached record levels stated third-hottest average maximum plagued To understand how LST differs from air temperature, Snopes spoke with Cascade Tuholske, a postdoctoral research scientist at the Columbia Climate School, in a series of questions and answers: Columbia Climate School NASA Earth Observatory Tuholske (T): LST is the radiated heat from the ground, while air temperature is the air heat we experience as humans, sometimes called 2-meter air temperature. It is important to note that LST varies much more over short distances and short time frames than air temperature. We can think about this by touching the asphalt of a parking lot on a really hot day next to a baseball field. The asphalt to the touch is hot, whereas the grass on the field is much cooler. Yet the air temperature on our skin, which is likely somewhere between the temperature of the asphalt and the grass, does not change much as we move from the parking lot to the field. Thus, the LST of heat-absorbing surfaces on the ground, like asphalt, are very hot when we use a satellite to measure LST from space. But we don't live directly on top of the ground; we live 5 or 6 feet above the ground, and thus air temperature is much more important to understanding heat impacts to human health and well-being. Another way to think about this is to turn on a stove. When we put our hand on the stove, we get burned. But when we move away, the heat of the stove dissipates. The stove will heat the air in a room, but that depends on how long we keep the stove on and how well the room is insulated. NOAA Climate T: Wet bulb temperature (WBT) and wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) are very specific metrics that account for humidity but in very different ways, and they should not be confused. Per this explanation, WBT is: "Wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature to which air can be cooled by the evaporation of water into the air at a constant pressure." explanation WBT is a psychrometric is constructed from the air temperature (dry bulb), pressure, and water in a parcel of air. psychrometric WBGT is a metric that was created to estimate the combined impact of air temperature, humidity, radiated heat (e.g., land surface temperature), and wind on human physical output. It is measured with a field instrument and tied to several occupational heat health standards. WBGT Both WBGT and WBT are two of many different metrics that try to assess how air temperature and humidity combined impact human health and well-being. In the U.S., a widely used metric that also does this is the Heat Index. Humidity is important to account for because at certain thresholds, with enough water in the air, we don't get any cooling benefit from sweating. widely used metric Both WBGT and WBT cannot be calculated from LST directly. Thus any attempt to use LST to estimate WBT or WBGT is not only inaccurate, it is highly misleading. T: Both WBGT and WBT cannot be calculated from LST directly. Thus, any attempt to use LST to estimate WBT or WBGT is not only inaccurate, but also highly misleading. This is not to say high LST values do not have impacts on human health and well-being. But it should not be used to measure direct impacts. In areas where we do not have good air temperature data, like much of India, LST is still a useful proxy for understanding impacts to human health and well-being. Further, LST is quite useful for looking at impacts on crops and plants, as it is tied to soil moisture and canopy temperatures. This is important for understanding how heat waves impact food production or wildfire likelihood. T: There are very clear limits in WBT that the human body can handle with even a few hours of exposure. Basically, when WBT hits between 32 and 35 degrees Celsius, humans do not get an evaporative cooling benefit from sweating. Even with any amount of water, we face high the likelihood of heat stroke, organ failure, and death at these upper WBT thresholds. These WBT thresholds have recently started to be crossed (and may be crossed more frequently going forward) in some of the most populated places on the planet. This means for those living and working in these locations, being outside may be deadly. between evaporative cooling benefit started to be crossed T: Plants, humans, and animals are all impacted by heat differently. Humans, generally, can only tolerate WBT temperatures of between 30 and 35 degrees Celsius. I expect to see significant decreases in labor output in many of the most populated places on the planet where billions of people's livelihoods, both in cities and in rural areas, depend on working outside. I hope we adapt fast enough to prevent mass fatality events, though the heat wave in North America last year shows we need to raise awareness and prepare for extreme heat everywhere. T: The heat wave in Southern Asia is impacting the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet right now. We have tools and the resources to move these people out of harm's way right now. We don't need new technologies per se. We need the political and cultural will to spend money to help vulnerable people. What is disturbing to me is that the rich and powerful worldwide do not care enough to create collective and coordinated action. T: We must rethink what we value as humans. Do we value the well-being of others, especially the poorest? I would say our current economic systems reflect that no, in fact, we do not value vulnerable people. If we shift resources to raise the floor so to speak, we will deploy tools we already have like effective early-warning systems, cash transfers for those who can't work because of heat, infrastructure investments so electricity doesn't cut during heat waves and a/c units work, and so forth and we can reduce the impacts of extreme heat. We have the tools to adapt to extreme heat. We just have to use them. I am hopeful we will. Sources Clifford, Catherine. Indias Record-Setting Heat Wave in Pictures. CNBC, 2 May 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/02/india-heat-wave-in-pictures.html. CNN, Rhea Mogul, Esha Mitra, Manveena Suri and Sophia Saifi. India and Pakistan Heatwave Is Testing the Limits of Human Survivability. CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/asia/india-pakistan-heatwave-climate-intl-hnk/index.html. Accessed 3 May 2022. Columbia Climate School. https://www.climate.columbia.edu/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Development of the weather and climate service CRITERION for the touristic sector in e-SHAPE. Ilmastokatsaus, vol. 4, no. 1, Feb. 2022. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.35614/ISSN-2341-6408-IK-2022-03-RL. Freedman, Andrew. India and Pakistan Heat Wave Sets Monthly Records, Triggers Fires and Power Outages. Axios, 2 May 2022, https://www.axios.com/india-pakistan-heat-wave-climate-change-records-a59a1070-e367-43ba-aedc-296670267294.html. Home Page. Adam Platform, https://adamplatform.eu/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Https://Twitter.Com/Leahmcelrath/Status/1520863600642039808. Twitter, https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/1520863600642039808. Accessed 3 May 2022. Https://Twitter.Com/Platformadam/Status/1519980107217129472. Twitter, https://twitter.com/platformadam/status/1519980107217129472. Accessed 3 May 2022. Mellen, Ruby, and William Neff. Beyond Human Endurance. Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/climate-change-humidity/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Beyond Human Endurance. Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/climate-change-humidity/. Accessed 3 May 2022. Psychrometrics. Wikipedia, 30 Apr. 2022. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychrometrics&oldid=1085398029. Raymond, Colin, et al. The Emergence of Heat and Humidity Too Severe for Human Tolerance. Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 19, May 2020, p. eaaw1838. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw1838. The Emergence of Heat and Humidity Too Severe for Human Tolerance. Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 19, May 2020, p. eaaw1838. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw1838. Vecellio, Daniel J., et al. Evaluating the 35C Wet-Bulb Temperature Adaptability Threshold for Young, Healthy Subjects (PSU HEAT Project). Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 132, no. 2, Feb. 2022, pp. 34045. Penn State, https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00738.2021. Wet-Bulb Temperature - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/wet-bulb-temperature. Accessed 3 May 2022.

['investment']

True

The above tweet was by posted by the ADAM Platform account on April 29, 2022. ADAM stands for the Advanced geospatial Data Management (ADAM) tool that compiles global environmental data. Its part of the European Open Science Cloud, an initiative to make scientific data publicly available. The ADAM account noted that the image above was collected by the Copernicus Sentinel 3 Land Surface Temperature (LST) device, a satellite operating under the European Space Agency that collects land surface temperature.Widely circulated on social media, the LST map shared by the ADAM platform indeed painted a dire picture for residents living under oppressive temperatures in Southeast Asia. But some social media users unintentionally used the map out of context.The post came as India and Pakistan saw an intense heatwave in early spring as temperatures in parts of the two countries reached record levels. Indian government officials stated that April was the third-hottest the country had seen since 1901, with an average maximum of 95.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Meanwhile, Pakistan was similarly plagued by warming temperatures in what could be an equally dire situation for both nations, where many lack access to air conditioning.To understand how LST differs from air temperature, Snopes spoke with Cascade Tuholske, a postdoctoral research scientist at the Columbia Climate School, in a series of questions and answers:T: Wet bulb temperature (WBT) and wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) are very specific metrics that account for humidity but in very different ways, and they should not be confused. Per this explanation, WBT is: "Wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature to which air can be cooled by the evaporation of water into the air at a constant pressure."WBT is a psychrometric is constructed from the air temperature (dry bulb), pressure, and water in a parcel of air.WBGT is a metric that was created to estimate the combined impact of air temperature, humidity, radiated heat (e.g., land surface temperature), and wind on human physical output. It is measured with a field instrument and tied to several occupational heat health standards.Both WBGT and WBT are two of many different metrics that try to assess how air temperature and humidity combined impact human health and well-being. In the U.S., a widely used metric that also does this is the Heat Index. Humidity is important to account for because at certain thresholds, with enough water in the air, we don't get any cooling benefit from sweating.T: There are very clear limits in WBT that the human body can handle with even a few hours of exposure. Basically, when WBT hits between 32 and 35 degrees Celsius, humans do not get an evaporative cooling benefit from sweating. Even with any amount of water, we face high the likelihood of heat stroke, organ failure, and death at these upper WBT thresholds. These WBT thresholds have recently started to be crossed (and may be crossed more frequently going forward) in some of the most populated places on the planet. This means for those living and working in these locations, being outside may be deadly.

Was Michael Moore Accused of Sexual Harassment?

['A questionable "satire" site fabricated a Fox News report about the progressive filmmaker\'s harassing a 16-year-old girl.']

Numerous allegations of sexual harassment have been made against former film executive Harvey Weinstein recently, which may be why "satirical" web site Freedom Junkshun was inspired to publish a story on 17 October 2017 that painted documentarian Michael Moore in a similar light. According to the site: Fox News reported Monday: While filming anti-gun movie Bowling for Columbine Sarah Slater, who was 16 at the time and on set as an extra, says Moore walked up to her and made multiple passes. "I rejected him every time but he wouldnt take no for an answer, Slater tells Fox. He had me change into this really short skirt and he would just stare. At the end of the day, I was at a vending machine and felt a hand sliding up my thigh." In reality, Fox News reported no such thing. Freedom Junkshun is a long-standing publisher of false information. The site includes this disclaimer: publisher We believe that there is nothing more precious than the mind of an aging conservative. Here we gather a boatload of bullhonkey, works of pure satirical fiction, to give the fist-shakers of the world a reason to hate. Reality is often in the eye of the beholder. You wont find any of it here. Join the fun in the comments on our Facebook page where you too can watch David Hasselhoff running over someones poodle magically transformed into a crime against humanity by Barack Obama or yet another murder the Clintons got away with. However, that did not stop conservative social media users from trying to pass the story off as legitimate: As is commonplace, other websitesConservative Columns, The Star Chronicle, USA First Information, and Defense Patriotregurgitated the fake story without including a "satirical" disclaimer of their own. In reality, Moore criticized Weinstein in a Facebook post on 13 October 2017, saying: saying: I have intervened on more than one occasion and I have fired men who sexually harass women. Harvey Weinstein knew better than to behave inappropriately toward women in my presence. I'm guessing successful sociopaths like him who get away with it for years are very, very careful not to let the kind of men who would stop them dead cold ever get a glimpse of who they really are. I don't live in Weinstein's Hollywood world and I make documentaries, so I can't speak to the culture he created and seemed to thrive in. I AM the only director that I know of who's actually taken Weinstein to court (for being a thief, which requires a different set of sociopathic skills, but, like sexual harassment, you can probably find them at a few Hollywood studios). All of us (men) must share the responsibility for allowing a society to exist where women do not feel safe. A society where, when they are abused, they are not able to tell their stories without fear of retribution and shame. A society that badgers, blames or scoffs at women when they tell their stories. Or how they tell their stories. Or "how long" it took them. They carry a burden that most of us (men) never have to experience. If you can't empathize with that or understand what they are dealing with, then maybe you're part of the problem. We contacted Moore seeking comment on Freedom Junkshun's "story." Weinstein, the former co-founder of Miramax and the Weinstein Company, has been accused by more than 60 women of sexually harassment or assault in the wake of reports by both the New York Times and the New Yorker this month, detailing a pattern of alleged abuse. both and He was subsequently fired from the Weinstein Company as well as expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Police in London and Los Angeles have opened investigations regarding Weinstein, while New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is reviewing whether Weinstein committed civil rights violations. London Angeles reviewing Kantor, Jodi and Megan Twohey. "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades." The New York Times. 5 October 2017. Farrow, Ronan. "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein's Accusers Tell Their Stories." The New Yorker. 10 October 2017. Lartey, Jamiles and Kevin Rawlinson. "Harvey Weinstein: Police in New York and London Investigating Allegations." The Guardian. 12 October 2017. Winton, Richard and Victoria Kim. "Investigation Launched After Actress Tells LAPD She Was Raped by Harvey Weinstein." Los Angeles Times. 19 October 2017. Twohey, Megan. "Weinstein Company Faces Civil Rights Inquiry by New York Attorney General." The New York Times. 23 October 2017.

['share']

False

In reality, Fox News reported no such thing. Freedom Junkshun is a long-standing publisher of false information. The site includes this disclaimer:In reality, Moore criticized Weinstein in a Facebook post on 13 October 2017, saying:Weinstein, the former co-founder of Miramax and the Weinstein Company, has been accused by more than 60 women of sexually harassment or assault in the wake of reports by both the New York Times and the New Yorker this month, detailing a pattern of alleged abuse.He was subsequently fired from the Weinstein Company as well as expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Police in London and Los Angeles have opened investigations regarding Weinstein, while New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is reviewing whether Weinstein committed civil rights violations.

In the past year alone, Ohio businesses have created more jobs than almost every other state in the country.

[]

The nasty political ads have been gone for weeks, but the launch of a marketing campaign aimed at trumpeting Ohios improving economy offers a preview of the next great election battle.JobsOhio, the states private economic development agency, is on air witha 30-second commercialthat celebrates workers of all stripes and conveys an optimistic message.The agency is the brainchild of Republican Gov. John Kasich, who has ridden Ohios rising fortunes to rising poll numbers. And the Thrive in Ohio spot, which also asks viewers to share their success stories ona web site, has rankled Democrats hoping to unseat Kasich in 2014.Never mind that the spot doesnt feature Kasich or identify him or the governors office in any way. Democrats see a calculated political move bankrolled by state development money. The push also includes print advertising and will cost $1.4 million,the Columbus Dispatch reported.Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald, one potential challenger to Kasich, haspublicly calledon Kasich to suspend the campaign, declaring it a waste of taxpayer dollars.Given the dust-up surrounding the JobsOhio blitz and the role the states economy is sure to play in the gubernatorial race, PolitiFact Ohio decided to evaluate the claim central to the TV spot.In the past year alone, Ohio businesses have created more jobs than almost every other state in the country, an unseen narrator says, his words scored to an inspirational piano melody. And its only the beginning.So how does the statement stack up when peeled away from such slick marketing?Laura Jones, communications director for JobsOhio, cited employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Via email, Jones said the numbers showed that from October 2011 through October 2012, only California, Texas and New York created more jobs than Ohio.Jones referred us to the bureausRegional and State Employment and Unemployment report. According to seasonally adjusted employment numbers in October, 30 states reported statistically significant increases in employment year-over-year -- Ohio among them.Table E, found on page seven of the 21-page report, breaks down the employment trends by state. Since October 2011, according to preliminary data, Ohio has added 96,500 jobs. Indeed, that increase ranks fourth, behind the more-populated California, Texas and New York.Because the report was dated Nov. 20, three days after JobsOhio posted the commercial to YouTube, PolitiFact Ohio went back to look atthe previous months report, which evaluated the period from September 2011 and September 2012. We found the Buckeye State in the same position: fourth among states with statistically significant employment increases.We also checked with George Zeller, an economic research analyst from Cleveland. He was familiar with the Thrive in Ohio campaign and, after paging through the BLS reports agreed that the numbers cited by JobsOhio were legitimate.But what do the numbers prove?What theyre saying there is that Ohios No. 4, Zeller said. What you have to recognize is that of course were going to gain more jobs than Vermont, because Vermont is smaller. There are 50 states, so being fourth is higher than others. But were by no means at the top.Zeller makes a valid point. Ohio, by virtue of being one of the nations most populous states, is destined to have and add more jobs than smaller states. Ohio is the seventh-most populous state,according to Census figures, ranking behind California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In terms of jobs added, Ohio is up there with other highly populated states.Zeller also noted that Ohios recovery, while real, is coming slowly. At current pace, said Zeller, citing his research, it will take the state 11 years to recover all jobs lost during the recession.Theres nothing untrue about what [JobsOhio] said, Zeller continued via telephone. Now does that mean that we are outstripping the rest of the country? No. First of all, because we lost more jobs than the rest of the country did we have to do a lot more to make them up.Of course Democrats will come armed with other numbers as the gubernatorial fight nears. They often citeBLS datathat show the states unemployment rate began dropping in early 2010, under Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and and Democratic President Barack Obama.To their point, its worth noting that public policy set outside Ohio affects the states economy. Exhibit A: The federal governments bailout of the U.S. auto industry, a huge Ohio employer.As such, Democrats argue that Ohio was en route to economic recovery months before Kasich defeated Strickland in the November 2010 election. Ironically, Kasichs constant ballyhooing of these improved prospects was at odds with the message pushed by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and might have helped Obamas re-election bid this year.Now that the race for the White House in the rearview mirror, it is no surprise that Democrats see the JobsOhio commercial as the unofficial kickoff of Kasichs re-election campaign. Perhaps that makes this the unofficial kickoff of PolitiFact Ohios monitoring of the contest, whether its FitzGerald, Strickland or another candidate who takes on the incumbent governor in 2014.For its Thrive in Ohio campaign, JobsOhio said businesses here have created more jobs than almost every other state in the country over the last year. A second later, the ads narrator added: And its only the beginning. That qualifier is appropriate given the perspective Zeller supplied. Considering Ohios size, a statement about the states comparatively high level of job creation is not the ultimate benchmark of success.JobsOhio seems to realize this. On the Truth-O-Meter, the agencys statement rates True.

['Ohio', 'Economy', 'Jobs']

True

The nasty political ads have been gone for weeks, but the launch of a marketing campaign aimed at trumpeting Ohios improving economy offers a preview of the next great election battle.JobsOhio, the states private economic development agency, is on air witha 30-second commercialthat celebrates workers of all stripes and conveys an optimistic message.The agency is the brainchild of Republican Gov. John Kasich, who has ridden Ohios rising fortunes to rising poll numbers. And the Thrive in Ohio spot, which also asks viewers to share their success stories ona web site, has rankled Democrats hoping to unseat Kasich in 2014.Never mind that the spot doesnt feature Kasich or identify him or the governors office in any way. Democrats see a calculated political move bankrolled by state development money. The push also includes print advertising and will cost $1.4 million,the Columbus Dispatch reported.Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald, one potential challenger to Kasich, haspublicly calledon Kasich to suspend the campaign, declaring it a waste of taxpayer dollars.Given the dust-up surrounding the JobsOhio blitz and the role the states economy is sure to play in the gubernatorial race, PolitiFact Ohio decided to evaluate the claim central to the TV spot.In the past year alone, Ohio businesses have created more jobs than almost every other state in the country, an unseen narrator says, his words scored to an inspirational piano melody. And its only the beginning.So how does the statement stack up when peeled away from such slick marketing?Laura Jones, communications director for JobsOhio, cited employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Via email, Jones said the numbers showed that from October 2011 through October 2012, only California, Texas and New York created more jobs than Ohio.Jones referred us to the bureausRegional and State Employment and Unemployment report. According to seasonally adjusted employment numbers in October, 30 states reported statistically significant increases in employment year-over-year -- Ohio among them.Table E, found on page seven of the 21-page report, breaks down the employment trends by state. Since October 2011, according to preliminary data, Ohio has added 96,500 jobs. Indeed, that increase ranks fourth, behind the more-populated California, Texas and New York.Because the report was dated Nov. 20, three days after JobsOhio posted the commercial to YouTube, PolitiFact Ohio went back to look atthe previous months report, which evaluated the period from September 2011 and September 2012. We found the Buckeye State in the same position: fourth among states with statistically significant employment increases.We also checked with George Zeller, an economic research analyst from Cleveland. He was familiar with the Thrive in Ohio campaign and, after paging through the BLS reports agreed that the numbers cited by JobsOhio were legitimate.But what do the numbers prove?What theyre saying there is that Ohios No. 4, Zeller said. What you have to recognize is that of course were going to gain more jobs than Vermont, because Vermont is smaller. There are 50 states, so being fourth is higher than others. But were by no means at the top.Zeller makes a valid point. Ohio, by virtue of being one of the nations most populous states, is destined to have and add more jobs than smaller states. Ohio is the seventh-most populous state,according to Census figures, ranking behind California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In terms of jobs added, Ohio is up there with other highly populated states.Zeller also noted that Ohios recovery, while real, is coming slowly. At current pace, said Zeller, citing his research, it will take the state 11 years to recover all jobs lost during the recession.Theres nothing untrue about what [JobsOhio] said, Zeller continued via telephone. Now does that mean that we are outstripping the rest of the country? No. First of all, because we lost more jobs than the rest of the country did we have to do a lot more to make them up.Of course Democrats will come armed with other numbers as the gubernatorial fight nears. They often citeBLS datathat show the states unemployment rate began dropping in early 2010, under Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and and Democratic President Barack Obama.To their point, its worth noting that public policy set outside Ohio affects the states economy. Exhibit A: The federal governments bailout of the U.S. auto industry, a huge Ohio employer.As such, Democrats argue that Ohio was en route to economic recovery months before Kasich defeated Strickland in the November 2010 election. Ironically, Kasichs constant ballyhooing of these improved prospects was at odds with the message pushed by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and might have helped Obamas re-election bid this year.Now that the race for the White House in the rearview mirror, it is no surprise that Democrats see the JobsOhio commercial as the unofficial kickoff of Kasichs re-election campaign. Perhaps that makes this the unofficial kickoff of PolitiFact Ohios monitoring of the contest, whether its FitzGerald, Strickland or another candidate who takes on the incumbent governor in 2014.For its Thrive in Ohio campaign, JobsOhio said businesses here have created more jobs than almost every other state in the country over the last year. A second later, the ads narrator added: And its only the beginning. That qualifier is appropriate given the perspective Zeller supplied. Considering Ohios size, a statement about the states comparatively high level of job creation is not the ultimate benchmark of success.JobsOhio seems to realize this. On the Truth-O-Meter, the agencys statement rates True.

Video Doesn't Show Ukraine Soldiers Killing Civilians in Chechnya

["The 2014 French drama film The Search is about Russia's invasion of Chechnya in 1999."]

In March 2022, a video was circulated on social media in an apparent attempt to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The video, according to some social media users, supposedly showed Ukrainian soldiers ruthlessly killing civilians in Chechnya. The post reads: "This is what the Ukrainian army did when they entered Chechnya and executed an old man who was reciting a Surat Fatihah and today they are paying back for their crimes. Then Russia was with them now on Chechnya's side. A friend sent, if anyone is having a different version plz share." This is not a genuine video of civilians being murdered by soldiers. This is a scene from a movie. Furthermore, the movie soldiers in this film are playing Russians, not Ukrainians, killing Chechnyans at the start of the Second Chechnyan War. The above-displayed video comes from the 2014 movie "The Search" by French director Michel Hazanavicius about Russia's invasion of Chechnya in 1999. The scene above comes during the opening minutes of the movie. You can see the clip at the 3:50 mark of the following video: French director Michel Hazanavicius about Russia's invasion of Chechnya in 1999 Chechnya Profile - Timeline. BBC News, 17 Jan. 2018. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18190473. Film Scene Viral as Russian Atrocities during Chechen War. Alt News, 11 Mar. 2022, https://www.altnews.in/a-clip-from-a-movie-on-chechan-war-shared-as-ukrainian-army-killed-old-man-and-his-wife/. Russias Wars in Chechnya Offer a Grim Warning of What Could Be in Ukraine. NPR.Org, https://www.npr.org/2022/03/12/1085861999/russias-wars-in-chechnya-offer-a-grim-warning-of-what-could-be-in-ukraine. Accessed 14 Mar. 2022.

['share']

False

The above-displayed video comes from the 2014 movie "The Search" by French director Michel Hazanavicius about Russia's invasion of Chechnya in 1999. The scene above comes during the opening minutes of the movie. You can see the clip at the 3:50 mark of the following video:

Did Dolly Parton Say: 'Trump In One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together'?

["Celebrities say the most outrageous things, especially when it comes to politics! Or do they? Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't."]

One of the several forms of political clickbait that has emerged in the online world in recent years is the false attribution of controversial and inflammatory political statements to various celebrities, a tactic that has already appropriated the names of notables such as Sandra Bullock, Bruce Willis, and Demi Moore. Another expression of this misleading technique for generating clicks involves attributing the sentiment that "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush and Obama put together" to celebrities ranging from actress Michelle Pfeiffer to singer Dolly Parton. Neither of these women (nor any other prominent entertainer) expressed this thought; it was actually a paraphrase of an opinion voiced by Brett Decker, a former Wall Street Journal editor and the author of the book *Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama Is Hastening America's Decline and Ushering a Century of Chinese Domination*, during a radio interview on January 5, 2018. Decker rejected narratives crediting former President Barack Obama's economic policies with the recently developing economic figures during Trump's presidential tenure, framing such assertions as absolutely crazy: "You look at the unemployment numbers, and it's 4.1 percent. I look at Obama and Bush kind of combined when I look at this block of sixteen years. Anyone that says this is inheriting some kind of Obama economy, he had eight years, and in 2010, the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent, absolutely crazy... This idea that it has anything to do with Obama is absolutely crazy. Trump in one year is already better than sixteen years of those guys [i.e., George W. Bush and Barack Obama] put together," said Decker, pointing to a current 17-year high in consumer confidence. Kraychik, Robert. "Brett Decker: Trump in One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together." Breitbart. January 6, 2018.

['economy']

False

One of the several forms of political clickbait that has sprung up in the online world in recent years the false attribution of controversial and inflammatory political statements to various celebrities, a form that has already appropriated the name of notables such as Sandra Bullock, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore. Yet another expression of this misleading technique for generating clicks is attributing the sentiment that "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush and Obama put together" to celebrities ranging from actress Michelle Pfeiffer to singer Dolly Parton:Neither of these women (nor any other prominent entertainer) gave voice to this thought; it was actually a paraphrase of an opinion expressed by Brett Decker, a former Wall Street Journal editor and the author of the book Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama Is Hastening Americas Decline and Ushering a Century of Chinese Domination, while discussing economic policy during a radio interview on 5 January 2018:

Did Obama Foundation Share Pic of George Floyd 9 Days Before He Died?

['A May 2020 Obama Foundation tweet became the focus of a new conspiracy theory. ']

Rumors surged in the wake of George Floyd's death and the resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. A number of tweets and posts began circulating online in June 2020, unearthing old posts from the Obama Foundation and alleging a conspiracy connecting the foundation to George Floyd. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, died on May 25, 2020, after a Minneapolis police officer held him down and kneeled on his neck. Protests around the country against police brutality followed, with some people carrying posters featuring Floyd's face to commemorate him. In early June, social media users stumbled upon an Obama Foundation tweet dated May 17 that featured a photograph of a poster with Floyd's face on it. They questioned how the photo could have been shared days before Floyd's death and how a Twitter post could allegedly be edited retroactively. The Hal Turner Radio Show, a far-right program, commented on this and other tweets featuring the same image, stating, "Something stinks here." Some social media users speculated that the foundation somehow knew in advance that Floyd would die. This rumor has no truth to it. The Obama Foundation's tweets shared links to its website, Obama.org. The preview image for that page updates dynamically on Twitter when the platform's web crawlers (bots) re-index the preview image for the website every week. In other words, at a certain point following Floyd's death, the foundation changed the Twitter Card image for the website, which retroactively updated the image on past tweets. A Twitter spokesperson told Snopes that the image shown in the card updates when the foundation updates the data used to generate the card. The group did not edit the tweet, according to the spokesperson, but may have changed the data associated with the link. We reached out to the Obama Foundation to ask about the photo on June 8. On June 9, the image from the May 16 post had been changed to the foundation's logo. An Obama Foundation spokesperson confirmed for us that the rumor is false and that the preview image for Obama.org updates dynamically based on information set in the link. The photograph of the poster with Floyd's face on it was taken on May 30, 2020, according to the foundation, and was first used on the site on May 31.

['share']

False

Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here.A number of tweets and posts began circulating online in June 2020, unearthing old posts from the Obama Foundation and alleging a conspiracy connecting the foundation to George Floyd. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, died on May 25, 2020, after a Minneapolis police officer held him down and kneeled on his neck. Protests around the country against police brutality followed, with some people carrying posters with Floyd's face to commemorate him. The Hal Turner Radio Show, a far-right program, said about this and some other tweets that featured the same image, "Something stinks here." Some social media users speculated that the foundation somehow knew in advance that Floyd would die. This rumor has no truth to it. The Obama Foundation's tweets shared links to its website, Obama.org. The preview image for that page updates dynamically on Twitter when the platform's web crawlers (bots) re-index (restructure the website data for) the preview image for the website every week.In other words, at a certain point following Floyd's death the foundation changed the Twitter Card image for the website, which retroactively updated the image on past tweets. A Twitter spokesperson told Snopes that the image shown in the card updates when the foundation updates the data used to generate the card. The group did not edit the tweet, according to the spokesperson, but may have changed the data associated with the link. This is the image shared on May 16, in a screenshot:

An examination of Bush-Cull with a focus on fact-checking.

[]

FACT CHECK: Area social media meme's "5 Things You Should Know About Jeb Bush" factually accurate? Claim: A social media meme accurately detailsfive aspectsof Jeb Bush's record on women's issues. MOSTLY Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2015]Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months togo with this.... Origins: On 15 June 2015 the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, to their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; but earlierversions of the post continued to circulate without it.The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim. This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions."If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman."Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion."Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups.The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."Refused to veto a bill requiring single mothers to publish their sexual history. The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.)The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child.Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity.Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings."We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee. Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part."In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings. Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015 Claim: A social media meme accurately detailsfive aspectsof Jeb Bush's record on women's issues. MOSTLY Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2015]Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months togo with this.... Origins: On 15 June 2015 the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, to their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; but earlierversions of the post continued to circulate without it. published The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim. This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions."If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman."Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion."Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups.The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."Refused to veto a bill requiring single mothers to publish their sexual history. The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.)The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child.Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity.Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings."We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee. Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part."In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings. Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015 This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions. "If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life." The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman." Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion. "Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her." The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups. The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child." The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.) The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child. Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity. Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings. "We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee. Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part." letter In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings. Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015 The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news. This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them. One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015 As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information. The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare. Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. article interview CPCs While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush. Last updated: 21 June 2015 Originally published: 21 June 2015 Sources: Canedy, Dana. "Gov. Jeb Bush to Seek Guardian for Fetus of Rape Victim." The New York Times. 15 May 2003. Canedy, Dana. "Florida 'Scarlet Letter' Law Is Repealed by Gov. Bush." The New York Times. 31 May 2003. Dahlburg, John-Thor. "Florida Wants All the Details from Mothers in Adoption Notices." Los Angeles Times. 21 August 2002. Dahlburg, John-Thor. "Florida Ends 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Law." Los Angeles Times. 31 May 2003. Manes, Billy. "Immaculate Deception." Orlando Weekly. 26 February 2009. Griffin, Michael. "Smith Rips Bush's 'Find a Husband' Tip for Women on Welfare." Orlando Sentinel. 7 September 1994. Hongo, Hudson. "New Jeb Bush Hire Deletes Comments About Sluts, Gays from Twitter." Gawker. 9 February 2015. Kaczynski, Andrew. "Jeb Bush Chief Technology Officer Resigns After Deleting Old Tweets About 'Sluts.'" BuzzFeed. 10 February 2015. Kurtzleben, Danielle. "Jeb Bush and Florida's 'Scarlet Letter Law,' Explained." NPR. 10June 2015. McDonough, Katie. "Jeb's Abortion Nightmare." Salon. 14 April 2015. Miller, Zeke J. "Jeb Bush Hires Co-Founder of Hipster.com." Time. 9 February 2015. Simon, Stephanie. "States Fund Antiabortion Advice." Los Angeles Times. 11 February 2007.

['income']

True

Claim: A social media meme accurately detailsfive aspectsof Jeb Bush's record on women's issues. MOSTLY Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2015]Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months togo with this.... Origins: On 15 June 2015 the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, to their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; but earlierversions of the post continued to circulate without it.The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim. This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions."If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman."Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion."Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups.The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."Refused to veto a bill requiring single mothers to publish their sexual history. The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.)The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child.Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity.Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings."We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee. Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part."In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings. Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015 Origins: On 15 June 2015 the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, to their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; but earlierversions of the post continued to circulate without it.The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim. This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf;and (even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus) Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights:Religious groups praised the governor's actions."If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman."Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion."Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups.The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."Refused to veto a bill requiring single mothers to publish their sexual history. The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.)The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child.Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supporting the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity.Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women":Gov. Jeb Bush [has] noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings."We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee. Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part."In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and he could have a say in the proceedings. Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015 Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it: He passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories"House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part." Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become something of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old Tweets hit the news.This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them.One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. Said low-income women should "get their lifetogether and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. So while it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information.The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that hefavored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own:"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem:Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way along with finding a job and help from private charities for women to get off welfare.Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005):The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline 1-866-673-HOPE to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's "Choose Life" license plates and whatever federal funds come in. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006 over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush.Last updated: 21 June 2015Originally published: 21 June 2015 In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on 13 April 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor:We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others, could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home.

Did a Human-Created Sinkhole Open in Guatemala?

['Some news items are so fascinating that they resurface time and time again.']

In early October 2019, readers searched the Snopes.com website for a story that, were it not for the internet, might otherwise have been long forgotten. "Guatemala Sinkhole Created by Humans, Not Nature," the supposed headline of interest read: read The article underlying that headline, as published by National Geographic, was true -- but the event took place in 2010, shortly before that article was written. Accompanied by a dramatic photograph of a massive chasm in an urban center, the Geographic article reported: Human activity, not nature, was the likely cause of the gaping sinkhole that opened up in the streets of Guatemala City on Sunday, a geologist says. A burst sewer pipe or storm drain probably hollowed out the underground cavity that allowed the chasm to form, according to Sam Bonis, a geologist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, who is currently living in Guatemala City (map). The Guatemala City sinkhole, estimated to be 60 feet (18 meters) wide and 300 feet (100 meters) deep, appears to have been triggered by the deluge from tropical storm Agatha. But the cavity formed in the first place because the cityand its underground infrastructurewere built in a region where the first few hundred meters of ground are mostly made up of a material called pumice fill, deposited during past volcanic eruptions. The crater formed in the center of an intersection, and perhaps because aerial photographs are so visually striking, they have been shared throughout the years since the event occurred: This 30-story sinkhole appeared smack in the middle of Guatemala City. https://t.co/QlIPV4EVZi pic.twitter.com/hglMjoKJYT https://t.co/QlIPV4EVZi pic.twitter.com/hglMjoKJYT David Plotz (@davidplotz) May 26, 2017 May 26, 2017 That wasn't the first time a massive sinkhole opened up in Guatemala City. A similar, deadly event took place in 2007, resulting from a combination of geography, nature, and poor regulation according to National Geographic. took place Guatemala City is situated on volcanic material that is relatively loosely-composed. That placement, combined with swift-running water from unfixed underground leaks, contributed to formation of the craters "In Guatemala City [the pumice is] unconsolidated, it's loose," Dartmouth geologist Sam Bonis told the Geographic in 2010. "It hasn't been hardened into a rock yet, so it's easily eroded, especially by swift running water." Tropical storm Agatha, coupled with leaking sewage pipes, likely triggered the collapse in 2010. Bonis added that because the event wasn't driven by natural forces, it technically shouldn't be called a "sinkhole." There was no scientific term, he said, to describe this type of collapse. Than, Ker. "Guatemala Sinkhole Created by Humans, Not Nature." National Geographic. 5 June 2010. Associated Press. "Third Body Pulled from Giant Sinkhole." NBC News. 24 February 2007.

['interest']

NEI

In early October 2019, readers searched the Snopes.com website for a story that, were it not for the internet, might otherwise have been long forgotten. "Guatemala Sinkhole Created by Humans, Not Nature," the supposed headline of interest read:This 30-story sinkhole appeared smack in the middle of Guatemala City. https://t.co/QlIPV4EVZi pic.twitter.com/hglMjoKJYT David Plotz (@davidplotz) May 26, 2017That wasn't the first time a massive sinkhole opened up in Guatemala City. A similar, deadly event took place in 2007, resulting from a combination of geography, nature, and poor regulation according to National Geographic.

Did Congress Use a 'Slush Fund' to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?

['Although the term "slush fund" signals secret money stashed for illicit purposes, Congress has authorized public money in a fund set aside to pay settlements.']

In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a "slush fund" to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers. Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a "slush fund" which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees. Unlike a "slush fund" which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under "Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance." In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97. here Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to "Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances," then click on the report for the Legislative Branch). viewed here Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type: compilation A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act], such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA. In at least one of the high-profile cases, that of accusations of harassment leveled against Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), settlement money was paid by his congressional office budget, not the Treasury fund overseen by OOC. The meme is false the money isn't paid from an illegal "slush fund." It's unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements. However, allegations of sexual abuse and harassment against powerful men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. Conyers and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), NBC News anchor Matt Lauer and in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump, have raised awareness of how rampant the problem is and how secretive and bureaucratically-cumbersome the process is for handling complaints against legislators -- at the expense of taxpayers. This has prompted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Callifornia) to draft legislation to make the OOC's process more transparent and user-friendly for victims of harassment. (A spokesperson for Speier said the way the system currently works "is obviously created to protect the institution over the victims.") As it stands, people seeking to file complaints of harassment on Capitol Hill have to wait a minimum of 90 days after filing their initial incident report with OOC, during which time they must receive mandatory counseling and mediation, then wait an additional 30 days in a "cooling off" period. According to documents provided by Speier's office, the bill (dubbed "Me Too" after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements. Me Too some men Schor, Elana."Congress Sexual Harassment System, Decoded." Politico.21 November 2017. Hartmann, Margaret."Representative John Conyers Settled Sexual-Harassment Complaint Using Taxpayer Money: Report." New York Magazine.21 November 2017. Lee, MJ, et al."Congress Paid Out $17 Million in Settlements. Here's Why We Know So Little About That Money." CNN.16 November 2017. Bennett, Jessica."The #MeToo Moment." The New York Times.30 November 2017.

['budget']

False

Unlike a "slush fund" which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under "Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance." In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97.Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to "Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances," then click on the report for the Legislative Branch).Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type:According to documents provided by Speier's office, the bill (dubbed "Me Too" after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements.

Walt Disney's Will - First Pregnant Man

["Did Walt Disney's will leave a substantial bequest to the first man to become pregnant?"]

Claim: Walt Disney's will specified that a substantial bequest go to the first man to become pregnant or bear a child. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2004] I've actually heard this quite a few times but, I was told that Walt Disney had a section of his will that the first MAN to give birth to a baby would a piece of his estate (I've heard they would get Disney World, I've also heard that they would get $10 million). [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] One day at lunch, we some how got on the subject of Walt Disney, and someone brought up a new thing I had never heard before, he said "It says in Walt Disney's will that the entire Disney corporation goes to the first male to get pregnant." Origins: The eccentric wealthy person who leaves behind a will giving a substantial fortune to the person who accomplishes some difficult feat (or meets some unusual qualification) is a common figure in entertainment and legend. Such figures are generally found more often in fiction than in fact, although real-life instances are not hard to find. (One of the most notable examples is the case of Charles Vance Millar, a Toronto lawyer whose will included a number of capricious bequests, including one that touched off years of legal wrangling in the 1930s in what came to be known as "The Great Stork Derby.") Millar One of the more odd (and puzzling) recent examples of this genre is the claim that Walt Disney's will specified cash or assets worth many millions of dollars be given to the first man to become pregnant or give birth to a child. Although the reason why this particular claim has become attached to the name of Walt Disney may be something of a mystery, determining that it is false is a fairly simple matter, for a number of reasons: Walt Disney was, for the most part, a man whose sensibilities reflected turn-of-the-century, conservative Midwestern values. He didn't truck in the outrageous or bizarre, and the thought of a man's bearing children is something he likely would have found disturbing and repulsive, not something he would have sought to encourage or reward with the bestowment of a considerable fortune. Most versions of this claim have Walt supposedly bequeathing something he could not give away, such as a sum of money exceeding the value of his portion of his estate, or corporate assets belonging to publicly held companies (e.g., Disneyland, Walt Disney World, Walt Disney Productions). Although Walt Disney held a personal financial stake in a few Disneyland attractions (such as the railroad and the monorail) and made a good deal of money licensing the use of his name to Walt Disney Productions, he owned neither the theme park nor the company that bore his name and therefore could not direct that either be "given" to anyone. (At the time of his death, Walt and his wife Lillian jointly owned stock amounting to about 14% of Walt Disney Productions.) Walt Disney's will of March 1966, which was in effect when he passed away in December of that year, contained no provisions for rewarding pregnant men (or any other unusual disbursements). Disney left 45% of his estate to his wife and daughters, another 45% to the Disney Foundation in a charitable trust (most of which was dedicated to CalArts), and the remaining 10% in a trust to be divided among his sister, nieces, and nephews. will CalArts Although some medical researchers have expressed the belief that a man might someday be able to carry a pregnancy to term (even if it isn't necessarily a good idea), and a renowned piece of Internet "performance art" presented the idea that a male pregnancy had already been accomplished, for now the subject still remains one of speculation rather than fact. pregnancy performance art Last updated: 11 March 2008 Sources: Gabler, Neal. Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. ISBN 0-679-43822-X (pp. 629-630). Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination Barrier, Michael. The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. ISBN 0-520-24117-7 (p. 323). The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney

['asset']

False

Origins: The eccentric wealthy person who leaves behind a will giving a substantial fortune to the person who accomplishes some difficult feat (or meets some unusual qualification) is a common figure in entertainment and legend. Such figures are generally found more often in fiction than in fact, although real-life instances are not hard to find. (One of the most notable examples is the case of Charles Vance Millar, a Toronto lawyer whose will included a number of capricious bequests, including one that touched off years of legal wrangling in the 1930s in what came to be known as "The Great Stork Derby.") Walt Disney's will of March 1966, which was in effect when he passed away in December of that year, contained no provisions for rewarding pregnant men (or any other unusual disbursements). Disney left 45% of his estate to his wife and daughters, another 45% to the Disney Foundation in a charitable trust (most of which was dedicated to CalArts), and the remaining 10% in a trust to be divided among his sister, nieces, and nephews.Although some medical researchers have expressed the belief that a man might someday be able to carry a pregnancy to term (even if it isn't necessarily a good idea), and a renowned piece of Internet "performance art" presented the idea that a male pregnancy had already been accomplished, for now the subject still remains one of speculation rather than fact. Sources: Gabler, Neal. Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. ISBN 0-679-43822-X (pp. 629-630). Barrier, Michael. The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. ISBN 0-520-24117-7 (p. 323).

Marco Rubio's economic proposals will add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit.

[]

Liberal MSNBC television host Rachel Maddow and conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio are engaging in a multimedia tit-for-tat over tax cuts and the federal deficit, all set to a background of peppy elevator music, winks, and clever one-liners. We're not kidding. The back-and-forth started on July 14, 2010, when Maddow decided to poke fun at Rubio's "12 Simple Ways To Grow Our Economy." She noted, correctly, that most of the ideas are taken straight from the Republican playbook: extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, repeal the estate tax, repeal the federal health care legislation, and fight cap and trade. Maddow criticized the ideas for failing to consider the GOP's (and Rubio's) other golden rule: thou shalt not increase the deficit. "Republicans want to be the anti-deficit and anti-debt party right now, but they also want to run on George Bush's tax policies," Maddow said. "And that is the giant awkwardness at the heart of Republicanism right now. Because George W. Bush's tax policies did to the deficit what the 'I only eat fried cheese' diet does to your cholesterol." The Maddow rant elicited a reaction from the Rubio campaign two days later, in a web ad set to that peppy elevator music we mentioned. On Tuesday, Marco Rubio announced "12 simple ways to grow the economy and create jobs," the ad begins. "How can you know the plan is right? Rachel Maddow thinks it's wrong." (You really should watch these ads, by the way. Rubio, at one point, facetiously plugs Maddow's 9 p.m. show; Maddow, in return, facetiously thanks him, and so on). On July 19, Maddow issued her reply to Rubio's ad—in her own ad that mimics Rubio's. "Marco Rubio has proposals for cutting the deficit and growing the economy. He wants to: make Bush's '01 and '03 tax cuts permanent, end the estate tax, prevent cap-and-trade energy legislation, and repeal health reform," Maddow's ad states. "How does Marco Rubio say you can know his plan is right? 'Rachel Maddow thinks it's wrong.' Seriously. That's his argument. That's it." Even if everything about me is inherently wrong just by virtue of who I am, this is still true about Marco Rubio: his economic proposals will add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit. The Rubio camp issued their latest response on July 21, highlighting the state's unemployment rate and the number of Floridians facing foreclosure while taking a shot at President Barack Obama and Senate rival independent Gov. Charlie Crist. "Think Obama and Crist's policies are working just fine for Florida?" the ad, titled "Again, Rachel," asks. For Rubio, the ads are a chance to take on a liberal media type like Maddow. And we're pretty sure we haven't seen the last of it. That said, we found it an appropriate time to jump in with a fact check. The question we're after: will Rubio's economic ideas add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit? Maddow's case: We know government spending is a big issue for Rubio. On July 16, 2010, we checked and found true a Rubio claim that $0.40 of every $1 being spent by the federal government is now borrowed. We also know Rubio vigorously opposed the federal stimulus bill because it added substantially to the federal deficit. A spokeswoman for Maddow said the talk show host got her deficit figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm. The CBO produced a series of revenue estimates in February should Congress enact three Republican-held tax-cutting ideas: extend the soon-to-expire 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, repeal the federal estate tax, and continue indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation. (The AMT was enacted in 1969 to ensure wealthy people couldn't avoid taxes altogether, but it wasn't indexed for inflation. Congress manually adjusts the AMT for inflation each year). All three proposals are part of Rubio's 12 ideas—specifically, Ideas 1, 3, and 5. Together, the CBO found that they would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion from 2011 to 2020, mostly from lower revenues but also from increased outlays for refundable tax credits. Preventing cap-and-trade legislation, Rubio's Idea 9, would also have a negative effect on the federal deficit, according to the CBO. The theory behind cap-and-trade is that the government sets a limit on how much carbon different companies, such as electric utilities or manufacturers, can emit (the cap). The government then issues permits to companies and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed so they can conduct business (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively. In a letter dated July 7, 2010, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf stated that opposing cap-and-trade legislation would raise the federal deficit by about $19 billion from 2011 to 2020. Those are the four major ideas Maddow uses in making her claim. But we wanted to at least consider Rubio's other ideas. Many of them, it turns out, come with deficit impacts that are difficult to measure or appear to have no impact on the deficit. Rubio proposes reducing the corporate tax rate, for instance, but he doesn't specify how much, making it impossible to judge the revenue impact. Another Rubio idea is to repeal the federal health care bill (you can see all 12 here). The federal health care bill enacted is estimated to reduce the deficit slightly—about $143 billion from 2010 to 2019—according to the CBO. However, a substitute health care bill—something Rubio favors—could reduce the deficit as much. So we've decided to discount the deficit reduction for the sake of this fact check. Excluding the health care repeal, that's about $3.4 trillion that we can verify will be added to the federal deficit between now and 2020 if Rubio's economic ideas are implemented. Economic debate: We turned to economists and Rubio's campaign to see what we're missing. Karen Campbell, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the CBO deficit projections do not account for a fundamental Republican philosophy—that lower taxes can bolster economic activity across a broader spectrum. Put simply, the lower tax rates are, or the less taxes people are required to pay, the more opportunities exist for people to make money. It's a sentiment echoed by the Rubio campaign. "A growing economy means more people are employed and generating revenue, more businesses are being started and expanded, and fewer people are claiming unemployment benefits," Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said. That's not an argument for everyone, however. "If you cut taxes, you borrow money, that's it," said Chuck Marr, the Director of Federal Tax Policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "For a lot of Republicans, it's gotten to the point that deficits only concern spending. A deficit is when you spend more than you tax. But for them, it's become just about what the spending is. They seem to think that taxes don't matter. Mathematically, it's ridiculous." Added Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution: "I cannot see any way that extending the Bush tax cuts or repealing the estate tax could have any effect other than to produce an increase in the expected size of the future deficit. Period. There is no plausible set of private economic responses that would generate an increase in future total tax revenue if those two policies were adopted. The federal government would simply collect less income tax revenue and less estate tax revenue than it is now expected to do." Greg Mankiw, who was the chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 2003 to 2005, estimated in 2005 that a broad-based income tax cut would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. Mankiw, who teaches macroeconomics at Harvard, referred to people who believe that broad-based income tax cuts could actually raise tax revenue as "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of his textbook, "Principles of Economics." Our ruling: We realize we're not going to be able to change people's basic economic philosophies. We're not here today trying to disprove supply-side economics or boost another economic thought. Based on our analysis, we do think it's a stretch for someone like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to suggest the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were revenue neutral. And yet we also see the logic in the argument that lower taxes could stimulate investment in the economy, creating an army of new taxpayers. Rubio himself realizes spending cuts will also be necessary to offset at least some of the tax cuts he's proposed—and to shrink the federal deficit. Rubio's campaign announced he would roll out ideas to cut government spending on July 26 in Jacksonville. And we'll be ready to examine them. But in this case, we're sticking to Maddow's claim that Rubio's economic proposals will add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, repealing the estate tax, and continuing to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation will increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion between now and 2020. That's right about on the mark and only measures the impact of three of Rubio's tax-cutting ideas. But unlike Maddow, we do want to leave some leeway for the economic growth those broad-based tax reforms could generate, as well as Rubio's spending cuts, still to be revealed. We rate her statement Mostly True.

['Bush Administration', 'Federal Budget', 'Pundits', 'Taxes', 'Florida']

True

We know government spending is a big issue for Rubio. On July 16, 2010,we checked and found Truea Rubio claim that $0.40 of every $1 being spent by the federal government is now borrowed. We also know Rubio vigorously opposed the federal stimulus bill because it added substantially to the federal deficit.The CBO produced a series of revenues estimates in February should Congress enact three Republican-held tax cutting ideas -- extend the set to expire 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, repeal the federal estate tax and continue indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation(The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid taxes altogether, but it wasn't indexed for inflation. Congress manually adjusts the AMT for inflation each year).All three proposals are part of Rubio's 12 ideas -- specificallyIdeas 1, 3 and 5.Together, the CBO found thatthey would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion from 2011-2020, mostly from lower revenues but also from increased outlays for refundable tax credits.Preventing cap and trade legislation, Rubio's Idea 9, also would have a negative effect on the federal deficit, according to the CBO. The theory behind cap-and-trade is that the government sets a limit on how much carbon different companies, such as electric utilities or manufacturers, can emit (the cap). The government then issues permits to companies and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed so they can conduct business (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively.In a letter dated July 7, 2010, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said that opposing cap and trade legislation would have the effect of raising the federal deficit by about $19 billion from 2011-2020.Those are the four major ideas Maddow uses in making her claim. But we wanted to at least consider Rubio's other ideas. Many of them, it turns out, come with deficit impacts that are difficult to measure, or at least appear to have no impact on the deficit. Rubio proposes reducing the corporate tax rate, for instance, but he doesn't say how much -- making it impossible to judge the revenue impact.Another Rubio idea is to repeal the federal health care bill (you can see all 12here). The federal health care bill enacted is estimated to reduce the deficit slightly -- about $143 billion from 2010-2019 -- according to the CBO. But a substitute health care bill -- something Rubio favors -- could reduce the deficit as much. So we've decided to discount the deficit reduction for the sake of this fact check.Excluding the health care repeal, that's about $3.4 trillion that we can verify that will be added to the federal deficit between now and 2020 if Rubio's economic ideas are put in place.Economic debateWe turned to economists and Rubio's campaign to see what we're missing.Karen Campbell, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the CBO deficit projections do not account for a fundamental Republican philosophy -- that lower taxes can bolster economic activity across a broader spectrum. Put simply, the lower tax rates are, or the less taxes people are required to pay, the more opportunities that exist for people to make money.It's a sentiment echoed by the Rubio campaign.A growing economy means more people are employed and generating revenue, more businesses are being started and expanded, and fewer people are claiming unemployment benefits, Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said.That's not an argument for everyone, however.If you cut taxes, you borrow money, that's it, said Chuck Marr, the Director of Federal Tax Policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. For a lot of Republicans it's gotten to the point, that deficits only concern spending. A deficit is when you spend more than you tax. But for them, it's become just what the spending is. They seem to think that taxes don't matter. Mathematically it's ridiculous.Added Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution: I cannot see any way that extending the Bush tax cuts or repealing the estate tax could have any effect other than to produce an increase in the expected size of the future deficit. Period. There is no plausible set of private economic responses that would generate an increase in future total tax revenue if those two policies were adopted. The federal government would simply collect less income tax revenue and less estate tax revenue than it is now expected to do.Greg Mankiw, who was the chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 2003 to 2005, estimated in 2005 that a broad-based income tax cut would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects.Mankiw, who teaches macroeconomics at Harvard, referred to people who believe that broad-based income tax cuts could actually raise tax revenue charlatans and cranks in the first edition of his textbook, Principles of Economics.Our rulingWe realize we're not going to be able to change people's basic economic philosophies. We're not here today trying to disprove supply-side economics, or boost another economic thought. Based on our analysis, we do think it's a stretchfor someone like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to suggestthe Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were revenue neutral. And yet we also see the logic in the argument that lower taxes could stimulate investment in the economy, creating an army of new taxpayers.

Did Barack Obama Mock President Trump's 'IDs for Groceries' Speech on Twitter?

["A seeming tweet circulated online was designed to mimic the former president's social media account."]

Fans of former president Barack Obama -- or at least critics who like seeing current President Donald Trump get roasted online -- might have gotten their hopes up at what appeared to be a Twitter jab aimed at Trump by his predecessor. But the truth is, the tweet was manufactured. On 1 August 2018, an image began circulating online designed to look like it issued from Obama's Twitter account, with wording that read, "What type of ID do we need to buy groceries I'm at the store and all I have on me is my birth certificate": Actually, Barack Obama only posted two tweets that day one of them listed the Democratic Party candidates he was endorsing in the 2018 midterm elections, and the other promoted those candidates: listed other I'm confident that, together, they'll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes. The fake tweet contained two barbs aimed at the current president. It made light of Trump's already widely-derided argument for voter identification cards offered during a 31 July 2018 speech, when the President said, "If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out, you want to buy anything, you need ID, you need your picture." widely-derided In reality, shoppers only need to produce identification when purchasing age-restricted items such as cigarettes or alcohol, or picking up prescriptions from grocery stores that include pharmacies. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said a day later that Trump was referring to alcohol purchases when he made the remark. said The "birth certificate" reference in the fake Obama tweet was also a callback to Trump's longtime promotion of the "birther" conspiracy theory, which claimed that Obama was not born in the U.S. and consequently ineligible to be president. In 2011, Trump claimed credit for the fact that Obama released his long-form birth certificate. But unidentified advisers reportedly said in 2017 that even after being elected president, Trump "used closed-door conversations to question the authenticity" of his predecessor's birth certificate. claimed released reportedly Snider, Mike. "ID for Groceries? Trump Trolled on Twitter for His Shopping Comment at Florida Rally." USA Today. 2 August 2018. Levy, Pema. "Sanders Defends Trump on Needing an ID to Buy Groceries." Mother Jones. 1 August 2018. Scherer, Michael. "Birtherism Is Dead, But the Birther Industry Continues." nbsp; TIME. 27 April 2011. Haberman, Maggie and Jonathan Martin. "Trump Once Said the 'Access Hollywood' Tape Was Real. Now He's Not Sure." The New York Times. 28 November 2017.

['credit']

False

Actually, Barack Obama only posted two tweets that day one of them listed the Democratic Party candidates he was endorsing in the 2018 midterm elections, and the other promoted those candidates:The fake tweet contained two barbs aimed at the current president. It made light of Trump's already widely-derided argument for voter identification cards offered during a 31 July 2018 speech, when the President said, "If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out, you want to buy anything, you need ID, you need your picture."In reality, shoppers only need to produce identification when purchasing age-restricted items such as cigarettes or alcohol, or picking up prescriptions from grocery stores that include pharmacies. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said a day later that Trump was referring to alcohol purchases when he made the remark.In 2011, Trump claimed credit for the fact that Obama released his long-form birth certificate. But unidentified advisers reportedly said in 2017 that even after being elected president, Trump "used closed-door conversations to question the authenticity" of his predecessor's birth certificate.

Coors and Nazis

['Does Coors support Nazi groups?']

Claim: Coors financially supports Nazi groups. Origins: The Adolph Coors Company has been the subject of numerous vilification rumors. Most prevalent are the ones that link Coors to either Nazism or the Ku Klux Klan. Coors has no ties to either evil entity. That part is lore, born of a need to express negative feelings about a particular business concern, put into words in the form of wildly inaccurate rumor. Two factors influence the "Coors has a Nazi or neo-Nazi connection": the first name of the company's founder, and the long-time association between the Coors Foundation and right-wing, conservative groups. The Adolph Coors Company was founded in 1873 by a fellow who shared a first name with the 20th century's greatest villain, Adolph Hitler. That Hitler wouldn't be fetched into the world by the stork for another sixteen years after this Colorado beer company was formed doesn't seem to affect those who search for "meaningful" connections to hang dark imaginings on. (Hitler was born in 1889, whereas Adolph Coors was born in 1847 and founded his company in 1873.) The second factor which is much harder to define is the association of Coors with a variety of right-wing causes and charities, and how this connection translates in some people's minds to a tie to Nazism. (Apparently to some "right wing" equals "Nazi," and under that mode of thinking Coors' funding a conservative think tank that generated recommendations for then-President Ronald Reagan equated to arming the next generation of skinheads intent upon heading for Paris to take over the world.) The Coors family supports the Coors Foundation, which donates funds to many political, social, and educational organizations, some of which are unapologetically right-wing and conservative. These aren't monies the company puts towards these causes; the cash comes from the family, which is an important distinction. The same arguments made about Domino's Pizza owner Tom Monaghan's support of pro-life causes should be made here he was acting as a private citizen who chose to bestow a part of his fortune on the causes he believed in, not as an officer of Domino's on behalf of that corporation. The money was his to do with as he pleased, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it's paid Domino's Pizza over. The Coors Brewing Company (a principal subsidiary of the Adolph Coors Company) does indeed make contributions to a number of charities and projects, but those on its receiving end are far less controversial groups than those funded by the Coors Foundation. Beneficiaries of Coors Brewing Company's generosity include literacy and fight hunger programs. The second prevalent vilification rumor ties Coors to the Ku Klux Klan, probably as both an outgrowth of the "right wing equals bad guy" way of thinking and as an expression of concerns over how the company has handled race relations issues in the past. Hispanics have boycotted Coors products for decades because of claims of the company having refused to hire them. In 1969 Coors was charged with racial discrimination; it was found guilty the following year and forced to shell out thousands of dollars in back pay. The brewer has Hispanic employees and has attempted to repair this aspect of its business practices, but old wounds heal slowly, and new rumors of alleged racial insensitivities or support of controversial measures on the part of Coors fall upon receptive ears. But racial tensions don't equal white-sheeted Klansmen lurking behind every bush, which is the crux of the rumor. Coors isn't a company the Klan would want to associate with. The Coors Brewing Company has had an employment nondiscrimination policy for more than twenty years and has offered domestic partnership benefits since 1995. The brewer also has a company-recognized gay and lesbian employees group. And Scott Coors, scion of the family, is gay. None of this is to say Coors is beloved of everyone it isn't. Members of many groups feel they have legitimate grievances against either the company or the family that derives revenue from its operations and channels a portion of that income into causes close to its heart. It is this animus that provides the greatest assurance that Coors isn't allied with the KKK or Nazism if either of those two links existed, damning evidence would have long ago been paraded past the bleachers by those who have made it their business to scrutinize the company's affairs in hopes of uncovering such an association. More plainly, that rock has been turned over so many times without anything's scurrying out from under it that even the most ardent salamander enthusiast knows to look for his prey elsewhere. Barbara "connection refused" Mikkelson Last updated: 28 April 2011 Turner, Patricia. I Heard It Through the Grapevine. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993. ISBN 0-520-08185-4 (pp. 167, 169). I Heard It Through the Grapevine Wazir, Burhan. "Gay Director Plays Havoc with 'All-US' Beer Dynasty." The Observer. 29 July 2001 (p. 23).

['income']

False

The second factor which is much harder to define is the association of Coors with a variety of right-wing causes and charities, and how this connection translates in some people's minds to a tie to Nazism. (Apparently to some "right wing" equals "Nazi," and under that mode of thinking Coors' funding a conservative think tank that generated recommendations for then-President Ronald Reagan equated to arming the next generation of skinheads intent upon heading for Paris to take over the world.) The Coors family supports the Coors Foundation, which donates funds to many political, social, and educational organizations, some of which are unapologetically right-wing and conservative. These aren't monies the company puts towards these causes; the cash comes from the family, which is an important distinction. The same arguments made about Domino's Pizza owner Tom Monaghan's support of pro-life causes should be made here he was acting as a private citizen who chose to bestow a part of his fortune on the causes he believed in, not as an officer of Domino's on behalf of that corporation. The money was his to do with as he pleased, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it's paid Turner, Patricia. I Heard It Through the Grapevine. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993. ISBN 0-520-08185-4 (pp. 167, 169).

Did Soros Say 'I'm Going to Bring Down the U.S. by Funding Black Hate Groups'?

["This doesn't sound like the kind of plan someone would openly announce."]

In August 2016, a graphic featuring a picture of billionaire George Soros next to a quote ostensibly attributed to him about his goal to "bring down the United States by funding Black Hate groups" began circulating on social media. Although this image suggested that the business magnate and political activist made this comment during an interview with the German newspaper Bild in September 2014, we found no evidence that any such interview took place. The alleged statement from Soros about his funding of "Black Hate groups" does not appear in the newspaper's archives for September 2014 (or any other month), nor did we find reference to it in any other credible publication. The first iteration of this quote we could uncover appeared on the Tumblr page "Overpasses for America" in an article published on 19 August 2016, nearly two years after Soros allegedly made these inflammatory remarks. Aside from the suspicious lack of documentation for this alleged Soros quote, it is highly unlikely that the billionaire would be so open and candid about a plan to fund "Black Hate groups," manipulate the black community, and bring down the United States in a newspaper interview. It also makes little sense for Soros, one of the world's richest people and most successful capitalists, to be motivated to dismantle the nation that is home to the planet's largest economy. Fake quotes are frequently accompanied by false source information in order to make them appear legitimate. This tactic has also been used for viral quotes ostensibly attributed to presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; for example, Trump was accused of saying that Republicans were the "dumbest group of voters" during an interview with People, and Clinton was accused of saying the same of Democratic voters in a 2005 book. Yet neither Clinton nor Trump made such comments.

['economy']

False

Although this image indicated that the business magnate and political activist issued this comment during the course of an interview with the Germany newspaper Bild in September 2014, we found no evidence that any such interview took place. The putative statement from Soros about his funding "Black Hate groups" does not appear in the newspaper's archives for September 2014 (or any other month), nor did we find reference to it in any other credible publication.Fake quotes are frequently accompanied by false source information in order to make them appear legitimate. This tactic has also been used for viral quotes ostensibly uttered by presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, for example: Trump was accused of saying that Republicans were the "dumbest group of voters" during an interview with People, and Clinton was accused of saying the same of Democratic voters in a 2005 book. Yet neither Clinton nor Trump made such comments.

Obamacare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time.

[]

Critics of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obamas health care law, have assembled a long list of complaints about the law. One provision thats getting increasing scrutiny these days is the penalty on employers who dont provide their workers with health insurance. For workers who are on the job at least 30 hours per week, companies must offer health coverage or be hit with a financial penalty. The Obama administration twice delayed enforcement of this requirement, but it finally took effect this month for companies with at least 100 workers, and it is set to start next year for companies with between 50 and 99 workers. (The rule will not apply to small businesses with fewer than 50 workers.) Some Republicans have urged changing the rule so the cutoff is 40 hours a week, rather than 30. The House has passed a bill to do that; its now heading to the Senate, though the White House has pledged to veto it. A reader asked us to check out a Jan. 13 column on this topic in theWall Street Journal.It was written by Andy Puzder, the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, which is the parent company of Carls Jr. and Hardees. In the column, Puzder explained his companys thought process about whether and how it should provide health coverage to its employees. Puzders column makes clear that hes no fan of the Affordable Care Act, particularly the employer mandate: So what does Obamacares 30-hour rule accomplish? Some would argue that it does a lot, pointing to the previously uninsured who now have employer-sponsored health insurance. In our company, that would be 2 percent of total employees and 6 percent of eligible employees. For results like that, Obamacare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time, imposed a tax on lower-income workers who cannot afford it, forced millions of people out of insurance they liked, restricted access to doctors for millions of others, and created an enormous bureaucracy that discourages our doctors and nurses while suppressing health-care system innovation. Here, well take a look at just one of these claims -- that Obamacare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time. The bottom line, we found, is that there isnt enough data to state a number with any specificity. Suggesting that its millions, as Puzder did, is speculative -- something he acknowledged to PolitiFact. At the same time, the number of people experiencing a cut in hours isnt trivial, with informed estimates putting it into the low hundreds of thousands of people. Puzder elaborates When we reached out to Puzder, he sent us a detailed response. (Weve posted the full text of ithere, but well excerpt it in this article.) Puzder acknowledged that there is no definitive data available on the question. That said, there is also nothing definitive to the contrary of which I am aware, he added. Puzder noted -- and other economists agree -- that employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is imperfect for answering this question. The BLS threshold in hours per week for full-time employment is different than it is for the Affordable Care Act. In addition, BLS counts someone who works two 20-hour-a-week part time jobs as one full-time worker. Both of these factors complicate any calculations using BLS data. The available evidence is also murky for another reason: Its impossible to tell whether any changes actually stem from the Affordable Care Act, as opposed to the labor-market dynamics of the recovery to the Great Recession. However, Puzder provided some anecdotal evidence from his own sector -- restaurant chains -- that suggests a plausible case for millions. Many restaurant chains, he noted, are operated as franchises. In his own companys case, 230 franchisees own 73 percent of the companys 2,920 restaurants in the United States; the company itself owns the rest. While the parent company employs about 20,000 people, its domestic franchisees employ many more -- about 55,000. And industry leaders like McDonalds and Burger King have more franchises and franchise employees. The disparate nature of franchise ownership makes it difficult to calculate the number of workers who may have had their hours cut. Based on his own experience at his company and the conversations hes had with other industry CEOs, Puzder thinks its reasonable (but, he acknowledges, unscientific) to assume that 20 percent to 25 percent of their operational employees have had their hours cut to under 30 per week due to the employer mandate. And if thats the case, the math adds up quickly. TheInternational Franchise Associationcounted nearly 8.1 million employees in 2012, working at 750,000 franchise establishments. If these franchise employers lowered the hours of 20 percent of these employees, that would equal 1.6 million employees. Adjusting the hours for 15 percent would impact 1.2 million. And this number doesnt include employees of the parent company; nor does it include the employees of retail companies that do not franchise. Puzder also referenced adata setbeing compiled by Jed Graham, a journalist withInvestors Business Daily. (Editorially, Grahams publication has argued firmly against the Affordable Care Act, but several of the economists we checked with said Grahams information is valuable.) When we accessed Grahams database in January 2015, he had documented just over 450 employers that had made cuts to work hours or staffing levels as a result of Obamacare. However, this list by itself doesnt get to millions, and because it has been compiled anecdotally rather than using scientific sampling, it cant simply be scaled up to estimate a national figure. (Well also note that a full 81 percent of the employers that made cuts documented by his list are government entities; the share of private companies, which were the the focus of Puzders op-ed, accounted for just 19 percent of his list.) What all this means is that its easy build a scenario in which millions of workerscouldsee their hours cut. But neither Puzder nor our own research has produced incontrovertible evidence that it has actually happened. What the data shows That said, its likely that the law is having some impact on part-time hours, albeit a smaller one than millions. Onestudy-- authored by Bowen Garrett of the Urban Institute and Robert Kaestner of the University of Illinois and published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- found a modest (0.6 percentage-point) increase in the share of employees working part-time during the first seven months of 2014 compared to what would typically be expected based on previous economic recoveries. However, the authors attributed this finding to the dynamics of the recovery from the Great Recession, rather than to the Affordable Care Act. Ultimately, they found little change during the run-up to the implementation of the employer mandate -- an indication that the provision wasnt having a big effect on pushing workers involuntarily into part-time work. Anotherstudy, by Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, did find a small rise in the share of employees working 25 to 29 hours a week during the first half of 2013 -- but this bump came at the expense of those working fewer than 25 hours a week, not at the expense of those working 30 or more hours a week. Thats not the dynamic one would expect if Obamacare was pushing employers to cut hours. Neither of the previous two studies offered hard estimates of how many workers saw their hours cut. But one analysis did -- one written by Ben Casselman, the chief economics writer at the website fivethirtyeight.com. When Casselman looked at the data, he found that the proportion of part-time workers working just below 30 hours a week had been rising for about two years, while the share working just over 30 hours was falling. Thats consistent with the trend Puzder pointed to. Heres a chart that accompanied his story: Overall, Casselman concluded that the health law has likely led a few hundred thousand workers to see their hours cut or capped. Thats small in the context of an economy with 150 million workers. But it isnt a minor issue for those workers. Most of them are among the economys most vulnerable: low-wage, part-time workers who likely have few other options. Several economists we checked with said Casselmans estimate of a few hundred thousand was more plausible than Puzders millions. I think we can safely say that at this point it's clearly not millions, because that size shift would be noticeable in the aggregate data, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. A few hundred thousand seems a lot more plausible. Its worth noting that Casselmans a few hundred thousand and Puzders millions are not apples-to-apples figures. Casselman included employees who were already working part-time when their hours were cut, not just those who (as Puzder wrote) saw their full-time jobs shrink to part-time jobs. So Casselmans figure may actually overstate the number of employees who saw their jobs specifically shift from full-time to part-time. That makes it even harder to reach the millions threshold. Possible benefits Finally, several of the economists told us that focusing only on the negative aspects of Obamacare-inspired changes in working hours painted an incomplete picture. While its true that the law hurts employees who would like to work longer hours, the law also aids unemployed workers who are only too happy to work in newly created part-time jobs, as well as older workers who would like to retire but havent yet reached Medicare age and individuals who prefer part-time work and no longer have to take full-time jobs in order to secure health insurance. Indeed, the law makes it easier for Americans to start businesses on their own, since they are able to leave jobs where they work for someone else and still be able to secure affordable health care for themselves and their families. And it may be having that effect: Baker noticed that during the final quarter of 2014, the number of self-employed Americans rose by a whopping 400,000 compared to the previous years fourth quarter. Those 400,000 jobs are not counted in the widely reported BLS job-creation numbers, which only survey companies with payrolls. Our ruling Puzder said that Obamacare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time. The statistics, in this case, are inadequate to either prove or disprove that millions of Americans have seen their job go from full-time to part-time due to the law. That number is possible, but unsupported. That said, theres evidence suggesting that hundreds of thousands of workers may have seen their hours cut as the laws impact began to be felt. Thats not millions, but its not insignificant either. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Health Care', 'Jobs']

NEI

When we reached out to Puzder, he sent us a detailed response. (Weve posted the full text of ithere, but well excerpt it in this article.)And if thats the case, the math adds up quickly. TheInternational Franchise Associationcounted nearly 8.1 million employees in 2012, working at 750,000 franchise establishments. If these franchise employers lowered the hours of 20 percent of these employees, that would equal 1.6 million employees. Adjusting the hours for 15 percent would impact 1.2 million. And this number doesnt include employees of the parent company; nor does it include the employees of retail companies that do not franchise.Puzder also referenced adata setbeing compiled by Jed Graham, a journalist withInvestors Business Daily. (Editorially, Grahams publication has argued firmly against the Affordable Care Act, but several of the economists we checked with said Grahams information is valuable.) When we accessed Grahams database in January 2015, he had documented just over 450 employers that had made cuts to work hours or staffing levels as a result of Obamacare. Onestudy-- authored by Bowen Garrett of the Urban Institute and Robert Kaestner of the University of Illinois and published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- found a modest (0.6 percentage-point) increase in the share of employees working part-time during the first seven months of 2014 compared to what would typically be expected based on previous economic recoveries. Anotherstudy, by Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, did find a small rise in the share of employees working 25 to 29 hours a week during the first half of 2013 -- but this bump came at the expense of those working fewer than 25 hours a week, not at the expense of those working 30 or more hours a week. Thats not the dynamic one would expect if Obamacare was pushing employers to cut hours.